Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

Roy Halladay gets NL-leading 7th complete game, 15th win as Phillies top Dodgers

Not as bad as that old “Red Tape Holds Up New Bridge” headline, but…..

Shane Victorino kept playing, Roy Halladay kept winning and Ryan Howard kept driving in runs.

Halladay became the NL’s first 15-game winner and the Philadelphia Phillies beat the Los Angeles Dodgers 5-3 on Monday night.

...Halladay (15-4) allowed a run and nine hits over 6 1-3 innings and struck out four. The right-hander is 4-0 with a 2.22 ERA since his 6-1 loss at Wrigley Field on July 18, when he was forced out after four innings because of heat exhaustion.

“I would have liked to go a little deeper, but they put some hits together and made us work at it really the whole game,” Halladay said. “I felt like my stuff was a lot better tonight than it was last time out and I was able to control things. It’s always a grind.”

Repoz Posted: August 09, 2011 at 11:38 AM | 169 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dodgers, phillies

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. AndrewJ Posted: August 09, 2011 at 12:20 PM (#3896131)
Ah yes, one of those complete game performances that required four relievers...
   2. shoewizard Posted: August 09, 2011 at 12:23 PM (#3896135)
So is Halladay a Hall of Famer right now ?

Top ten pitchers WAR last 25 years

I figure he is....but he might need 2 more solid seasons to cement his case. My guess is he does not go on long enough to get over 250 wins though. Wouldn't surprise me if he retires after 2013 and calls it a day with 210-215 wins or so. So he's going to need the 3rd CY Young Award to seal the deal
   3. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 09, 2011 at 12:31 PM (#3896137)
I don't think Halladay's quite "hit by a bus" level, but he's really close. If finishes this year at the same level and picks up his 200th win next season, hard to see how he doesn't get elected.
   4. Lassus Posted: August 09, 2011 at 12:45 PM (#3896141)
That headline is confusing.
   5. toratoratora Posted: August 09, 2011 at 12:54 PM (#3896144)
He's in.
Halladay is largely viewed as The Greatest Pitcher of his Era, he's won 20 three times (Important to the writers and general populace), is over the line on both black ink and the HoF monitor and borderline on grey ink and HoF standards, has that tasty playoff no-hitter and a perfect game, is well regarded by the press and public (Statheads and non alike),has no steroid rumors swirling about him, and now is the ace on the staff of a dominant team. If Jack Morris gets consideration, Roy surely will on the basis of what he has accomplished thus far.

For crying out loud, Halladay's rated the 26th best pitcher of all time on Baseball reference elo!He's in like Flynn.


(His comp pages are fascinating though. The most similar by ages is kind of ugly, but the other similarity scores are like a list of guys who straddle the line between HOVG and HOF, Hubbell excepted)
   6. AndrewJ Posted: August 09, 2011 at 12:55 PM (#3896145)
I don't think Halladay's quite "hit by a bus" level, but he's really close. If finishes this year at the same level and picks up his 200th win next season, hard to see how he doesn't get elected.

A perfect game and a postseason no-hiiter in the same season have to help his candidacy.
   7. AROM Posted: August 09, 2011 at 01:03 PM (#3896149)
That headline is confusing.


No, it's just plain wrong. Halladay pitched 6 1/3 innings. Without rain, that's not a complete game, and last night's game went 9 innings.
   8. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 09, 2011 at 02:29 PM (#3896195)
I'm guessing the headline writer glanced at the boxscore, saw the "9" in the hit column and mistook it for the innings pitched column.
   9. JRVJ Posted: August 09, 2011 at 03:38 PM (#3896260)
I tend to think Halladay is in right now if (God forbid) he's hit by the proverbial bus.

If he suddenly slumps and becomes average and pitches for 5-7 years to pad his totals, he's in that way too.

Also, right now I'd say the NL Cy Young is Halladay's to lose, and if he adds another Cy Young to his ledger, that will almost certainly put him over the top.
   10. PreservedFish Posted: August 09, 2011 at 03:45 PM (#3896269)
I think the common "hit by a bus" question misses the point, because although the dead Halladay cannot add to his totals, that is ameliorated by the outpouring of good will and fond remembrances that accompany an early death. The real question is if he's in after "pulling an Alomar" - immediate decline into abject shittiness.
   11. Famous Original Joe C Posted: August 09, 2011 at 03:54 PM (#3896278)
I'm with MCoA - I think he's very close, and almost certain to get there eventually barring catastrophic injury. I don't think I'd vote for him today, though.
   12. Banta Posted: August 09, 2011 at 03:54 PM (#3896279)
I'm with PF. I think the phrase should definitely be "pulling an Alomar" instead.
   13. SoSH U at work Posted: August 09, 2011 at 03:58 PM (#3896283)
The real question is if he's in after "pulling an Alomar" - immediate decline into abject shittiness.


Or, in Roy's case, a Return to Halladays.
   14. BDC Posted: August 09, 2011 at 04:10 PM (#3896296)
Counting 2011, Halladay with luck will have seven qualifying seasons with an ERA+ over 140; ten pitchers have done that, all of them no-doubt face-value Hall of Famers (Young, Mathewson, Big Train, Grove, Seaver, Clemens, Maddux, Big Unit, and Pedro). Make it 150, and Halladay will have done that five times; 14 pitchers have done that: the above list minus Seaver and plus Walsh, Three-Finger Brown, Alexander, Carlton, and Incredibly-Annoying Brown.

Those numbers are chosen to given Halladay the best possible company, of course, and on each list he's on the lowest rung among his betters; but it's not cheap to have seven seasons at >140 or five at >150; only the greatest of the great pitchers did that. It's the basic peak achievement of an inner-circle Hall of Famer. Just below are the peaks of guys who really didn't have enough career to impress Hall voters: Smoky Joe Wood, Brandon Webb, that kind of pitcher. Johan Santana is another: he demonstrated with four seasons at >150 that he has Hall talent, but without much supporting context, that record may not be good enough. Halladay has already put himself a tier higher than Santana on peak.
   15. Adam B. Posted: August 09, 2011 at 04:57 PM (#3896325)
It'd help him to beat out Hamels for the Cy Young, and but for the CGs they're basically indistinguishable. (Hamels has more BBs, but far fewer hits allowed.
   16. Chris Fluit Posted: August 09, 2011 at 06:27 PM (#3896372)
I figure he is....but he might need 2 more solid seasons to cement his case.


I agree. Right now, his career WAR is right in the middle of Luis Tiant, Tommy John and Jerry Koosman. So that's not quite "hit by a bus"/"pull an Alomar" territory. But 2 more solid seasons would put him comfortably ahead of the near-misses and into sure-thing status.
   17. Ryan Lind Posted: August 09, 2011 at 06:34 PM (#3896374)
How much is his WAR with 2000 removed? That would have to be the worst year ever by a HOFer.
   18. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: August 09, 2011 at 06:39 PM (#3896377)
That would have to be the worst year ever by a HOFer.

some very good pitchers (HOFers) have had some very bad years
   19. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 09, 2011 at 07:51 PM (#3896431)
That would have to be the worst year ever by a HOFer.

It's the worst ERA that any *player*, let alone HOFer, has ever put up in more than 40 IP (and Halladay managed to "keep it up" for 67.2 IP). Pretty remarkable. But it's only the 29th worst ERA+ (again, among all players, not just HOFers).
   20. Greg Franklin Posted: August 09, 2011 at 08:20 PM (#3896448)
Not as bad as that old “Red Tape Holds Up New Bridge” headline

It's worse, because the first was punnier. The headline still doesn't match the body of this AP article, and it showing up on multiple news sites. Did this "complete game" error make it into anyone's print edition?
   21. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: August 09, 2011 at 08:21 PM (#3896449)
Halladay has led his league in IP 4 times, and is doing so again this year. If he finishes the year tops in IP, he'll be tied (with Johnson, Feller, Robin Roberts, Carlton, and Maddux) for the second-most times doing so, behind Grover Cleveland Alexander's 7. He's led the league in complete games 6 times. If he does so again this year, he'll have led his league more times than anyone but Spahn's 9.
   22. Chris Fluit Posted: August 09, 2011 at 08:35 PM (#3896464)
How much is his WAR with 2000 removed? That would have to be the worst year ever by a HOFer.


Halladay was -3.2 in that awful year. With 2000 zeroed out, he would be at 63 instead. That would put him between Hall of Famers (and future Hall of Famer) Smoltz, Palmer, Rusie and Bunning. He's still behind non-HoFers Rick Reuschel and Kevin Brown though (and old-timers Tony Mullane and Jim McCormick). Once, he clears that group- which he could do as early as next year- I would think he'd be in "hit by a bus"/"pull a Alomar" territory.
   23. Walt Davis Posted: August 09, 2011 at 08:57 PM (#3896480)
Halladay has led his league in IP 4 times, and is doing so again this year. If he finishes the year tops in IP, he'll be tied (with Johnson, Feller, Robin Roberts, Carlton, and Maddux) for the second-most times doing so, behind Grover Cleveland Alexander's 7. He's led the league in complete games 6 times. If he does so again this year, he'll have led his league more times than anyone but Spahn's 9.

Sure but unless you're a complete relativist, these just don't mean anything anymore, especially the latter. Halladay has 64 career complete games, Fergie Jenkins had 30 in a season and the barely elected Blyleven had 60 career shutouts. Leading the league in CGs with 7 or 9 is like leading the league in steals with 32. I'm sure writers who vote for Halladay will cite these stats but that's just because they're looking for stats to support a guy they've already decided to vote for not because they really justify his case.

Halladay is sitting on 2500 IP with a 137 ERA+; Oswalt is at 2100 IP with a 134 ERA+. Hudson is at 2500 IP with a 127 ERA+. Nobody talks about those latter two as HoFers. Halladay, especially by HoF standards, is the best of those three (wins, percentage, CYA, 20-win seasons, etc.) but the gap is not huge.

And of course we have Kevin Brown at 3300 IP and a 127 ERA+ and more career CG than Halladay. We know there were likely other reasons that voters didn't go for Brown but I have a hard time putting Halladay in the "pulls an Alomar" bin when it's not clear he's been better than a guy who didn't even make 5% of the vote and it's not clear he was better than a guy who spent 14 years on the ballot.

Now if he ages decently at all, then he's in easily. 250 wins, 3300-3500 IP, outside chance at 3000 Ks ... no problem.

EDIT: Grrr... skype has somehow cleverly added a NZ flag and a skype symbol to 3300-3500 IP. If you want to try that number, be my guest.

EDIT 2: and anybody know how I can get skype to stop doing that dumbass thing?
   24. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 09, 2011 at 09:16 PM (#3896495)
Halladay is sitting on 2500 IP with a 137 ERA+; Oswalt is at 2100 IP with a 134 ERA+. Hudson is at 2500 IP with a 127 ERA+. Nobody talks about those latter two as HoFers. Halladay, especially by HoF standards, is the best of those three (wins, percentage, CYA, 20-win seasons, etc.) but the gap is not huge.
You really have to account for Halladay's peak. He just destroys those guys on peak. See B-Ref WAR, best to worst seasons:

7.5, 7.0, 6.9, 6.8, 6.5, 5.5, 5.4, 5.4, 3.5, 2.8, 2.8, 2.5 - Halladay
6.2, 5.6, 5.3, 4.7, 4.0, 3.9, 3.7, 3.1, 3.0, 2.8, 2.3 - Oswalt
6.7, 6.6, 5.3, 4.8, 4.4, 4.0, 3.7, 3.5, 3.2, 2.9, 2.4 - Hudson

Halladay's had five Cy Young quality seasons, while Oswalt had one and Hudson two. I'd vote Halladay in right now, but I think he needs another season and a half to lock up his case for Hall of Fame voters.
   25. Chokeland Bill Posted: August 09, 2011 at 10:16 PM (#3896517)
The 2.8 and 2.3 for Oswalt are both from 2010, so it looks a little better for him replacing those with a 5.1.

Halladay should get some demerit for having one of the worst seasons ever, but he still will get in pretty easily. Ironically, the extent of his terribleness probably saved his career. I don't know if he gets sent down to re-tool his mechanics if his 2000 was merely bad.

Of the group debuting 1998-2002 (so Halladay, Hudson, Oswalt, Sabathia, Santana, Buerhle):

- Halladay and Sabathia get in, barring injury or collapse

- Hudson is older than the rest but does have more counting stats in the bank. I think he has an outside shot if he gets to 220+ Wins with a ~125 ERA+. That would probably get him 60+ WAR, so he'd not be a poor fit. Voter wise his case would basically be "awesome W/L record", "best AL pitcher behind Pedro while he was there", and "best guy from a famous team". He probably still gets passed over if the Felix/Weaver/Lincecum generation all look to pass his numbers. Without the lost time in 2008-09, he probably would have a much better chance. I'd like someone from the early 2000s Oakland teams to make it, and it seems like Huddy is the only (remote) possibility now.

- Oswalt's lost 2.5 k/9 this year, has the back issue, and has spoken of early retirement before. I'm not sure he sticks around too much longer. If he does, he probably finishes with a better ERA but less impressive win/loss than Hudson. Probably needs 5-6 more solid years to have an outside shot.

- Santana has the great peak but it is starting to look pretty grim for him on the health front. He still needs 3-4 good years, maybe more.

- Buerhle's not going to make it. He's better than his traditional numbers look, but I don't think HoF voters are going to vote him in with an ERA that close to 4.
   26. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: August 09, 2011 at 10:28 PM (#3896524)
Buerhle's not going to make it. He's better than his traditional numbers look, but I don't think HoF voters are going to vote him in with an ERA that close to 4.


And yet, over 50% of voters are saying yes to Jack Morris with an ERA even closer to 4 in a much lower run environment.
   27. Chokeland Bill Posted: August 09, 2011 at 10:36 PM (#3896526)
Morris has 1991 Game 7 and the "most wins in the 80s" thing that voters love so much. It doesn't hurt that he doesn't have a standout group of contemporaries.

I don't think most Hall voters look too closely at run environment. Like I said, Buerhle is better than he might look to a HoF voters. The multiple no-hitters will help him out. I guess if he hangs around to get close to 300 wins he could make it, but he probably has the weakest case out of the bunch.
   28. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 09, 2011 at 10:47 PM (#3896532)
I think Halladay needs one more great season or 2-3 more good seasons to be a lock. As Walt said, with any sort of normal aging he's in. But if he truly pulls an Alomar, he'll probably finish his career with ~210 wins and ~125 ERA+, putting him right around Brown, who is not in the HOF.

One thing worth noting is that even in an Alomar situation, Halladay will benefit from the low scoring environment (a bad ERA won't actually look that bad) and from the Phillies offense, which should get him some wins even in a bad year.
   29. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 09, 2011 at 10:48 PM (#3896534)
Buehrle has just about no peak at all. He's only received Cy Young votes once in his entire career - 5th place in 2005. Buehrle has less peak than the king of the peakless, Tommy John.

What Buehrle has going for him his durability and the wins that come along with it. If he can keep pitching into his 40s, Buehrle will start to rack up some of the counting stats that get you into HoF discussions. He's still five to seven years away from serious consideration, I think.
   30. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 09, 2011 at 10:53 PM (#3896538)
~210 wins and ~125 ERA+, putting him right around Brown, who is not in the HOF.
Other pitchers with ~210 wins and ~125 ERA+ include Curt Schilling and John Smoltz, both of whom will make the Hall relatively easily.

Brown was a pretty clearly deserving lower to middle tier Hall of Famer, but his steroid use, all around assholery, and the shape of his career screwed him. Being similar to Brown, in baseball terms, is a good thing. Halladay, like Schilling and Smoltz, has the excellent public image that Brown lacked, and should be able to make the Hall without too much difficulty in the scenario you describe. (He'd deserve it, too.)
   31. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 09, 2011 at 11:00 PM (#3896540)
Given all the top-tier pitchers in the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s (so far), a lot of good pitchers aren't going to get in. Hudson and Oswalt don't have a chance, I think. Halladay, however, is an extremely good bet.
   32. vortex of dissipation Posted: August 09, 2011 at 11:21 PM (#3896552)
Buehrle has just about no peak at all. He's only received Cy Young votes once in his entire career - 5th place in 2005. Buehrle has less peak than the king of the peakless, Tommy John.

What Buehrle has going for him his durability and the wins that come along with it. If he can keep pitching into his 40s, Buehrle will start to rack up some of the counting stats that get you into HoF discussions. He's still five to seven years away from serious consideration, I think.


Buehrle does have a lot of things going for him that will probably improve his standing with a lot of the public (and voters) - ace of a World Championship team, two no-hitters (including a perfect game), a couple of Gold Gloves (and the fielding highlight play to end all highlight plays), a general reputation as a stand-up guy. These things may not matter to the Rays of the world, but they will help him be remembered when the voting comes around...
   33. cardsfanboy Posted: August 09, 2011 at 11:28 PM (#3896558)
I'm with PF. I think the phrase should definitely be "pulling an Alomar" instead.


Not pulling a Murphy? That is what I think of when I think of instant decline from hof path to non-hof path. I guess if you are arguing someone in, and wanted a hofer, Alomar is probably the perfect candidate.
   34. Ryan Lind Posted: August 09, 2011 at 11:28 PM (#3896559)
Plus with his long tenure as ace of the White Sox he probably has a Morrisian number of opening day starts.
   35. BDC Posted: August 09, 2011 at 11:45 PM (#3896574)
I take people's points that a bus-impacted Halladay wouldn't have a lot of IP for a Hall of Famer, but I'd hope that voters would adjust for era in that regard. If starting pitchers are still important, he's the most important of them all at the moment. A Hall that votes in relief pitchers with some regularity has to vote in a starter with that kind of peak, even if Gaylord Perry used to pitch as many CG and innings by mid-May every year :)

I think our current perceptions are somewhat skewed by living through the careers of Clemens and Maddux and the Unit. Those guys were astonishingly durable and dominant in historical terms, even if their CG and IP totals went down year by year as they aged while their context shifted.

So yes, I'd vote for Halladay if he were SEPTA'd tomorrow. Others may want to see more from him; that's cool.
   36. phatj Posted: August 10, 2011 at 12:08 AM (#3896590)
I don't see any way that Halladay doesn't get voted in if his career ended tomorrow. He's obviously short on the wins and innings that voters like, but he ticks all the other boxes - Cy Young Awards in both leagues (and four other top-5 finishes), great W-L percentage, great ERA - and oh yeah, a perfecto and a playoff no-hitter. Not to mention being the consensus Best Pitcher in Baseball (tm) for a few years.

If the Phillies can win a WS or two during Halladay's tenure, he might have as good a chance as Maddux at being the first unanimous Hall of Famer.
   37. cardsfanboy Posted: August 10, 2011 at 12:30 AM (#3896610)
I take people's points that a bus-impacted Halladay wouldn't have a lot of IP for a Hall of Famer, but I'd hope that voters would adjust for era in that regard.


The best peak only candidate, Koufax has nearly as many innings pitched as Halladay does today, and their peaks aren't particularly close. Pitchers today don't pitch any fewer innings(career wise) than they did in the past, they just take longer to get to that total. I think the voters are smart enough to realize both of these things.

Halladay is at an interesting point in his career right now. He doesn't have the peak of the greats from this era; Pedro/Randy/Maddux/Clemens/Brown and doesn't have the career of career candidates Glavine/Mussina/Smoltz/Schilling/Pettite and if he was hit by a bus arguments could made that he doesn't surpass any of those guys. But as pointed out any type of decline phase where he just accumulates innings (at 90 era+ or better clip) and he passes the career candidates by the combination of his superior peak and coming close to their career rates.

As it stands I think it could be argued right now he's better than all those I listed in the career side. (note those aren't strictly career candidates, they all have a peak in there, but they are the standard for career/peak combo candidates of recent vintage and Halladay is probably better than them)
   38. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: August 10, 2011 at 12:33 AM (#3896615)
(and the fielding highlight play to end all highlight plays)
I had somehow never seen that before. Wow.

Not pulling a Murphy? That is what I think of when I think of instant decline from hof path to non-hof path. I guess if you are arguing someone in, and wanted a hofer, Alomar is probably the perfect candidate.
Go Alomurph? Murphomar? (So close to sounding like "marshmallow," which is kindof appropriate for someone's career going incredibly soft. Or toasty, if you prefer.)

Someone fix that and let's make it stick.
   39. Jeff R., P***y Mainlander Posted: August 10, 2011 at 12:36 AM (#3896622)
Halladay should get some demerit for having one of the worst seasons ever, but he still will get in pretty easily. Ironically, the extent of his terribleness probably saved his career. I don't know if he gets sent down to re-tool his mechanics if his 2000 was merely bad.


I think most people just assume that Halladay emerged from the head of Zeus as a fully-formed strike-throwing, inning-eating machine in 2002, without realizing where he came from. This is a pitcher who came up from the minor leagues, threw a couple of real nice September starts, threw 150 quality innings the next year, and then was absolutely destroyed the following year, like record-setting bad, as has been noted above. Ended up the next year in A ball. Completely rebuilt his pitching motion, pitch selection, arm slot, everything, in frickin' Dunedin. Two years later wins 19 games, a year after that goes 22-7 in 266 innings to win the Cy Young award. Hell of a story.
   40. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: August 10, 2011 at 12:36 AM (#3896623)
If the Phillies can win a WS or two during Halladay's tenure, he might have as good a chance as Maddux at being the first unanimous Hall of Famer
"A guy who once put up a 10+ ERA is not going to be the first unanimous HOFer."
   41. Sam M. Posted: August 10, 2011 at 12:51 AM (#3896652)
If the Phillies can win a WS or two during Halladay's tenure, he might have as good a chance as Maddux at being the first unanimous Hall of Famer.

"A guy who once put up a 10+ ERA is not going to be the first unanimous HOFer."


Nor is a pitcher who doesn't win 300 games. He can be first-ballot, he can get an impressively (even historically) high total. Unanimous? If it happens for anybody, it won't be for a guy with a "2" as the first number in his wins total.
   42. phatj Posted: August 10, 2011 at 12:53 AM (#3896653)
Yeah, in retrospect that was a bit over the top. However, I can sort of see it adding to his mystique, if you will, with certain voters. A promising prospect has a couple of nice seasons before becoming absolutely terrible, goes down to the minors and reemerges as HALLADAY, Destroyer of Worlds.
   43. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: August 10, 2011 at 12:54 AM (#3896654)
Halladay is sitting on 2500 IP with a 137 ERA+; Oswalt is at 2100 IP with a 134 ERA+. Hudson is at 2500 IP with a 127 ERA+. Nobody talks about those latter two as HoFers. Halladay, especially by HoF standards, is the best of those three (wins, percentage, CYA, 20-win seasons, etc.) but the gap is not huge.

1. 10 points of ERA+ is... maybe not huge, but very, very large.

2. If you go from 2001-11, Halladay has 2242 innings and a 147 ERA+. That overpowers both Hudson and Oswalt by an enormous margin.

3. I have long thought of Hudson and Oswalt as potential HOFers. Oswalt looks like he may be done now, but Hudson's 2 decent years away from 200 wins, and could get quite a bit higher than that if he ages well... and this has been a good time for pitchers aging well.
   44. Howie Menckel Posted: August 10, 2011 at 01:45 AM (#3896706)
Funny that Halladay's "worst-ever" ERA was challenged all season in 2010 by Charlie Morton, who screwed up with a couple of decent games at the end.

Then Mr. Morton got off to a hot first half this year by mimicking the delivery of a certain All-Star pitcher named.... Roy Halladay.

Love stuff like that.
   45. Walt Davis Posted: August 10, 2011 at 01:48 AM (#3896718)
I'd hope that voters would adjust for era in that regard

They haven't yet so I'm not taking it as a given until they do. Blyleven was the first starter elected since Ryan and we all know how long it took Blyleven. Granted, they haven't had any great candidates over that time but they certainly didn't adjust for Stieb or Brown and it took them forever to get over Blyleven's win percentage and lack of 20-win seasons. They won't need to adjust for Maddux, Clemens, Johnson or Glavine as in terms of IP and wins (and Ks), those guys measure up with the 60s-70s studs. And Pedro has the Koufaxian peak.

So when will the voters adjust for the era? Some folks here think Schilling and Smoltz will sail in. I think they'll make it, I don't think it will be all that easy. Schilling's bloody sock game and Smoltz's saves do make them both possible 1st ballot guys though so I won't rule it out. Mussina's chances are worse than those two and we know what happened to Brown. But, most importantly, Schilling and Smoltz have 800-1000 more IP than Halladay currently has.

Give Halladay another 800-1000 innings of league average ball and his ERA+ is down in the mid-120s too and he's the equal of Schilling and Smoltz and Mussina for his career. Over his last 1100 IP, Mussina put up a 111 ERA+; over his last 800, Schilling was at 127; over his last 1000 innings (which includes his time as a closer), Smoltz was at 132. No particularly good reason to think Halladay will age worse than those guys -- in which case he should be in easily -- but, if he doesn't, that's a lot less quantity/quality.

By the way, give Santana 500 innings of league average and he's pretty much right where Halladay is right now.

And does there come a time when the voters should stop adjusting for era? If starters cut back to 5 IP per start and the very best top out at 3300 IP, do we just put the best ones in anyway? Or do we look at them along lines similar to how we view Concepcion and Morris -- might have been the best of your era but that's not good enough?

And yet, over 50% of voters are saying yes to Jack Morris with an ERA even closer to 4 in a much lower run environment.

And dwo we all know who led the 00s in wins? Andy Pettitte. Get ready for 10-15 years of that debate.
   46. Mash Wilson Posted: August 10, 2011 at 01:49 AM (#3896721)
Ridiculous. If Halladay tears his shoulder apart tomorrow he's in the Hall of Fame. Comparing him to guys like Tiant doesn't work, because Tiant racked up his value in a different way, hanging around a long time. Halladay has put together numerous high-impact seasons with the kind of numbers voters like. For all idiots want to shout about Jack Morris leading the 80s in wins, Halladay was the dominant pitcher of his generation. He has awards and sparkly achievements (the perfect game/playoff no-no thing will grow finer with age). If you want to say, yeah, but Halladay can't be in if Kevin Brown or Bret Saberhagen or whoever isn't, fine, but he's going in.

Oswalt and Hudson, those are guys that need a couple more great years.

One thing helping Halladay is he doesn't really have any exact contemporaries that are near his level. The first half of the career the giants of the 1990s were still gobbling up hitters, and the second half will overlap with the beginning of some Hall of Famers (pick whoever you like to stay healthy out of Hernandez, Lincecum, Lee, Greinke, Hamels, whoever). But for guys whose good years were 2002-2012... Halladay's pretty much it. Whose the second-best pitcher whose career is centered around those same years? Buehrle, right? Buehrle, Oswalt, Hudson. I'm probably forgetting something. Those guys aren't really that close to Halladay's level. He stands as far over them in baseball stature as in feet-and-inches stature.

EDIT: Yeah, OK, and Andy Pettitte, I guess. I might actually bet on Pettitte to get into the Hall someday over anyone else from that era besides Halladay.
   47. cardsfanboy Posted: August 10, 2011 at 01:56 AM (#3896734)
They haven't yet so I'm not taking it as a given until they do. Blyleven was the first starter elected since Ryan and we all know how long it took Blyleven. Granted, they haven't had any great candidates over that time but they certainly didn't adjust for Stieb or Brown and it took them forever to get over Blyleven's win percentage and lack of 20-win seasons. They won't need to adjust for Maddux, Clemens, Johnson or Glavine as in terms of IP and wins (and Ks), those guys measure up with the 60s-70s studs. And Pedro has the Koufaxian peak.

So when will the voters adjust for the era?


Not too sure how much adjusting, if any is necessary. Pitchers are relatively speaking, less valuable on a seasonal basis than they have been in the past, a guy posting 5 seasons of 170 era+ at 1000ip isn't the same thing as Koufax doing it over 5 seasons and putting up 1377 ip. If a pitcher wants to go into the hof nowadays they'll need to have a peak and a career of some length. There is no reason to adjust for it, today's theoretical improved health conditions make it easier to have a longer career even if each individual season isn't as valuable as in the past.
   48. cardsfanboy Posted: August 10, 2011 at 02:08 AM (#3896755)
Ridiculous. If Halladay tears his shoulder apart tomorrow he's in the Hall of Fame.


As this thread has shown, it's not ridiculous. It's debateable. He just doesn't have that many innings if he tears his shoulder tomorrow. 2400 ip would be among the fewest innings pitched by a hofer, Koufax has 2324, Dean has 1967 and that is it among hof starting pitchers with fewer than 2400 ip. Lefty Gomez is maybe another comparable and again he's a short career peak guy who's career was effectively over by the time he was 30.

Less than 3000 ip you have to be Pedro to have a case and Halladay is not Pedro.
   49. Mash Wilson Posted: August 10, 2011 at 02:26 AM (#3896776)
You boys can debate it all you want, and I would be more than happy to take your money if you really wanted to bet against Halladay getting enshrined--quickly--in that scenario.

Also your post confused my poor little brain because you cited three Hall of Famers with similar innings-pitched totals, and then said you have to be Pedro Martinez to get into the Hall of Fame with that few innings. Which obviously you don't. You just have to be regarded as the dominant pitcher of your era, like Dean and Koufax. And Halladay.
   50. Chris Fluit Posted: August 10, 2011 at 03:01 AM (#3896823)

So yes, I'd vote for Halladay if he were SEPTA'd tomorrow. Others may want to see more from him; that's cool.


I don't see any way that Halladay doesn't get voted in if his career ended tomorrow.

Ridiculous. If Halladay tears his shoulder apart tomorrow he's in the Hall of Fame.


There is a difference between the personal and the predictive. Personally, I would vote for Halladay for the Hall of Fame. With the sustained dominance over a decade, the combination of innings and era, and my own bias towards Blue Jays, I have no problem making the case for him or casting a vote for him. But I personally don't have a vote for the Hall of Fame and neither do most (all?) of the people posting here.

But that's not the same as predicting what the writers of the BBWAA would do with Halladay as his career stands today, August 9, 2011. Sure, he's got some shiny baubles (two Cy Youngs, perfect game, post-season no-hitter) but he's also missing some of the key touchstones (less than 200 wins, no World Series). I think that he would probably get in anyway. Cy Youngs in both leagues is the kind of thing that sways the writers who vote for the Hall of Fame. But, based on the vagaries of the BBWAA, I wouldn't call him a sure thing without a couple more seasons.

Most of the people posting here wouldn't care about a couple of extra seasons at league average play. But, to the actual voters, there's a huge mental difference between 224 wins (Jim Bunning) and 184 (Dave McNally).

Of course, this is all hypothetical anyway as the voters will get to consider Halladay's full career, including what he does after August 10.
   51. Mash Wilson Posted: August 10, 2011 at 03:04 AM (#3896826)
Yeah, Chris, I've been saying the opposite thing. Some people here might not vote for him, but the writers would. Once the backlog of the 1990s/early 2000s greats gets cleared, it would either be that or don't vote for any pitchers.
   52. Chris Fluit Posted: August 10, 2011 at 03:06 AM (#3896828)
Halladay should get some demerit for having one of the worst seasons ever, but he still will get in pretty easily. Ironically, the extent of his terribleness probably saved his career. I don't know if he gets sent down to re-tool his mechanics if his 2000 was merely bad.
I think most people just assume that Halladay emerged from the head of Zeus as a fully-formed strike-throwing, inning-eating machine in 2002, without realizing where he came from. This is a pitcher who came up from the minor leagues, threw a couple of real nice September starts, threw 150 quality innings the next year, and then was absolutely destroyed the following year, like record-setting bad, as has been noted above. Ended up the next year in A ball. Completely rebuilt his pitching motion, pitch selection, arm slot, everything, in frickin' Dunedin. Two years later wins 19 games, a year after that goes 22-7 in 266 innings to win the Cy Young award. Hell of a story.


I agree. Remember we're talking about sportswriters here, not statisticians. I think that Halladay's story of going back to A ball to re-learn how to pitch would help him with voters not hurt him.
   53. Chris Fluit Posted: August 10, 2011 at 03:11 AM (#3896835)
I'm probably forgetting something.


Or someone: Sabathia. He has the best shot of joining Halladay as a contemporary pitcher from the '00s.
   54. Sam M. Posted: August 10, 2011 at 03:16 AM (#3896844)
Whose the second-best pitcher whose career is centered around those same years? Buehrle, right? Buehrle, Oswalt, Hudson. I'm probably forgetting something. Those guys aren't really that close to Halladay's level. He stands as far over them in baseball stature as in feet-and-inches stature.


Johan Santana. But everything in his case depends on whether he can get healthy, and (if he does) resume being Johan Santana. Doubtful. But at his peak, he certainly rivaled Hallady for quality (see # 25).
   55. Howie Menckel Posted: August 10, 2011 at 03:21 AM (#3896849)
Schilling and Smoltz will get in, not first ballot.

Halladay is on the verge, based on peak. But the 210th win or 22oth win would help a lot, too.
   56. Mash Wilson Posted: August 10, 2011 at 04:18 AM (#3896883)
Chris: I guess that's right. It's odd, I don't really think of Sabathia as getting going until like 2005, but he goes back longer than I realized.

I assume Santana is effectively finished until I see evidence otherwise.
   57. Ryan Lind Posted: August 10, 2011 at 04:37 AM (#3896895)
If Halladay isn't already a lock, then Koufax should be removed from the hall.
   58. cardsfanboy Posted: August 10, 2011 at 06:21 AM (#3896915)
You boys can debate it all you want, and I would be more than happy to take your money if you really wanted to bet against Halladay getting enshrined--quickly--in that scenario.

Also your post confused my poor little brain because you cited three Hall of Famers with similar innings-pitched totals, and then said you have to be Pedro Martinez to get into the Hall of Fame with that few innings. Which obviously you don't. You just have to be regarded as the dominant pitcher of your era, like Dean and Koufax. And Halladay.


Dean is one of the worse hof selections in baseball history, without his broadcasting career he never makes it in. Most people on here know that so he's not what you consider to be a viable comparable candidate. And even there you are talking about a guy who posted a 120-65 1531ip record in five seasons.... Halladay's five best years(non-consecutive) gives him a 99-45 record, and 1240ips...not really the same thing.

Yes your little brain can't seem to comprehend between Dizzy Dean who was a piss poor selection for the hof, on par with Catfish Hunter, and Koufax who was a dominant pitcher...oh wait dominant usually means leading the league in era or era+...

Dean 0 era, 0 era+,
Halladay 0 era, 1 era+
Koufax 5 era, 2 era+,
Halladay is a better candidate than Dean, but then again, who isn't?

I hope I don't actually have to explain to you how much more dominant Koufax's 323ips at 190 era+ is better than Halladay's 165 at 250ip is. I mean I don't care if you are taking my money, the fact is they aren't ####### comparable. And Pedro vs Halladay is even more a joke, it's like comparing Jack Morris to Greg Maddux.

My point is that pitchers with that low of innings pitched have to be something dramatically special, and Halladay isn't that.

Hallady vs Pedro peak only, (to compare careers is equally as silly but lets just look at peak)

Halladay's best season was 185 era+ over 141 ip.... Pedro has 6 seasons better than that(include his one 'bad year of 163 ) for a cumulative 1408 ip of 213 era+....yea... I'm sorry but there is no comparison. I put Pedro in my list because the point was that for you to be a legitimate guaranteed hof at 2500 or so innings you have to have a Pedro like peak... Halladay doesn't have it... Or how about even a Koufax like Peak.

Koufax five year peak is a 167 era+ over 1377 ip.... best Halladay does over 200 ip is 165 era+....again not really in the same ballpark.


Just because I mentioned them in the same sentence, doesn't mean they are remotely comparable. So have fun taking my money, but you are a ####### idiot if you think that Hallday right now is a lock for the hof if his career ended today. Heck Kevin Brown pretty much proves that point.

Brown's peak years

171-111, 3.11 era, 134 era+, 2651 ip....number of years on the ballot.... 1 and done.

Halladay 184-90, 3.26 era, 137 era+, 2473ip....

Peak years
Brown's top 3 217 era+(233ip), 169era+(230ip), 169 era+(211ip), 164 era+(257Ip)..... Halladay's 185era+(141ip), 165(250), 159(239), 159(239)....cumulative best Brown 931ip, 180 era+, Halladay 869, 165 era+....


Do you really see that much of a difference between Halladay and Brown, that it gives you 100% confidence that if Halladay started pitching like Kip Wells for the next 3 seasons that he gets in without a problem?
   59. cardsfanboy Posted: August 10, 2011 at 06:42 AM (#3896921)
If Halladay isn't already a lock, then Koufax should be removed from the hall.


Not that I disagree with you(I personally wouldn't have put Koufax in) but in terms of peak, Hallday isn't comparable. The only way to make Hallday comparable is to apply an era adjustment where you consider innings pitched of 300 ip for the 60's is equivalent to 250 ip of the 2000's... on a raw value basis Koufax peak, kicks Halldays to the curb...

Koufax during his peak was about as much of a guarantee of quality performance you can get. There is a reason that peak arguers argue for consecutive peak, inconsistency is not a sign of greatness... but even accepting that, let's take Koufax 5 year consecutive peak and compare it to Halladay's(and note Koufax is in the hof for his five year consecutive peak)

Koufax 129-47, 1377ip, 2.19 era, 156 era+.(3 Cy youngs and 1 mvp)...led the league in ip 2, era 5times, era+ 2,
Halladay 89-42, 1115ip, 2.47era, 162 era+(?), (1 Cy Young---his other was in a less impressive season)

Again Halladay is the definition of borderline...right now. Some have good arguments for, some against, but he's on the borderline. If he retired today I think he makes it in in about his 7th year of eligibility, definitely doesn't make it in on the first ballot.
   60. vortex of dissipation Posted: August 10, 2011 at 07:09 AM (#3896922)
Actually, Koufax was 111-34, 1.95 ERA, 167 ERA+ during the five-year stretch from 1962 through 1966. The 142-47, 2.19 total is adding 1961 to the mix and making it a six-year summary. The 1,377 IP is correct for 1962-1966, though. And personally, I very much would put Koufax in.
   61. cardsfanboy Posted: August 10, 2011 at 07:41 AM (#3896924)
Actually, Koufax was 111-34, 1.95 ERA, 167 ERA+ during the five-year stretch from 1962 through 1966. The 142-47, 2.19 total is adding 1961 to the mix and making it a six-year summary. The 1,377 IP is correct for 1962-1966, though. And personally, I very much would put Koufax in.


Yep, I was editing as I was going along and messed up some stuff.
   62. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: August 10, 2011 at 07:46 AM (#3896925)
This thread has made me really sad about the demise of Johan Santana. His change-up was one of the most fun pitches to watch ever before the injuries hit. I guess he had it coming to him, signing with the Clippers, but still, a sad story.

Doesn't matter much and I think both that he deserves to be in and will get in if he is hit by a bus, but I think if you zero out his 2000 on the grounds that he was a different pitcher, to be logically consistent, you have to zero out his 1999 as well.
   63. Dr. Vaux Posted: August 10, 2011 at 08:29 AM (#3896926)
Honestly, Kevin Brown falling off the ballot in his first year makes the HOF a joke even without the upcoming Bonds/Clemens debacle. There's some argument as to whether it's reasonable for him not to be elected (though Schilling will be elected easily, so not much of one), but to not get 5% of the vote in his first year? Please.
   64. Chris Fluit Posted: August 10, 2011 at 12:39 PM (#3896947)
This thread has made me really sad about the demise of Johan Santana. His change-up was one of the most fun pitches to watch ever before the injuries hit. I guess he had it coming to him, signing with the Clippers, but still, a sad story.


True. I remember when Santana was the sure thing- the dominant pitcher with the potential for a Pedro-like peak.
   65. toratoratora Posted: August 10, 2011 at 01:07 PM (#3896953)
signing with the Clippers


Man. I'm not even a Mets fan but that's hitting below the belt. Ouch.
   66. BDC Posted: August 10, 2011 at 01:19 PM (#3896960)
"A guy who once put up a 10+ ERA is not going to be the first unanimous HOFer."

No, of course not; but that's granting that nobody's ever going to be the first unanimous HOFer. But I can't see one bad year, even a ghastly year, having much to do with the HOF case of a great player. Tom Seaver once went 5-13 with an ERA of 5.50. The last three years of Steve Carlton's career were even worse. Mike Schmidt hit .196 as a rookie. Johnny Bench was a Godawful third baseman. And that's just random 95%-vote Hall of Famers. I think that voters mentally zero out such stuff, in both "should" and "do" senses. Obviously there are times when even a Hall of Famer temporarily wasn't good at major-league baseball, like Roberto Clemente's early seasons or Al Kaline's grade-school years or Ted Williams's frozen-head period. For starting pitchers, those times can often be mid-career.

"Should," I agree, remains a big question for Halladay. It's just interesting to me that the current Hall voters have been very happy to induct Gossage and Sutter and Eckersley, but very well might balk at Halladay's current numbers, and would almost certainly not induct Santana if he never pitches again. Gossage's career line is 1800 IP at an ERA+ of 126. Santana's is 1900 at 142. (Halladay's is ~2500 at 137.) Even if you give Gossage some credit for high-leverage situations, it's hard to see why he's so appealing compared to Santana. (Of course, Gossage took a while to be inducted.)

I think the current actual Hall criteria the voters use just assume that relievers are much more valuable per inning than starters: hence, as Walt points out, the love for Sutter and Gossage as opposed to some poor schlub like Dave Stieb (2900 IP at 123 ERA+).
   67. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: August 10, 2011 at 01:46 PM (#3896981)
"A guy who once put up a 10+ ERA is not going to be the first unanimous HOFer."

No, of course not; but that's granting that nobody's ever going to be the first unanimous HOFer. But I can't see one bad year, even a ghastly year, having much to do with the HOF case of a great player.
To be clear, by putting that statement in quotes I meant that *some* voter would be guaranteed to make that argument, publicly or not, to justify not voting for Halladay.

Even if you give Gossage some credit for high-leverage situations, it's hard to see why he's so appealing compared to Santana. (Of course, Gossage took a while to be inducted.)
I don't agree with the logic, but I don't think it's hard to see at all: save total.
   68. Ryan Lind Posted: August 10, 2011 at 03:57 PM (#3897088)
I'm not sure that ERA+ adequately adjusts for Koufax's ludicrous pitching environment, and I agree you need to adjust innings. Halladay leads the league in innings every year, but he is never getting to 300+ no matter what he does just based on the times.
   69. Sam M. Posted: August 10, 2011 at 04:18 PM (#3897107)
Not that I disagree with you(I personally wouldn't have put Koufax in) but in terms of peak, Hallday isn't comparable.


I am very, very glad that someone who wouldn't put Sandy Koufax in the Hall of Fame doesn't have, and I assume never will have, a say in the matter. A supernova doesn't burn forever, and by definition it involves a sudden and kind of tragic ending of a celestial body, but it's still a damned supernova, and since they don't come along in every night sky, if you happen to see one, it's special.

Sandy Koufax would burn you up in a brilliant millisecond and leave you as a dust mote in a sweeping nebula for your foolishness.
   70. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: August 10, 2011 at 04:45 PM (#3897118)
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't think Halladay is nearly as close to the HOF as many here are suggesting, if his career ended today. I love him, and I think he will end up cruising into the HOF, but the career numbers aren't there yet. Koufax had a number of advantages that Halladay does not have, including:

1) Eye-popping baseball card stats (pitching in the 1960s in LA while being awesome will do that); those last four years of Koufax's career are simply stunning.
2) Mystique (not quite "Jim Rice Fear", but you get the idea); to hear people talk about Koufax is like the way people talk about the way Clemente threw a ball, or the way Ted Williams swung a bat. Halladay doesn't have that storyline or mystique.
3) A dramatic end to the career; of course, we don't know how Halladay's career will end, but it likely won't end like Koufax's did - at the apex of his game, winning the Cy Young, finishing 2nd in the MVP race, leading the league in everything, winning a WS...and then retiring.

I am confident Halladay will pitch well for the next few years, anyway, and accumulate enough counting stats that this will be academic. But I do think he has a little work to do.
   71. Gaelan Posted: August 10, 2011 at 04:58 PM (#3897131)
Roy Halladay is the definition of a hall of fame pitcher. Anyone who thinks he is a borderline candidate needs to get their career length fetish and go screw themselves.

The fact that some are debating this just goes to show how absurd career length and value is as a criteria for the hall of fame (or anything else for that matter).
   72. Ryan Lind Posted: August 10, 2011 at 05:15 PM (#3897154)
I am very, very glad that someone who wouldn't put Sandy Koufax in the Hall of Fame doesn't have, and I assume never will have, a say in the matter. A supernova doesn't burn forever, and by definition it involves a sudden and kind of tragic ending of a celestial body, but it's still a damned supernova, and since they don't come along in every night sky, if you happen to see one, it's special.


I agree, and I think it applies to Halladay as well. He's not Koufax, but he's as close as anyone pitching in today's game is going to get.
   73. BDC Posted: August 10, 2011 at 05:42 PM (#3897185)
Sandy Koufax, in a short career for a Hall of Famer, threw 137 complete games: more than twice as many as Halladay, who has now thrown more innings and is the active CG leader. (I'm just rephrasing some of what cardsfanboy has been saying, with different examples.)

But that's because he lies on the other side of a divide in what was expected of starting pitchers. For better or worse, Koufax was a nine-inning pitcher (and the more remarkable as such because he pitched in a low-run environment and was a lousy hitter). Roy Halladay, and I suggest very respectfully, Pedro Martinez, are not nine-inning pitchers. I realize that Pedro was a God on Earth, and that he once led a league with 13 CG; but for his career he completed 11% of his starts. Halladay has completed 19% of his. Koufax completed 44% of his.

But this is not to disparage the latter-day pitchers; far from it. It's just the usage convention today. Roger Clemens began his career completing a Koufax-like percentage of his starts, and ended it hardly ever throwing a complete game. He lived through a paradigm shift, or at least the latter phases of it.

If we believe that "starting pitcher" in these latter days remains a crucial position, then somebody like Halladay is the best at that position, has been for a while, and deserves appropriate comparison to position-player candidates in that respect (i.e. by how much did he dominate and for how long).

But I do agree that many voters are likely to keep comparing him to, say, Koufax and Gibson, or worse yet, to Seaver and Carlton; and he looks pretty puny on that scale.
   74. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: August 10, 2011 at 07:22 PM (#3897311)
We are in the midst of redefining what a HOF "lock" should look like, statistically - it's not 300 wins, for example. However, there are only 91 pitchers active today who even have 50 career wins, and only 35 of them even have 100 career wins. Among them are:

2. Halladay, 184 (34 yrs old)
3. Tim Hudson, 176 (35)
4. Sabathia, 173 (30)
10. Buehrle, 157 (32)
11. Oswalt, 154 (33)
16. Santana, 133 (32)
21. Beckett, 121 (31)
25. Cliff Lee, 114 (32)
32. Haren, 103 (30)
36. Verlander, 99 (28)
46. Ervin Santana, 84 (28)
49. Felix Hernandez, 81 (25)
50. Weaver, 78 (28)
54. Hamels, 73 (27)
56. Lester, 72 (27)
Below them are a number of good young pitchers with 70 or fewer wins, like Greinke, Lincecum, Cain, Billingsley, and Josh Johnson

How many of these guys are going to reach even 200 wins? Damn few, probably. This would be another point in Halladays's favor, I suspect...
   75. Famous Original Joe C Posted: August 10, 2011 at 07:39 PM (#3897330)

I agree, and I think it applies to Halladay as well. He's not Koufax, but he's as close as anyone pitching in today's game is going to get.


What? I strongly disagree that that definition applies to Halladay.

Roy Halladay is a truly excellent pitcher, one who is highly likely to be elected to the Hall of Fame one day (and deservedly so).

What he is not is a "supernova" in the vein of Pedro or Koufax. Those guys are once in a generation. Halladay is "merely" great.
   76. cardsfanboy Posted: August 10, 2011 at 08:01 PM (#3897365)
I agree, and I think it applies to Halladay as well. He's not Koufax, but he's as close as anyone pitching in today's game is going to get.


Again I'm not arguing against or for Halladay or even Koufax, just arguing that Halladay isn't currently a lock if he retired today. I don't see what is wrong with that argument. Halladay doesn't have a strict peak argument, he doesn't have enough of a career to argue a combo peak/career yet. He's not far off, but sometimes you have to look at where the guy currently ranks, he's below Kevin Brown in my opinion and Kevin Brown didn't make it past the 5% ballot test. Mythical hit by a bus Halladay would make it past the 5% but he isn't noticeably, if at all better than Kevin Brown.

Koufax may have burned bright and all, but the advantage of 40 years hindsight is to realize that some of his numbers were helped out tremendously by his park. His raw numbers are fantastic, but park adjustments hurt him to a degree.
   77. cardsfanboy Posted: August 10, 2011 at 08:25 PM (#3897385)
We are in the midst of redefining what a HOF "lock" should look like, statistically - it's not 300 wins, for example. However, there are only 91 pitchers active today who even have 50 career wins, and only 35 of them even have 100 career wins. Among them are


300 wins has never been HOF "lock". (I consider a lock to be something that guarantees entry into the hof within the first two tries...300 wins doesn't meet that criteria)

That 91 pitchers is somewhat inaccurate, doesn't include the likes of Wainwright or Santana who will be back and should be considered in any hof discussion among active pitchers. And I don't think that point really stands the test of history either.

2000 there were 99 pitchers with more than 50 career wins---42 with over 100 wins.
1990 102--37
1980 100--46
1970 89--35
1960 62--18(now we are dealing with massively fewer teams so it's not going to be nearly as high of a number, but the point still stands, the current number of 50 game winners is not really different than it has been in the past)
1950 56--15
1940 59--27
1930 61--25...
   78. Harold can be a fun sponge Posted: August 10, 2011 at 09:05 PM (#3897413)
Halladay is sitting on 2500 IP with a 137 ERA+; Oswalt is at 2100 IP with a 134 ERA+. Hudson is at 2500 IP with a 127 ERA+. Nobody talks about those latter two as HoFers. Halladay, especially by HoF standards, is the best of those three (wins, percentage, CYA, 20-win seasons, etc.) but the gap is not huge.

ERA+ is especially bad for Halladay. Because it's denominated in earned run (rather than innings), his 67 innings in 2000 count as much or more than his full seasons. Since 2001, Halladay's ERA+ has been 147 -- way, way better than Oswalt/Hudson, and on par with the general perception of his pitching.

If you say something like, "Halladay's not as good as you think he is; look at his career ERA+," the problem is not everybody's perceptions; it's the flaws in ERA+.
   79. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: August 10, 2011 at 09:07 PM (#3897416)
Sandy Koufax, in a short career for a Hall of Famer, threw 137 complete games: more than twice as many as Halladay, who has now thrown more innings and is the active CG leader. (I'm just rephrasing some of what cardsfanboy has been saying, with different examples.)

What's really startling that he did that throwing fewer innings than Halladay. And Halladay is legitimately an outlier in terms of completing way more games than anyone else of his era.

I just looked at the all-time CG leaderboard. Anyone care to guess how many active pitchers are in the top THOUSAND of this statistic?
   80. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: August 10, 2011 at 09:56 PM (#3897429)
#77 - I didn't mean that 50 wins was some kind of magic number - it's just that it is a low number, and yet there still aren't that many active players with even that many wins. That number does include Wainwright and Santana, and it also includes a bunch of guys whose career win total is not relevant (Mariano Rivera, Octavio Dotel, etc.) and a bunch of guys who'll be lucky to get to 75 wins (LaTroy Hawkins, Elmer Dessens).

In addition, there have been similar numbers of pitchers at many given moments in history who had 50 wins or more, active. However, I think there are unusually small number of people currently active who are in a position to get to 200.

There are 110 pitchers in history with 200 wins (Wakefield is at 199), and almost everybody around the 200-220 win level is not in the HOF. However, the percentage really drops sharply below the Jim Bunning/Catfish Hunter line (tied for 68th overall, with 224 career wins). Above that figure, about the only pitchers who are not 19th century/early 20th century pitchers who are eligible, but not in the HOF, are:

Morris, Tommy John, Jim Kaat, Dennis Martinex, Tanana, and Tiant.

There are a number of people below 224 wins that are in, but they share at least two characteristics:

1) They are, not surprisingly, generally among the weakest members of the HOF (Candy Cummings is in as the creator of the curveball; Jesse Haines is part of the Cardinals/Giants veterans committee run of the 1970s; many experts, including Bill James, think Don Drysdale was a weak choice; Lefty Gomez, Jack Chesbro, Hal Newhouser, Rube Marquard...these are weak inductees)
2) Very few of these guys played anytime in the last, say, 40 years. In fact, of the 17 starting pitchers in the HOF with fewer than 224 wins, the three most recently-active are Drysdale (1969), Koufax (1966), and Bob Lemmon (1958). Think about that - outside of the Dodgers Boys, the last pitch thrown by a HOF starting pitcher with fewer than 224 wins was 53 years ago!

One of two things is going to happen in the coming years:
1) Outside of the obviously-going-to-get-in group of Maddux, Clemens, Glavine, Johnson, as well as perhaps Mussina and Morris, the only two other starters that are reitred but not yet eligible (I'm not counting Smoltz) below the 224 line with any chance of getting in are Pedro and Schilling. Because there are only 5 or 6 active pitchers likely to exceed that number, we're not going to be seeing very many starting pitchers getting in the HOF in the next 20 years; or
2) The standard will begin dropping - and it means other metrics will increase in importance to voters, like strikeouts, or peak performance, or ERA+, etc. It's not that the quality of pitchers will be going down - it's that the number of wins needed to get in the HOF will begin dipping.

One last note: looking at these numbers underscores that Koufax is truly a unique a figure in history. With the possible exception of Dizzy Dean, and maybe the reverse career pattern that was Dazzy Vance, there is no starting pitcher in history that has taken peak performance to the HOF like Koufax. That's why Halladay is not a good match to Koufax - its why nobody is! Halladay is more like Jim Palmer, minus 6 or 7 starts a season for 12 years, than he is like Koufax. And in the future, we're going to have to think of the best starting pitchers as comparable to the best of the past, with the adjustment of GS...
   81. Mash Wilson Posted: August 10, 2011 at 10:21 PM (#3897437)
CFB: you continue to argue about why Halladay shouldn't be a Hall of Fame lock, which I'm not disputing (well, I'd vote for him, but I don't really care if you don't). But the voters do not give one solitary damn about his ERA+. "Yeah, this guy was the best pitcher of his era hands down," check the box.
   82. cardsfanboy Posted: August 10, 2011 at 10:25 PM (#3897440)
One of two things is going to happen in the coming years:
1) Outside of the obviously-going-to-get-in group of Maddux, Clemens, Glavine, Johnson, as well as perhaps Mussina and Morris, the only two other starters that are reitred but not yet eligible (I'm not counting Smoltz) below the 224 line with any chance of getting in are Pedro and Schilling. Because there are only 5 or 6 active pitchers likely to exceed that number, we're not going to be seeing very many starting pitchers getting in the HOF in the next 20 years; or
2) The standard will begin dropping - and it means other metrics will increase in importance to voters, like strikeouts, or peak performance, or ERA+, etc. It's not that the quality of pitchers will be going down - it's that the number of wins needed to get in the HOF will begin dipping.


And I absolutely disagree about the standards dropping. There is zero evidence that the standards are going to drop or need to drop. 300 wins, was never a magic number, and there is absolutely no reason to think that there won't be more 300 win pitchers in the future. Individual seasons have nothing to do with reaching a high win total, it's strictly based upon reaching a high innings pitched total. Rough estimate is that a pitcher gets 1 win for every 9 innings pitched regardless of the era they pitch in. Yes pitchers are pitching fewer innings nowadays on a seasonal basis, on a career basis nothing has changed.

2) Very few of these guys played anytime in the last, say, 40 years. In fact, of the 17 starting pitchers in the HOF with fewer than 224 wins, the three most recently-active are Drysdale (1969), Koufax (1966), and Bob Lemmon (1958). Think about that - outside of the Dodgers Boys, the last pitch thrown by a HOF starting pitcher with fewer than 224 wins was 53 years ago


the 224 win mark is selective endpointing at it's finest, Catfish Hunter/Jim Bunning has 224 wins and pitched until 1979/1971. But even ignoring that, the only pitcher with a low career win total (not counting closers of course) who has earned the right to be considered with a short career since Koufax is Pedro Martinez. Pedro has 219 wins and will probably go in. Factor in that most of those low win total guys are the guys who are generally considered to be mistakes and I think you are trying to force a personal viewpoint of a trend into a theory.

I agree with you on the Koufax vs Halladay comparison. Koufax is the purest peak candidate in the hof.
   83. cardsfanboy Posted: August 10, 2011 at 10:41 PM (#3897449)
CFB: you continue to argue about why Halladay shouldn't be a Hall of Fame lock, which I'm not disputing (well, I'd vote for him, but I don't really care if you don't). But the voters do not give one solitary damn about his ERA+. "Yeah, this guy was the best pitcher of his era hands down," check the box



Then I'm doing a bad job of arguing. I thought pointing out that Halladay is roughly equivalent to Kevin Brown and Kevin Brown didn't sniff 5% was a pretty strong argument that Halladay may not be a lock for the voters right this second. Heck considering that Brown has actually better numbers than Halladay and for him to get stiffed completely and for there to have been no public outrage tells me that Halladay's raw numbers just isn't there yet. Yes hit by bus Halladay will do better than Kevin Brown in the voting due to personality and lack of roid taint, but I don't think he makes it purely on the writers ballot without some heavy campaigning.

I'm not sure best pitcher of his era(which is basically five years--not even that, Santana was arguably best from 2003-2007) is enough to get him in. I have read tons of arguments for pitchers over the years, and the only time I've ever seen that argument put forth has been for Jack Morris. Sometimes Koufax, but as pointed out Koufax blows Halladay away if you are looking at raw numbers. Heck outside of the past two years, has he really been the best pitcher of his era? He's on the short list of course,

I can see arguments for Halladay of course, and if he gets 1000 ip at 100 era+ he sails in easily, but right now he's borderline.
   84. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 10, 2011 at 10:48 PM (#3897455)
With the possible exception of Dizzy Dean, and maybe the reverse career pattern that was Dazzy Vance, there is no starting pitcher in history that has taken peak performance to the HOF like Koufax.
I don't think this is quite true. Hal Newhouser made the Hall of Fame based on six seasons. Between 1944 and 1949, he accumulated 43 of his career 56 WAR. He won two MVPs (back to back) and placed second in another MVP race. He won the deciding game of a world series.

Sandy Koufax is a bit more extreme than Newhouser - he accumulated 47 of 54 WAR in his six best seasons, including all them Cy Youngs and that World Series dominance - but I think they're not totally dissimilar.

Ed Walsh is actually just as extreme as Koufax - maybe more so. In his six best seasons, Walsh accumulated 48 of his 55 career WAR, and in his seven best seasons, 53 of his 55. Walsh's career was really just those seven seasons - from 1906 to 1912 he threw 2500 IP, and for his career the total was only a bit over 2900.
   85. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 10, 2011 at 10:56 PM (#3897457)
I thought pointing out that Halladay is roughly equivalent to Kevin Brown and Kevin Brown didn't sniff 5% was a pretty strong argument that Halladay may not be a lock for the voters right this second.
The problem is that Kevin Brown is also highly similar to Curt Schilling and John Smoltz, and Kevin Brown was the one player of note that the Mitchell Report nailed dead to rights for steroid use. I don't think that Brown's career numbers were his problem. Schilling and Smoltz, with similar numbers, look to make the Hall in a few ballots, and I think Halladay is a lot more similar to them than to Brown in the minds of the voters.

I think Halladay's gotta get to 200 wins, but once he does that, he should be golden.

For my part, I think that Halladay's extended prime (2002-2011) is what makes him Hall of Fame worthy. He shouldn't be compared to pure peak candidates like Koufax, Newhouser, and Walsh, but to prime candidates like Curt Schilling, Dazzy Vance, or Juan Marichal. Guys who were among the best pitchers in the game for a decade, contended for or won a couple Cy Youngs / MVPs, guys who could for that decade or so easily front a pennant-winning staff.
   86. cardsfanboy Posted: August 10, 2011 at 11:02 PM (#3897459)
I think Halladay's gotta get to 200 wins, but once he does that, he should be golden.


I'm not so sure about golden, but yes it helps his case.

For my part, I think that Halladay's extended prime (2002-2011) is what makes him Hall of Fame worthy. He shouldn't be compared to pure peak candidates like Koufax, Newhouser, and Walsh, but to prime candidates like Curt Schilling, Dazzy Vance, or Juan Marichal. Guys who were among the best pitchers in the game for a decade, contended for or won a couple Cy Youngs / MVPs, guys who could for that decade or so easily front a pennant-winning staff


I agree, and think he'll do well on the voting. I just don't think he's a lock as of this particular second. Again any type of career length he makes it, if he gets 3500 ip he's a lock, but at 2400 it's a different story. At 2400 ip you have to be Koufax or Ed Walsh etc. Someone who dwarved the competition while he played. Heck I'm not going to be surprised at all to see Pedro not make it in on the first ballot, and Halladay is no Pedro.
   87. Mash Wilson Posted: August 10, 2011 at 11:07 PM (#3897462)
Kevin Brown didn't sniff 5% because he was an ####### and was outed as a steroid user. Had he been nicer he might have peaked at 20% or 25%. He doesn't have shiny numbers and he was never really regarded as the dominant pitcher in baseball during his career. There is no good reason to use Kevin Brown as a comparison for Roy Halladay. Or, come to think about it, for anyone. Smoltz and Schilling have things going on for them that Brown doesn't.

And nobody, not even the True Believers, really thinks Jack Morris was the best pitcher of his era.

Response to #86: who's going to be on the ballot the year Pedro debuts?
   88. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: August 10, 2011 at 11:21 PM (#3897467)
Randy Johnson! And Glavine and Mussina if they don't make it in their first try. And Troy Percival. And Darin Erstad.
   89. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 10, 2011 at 11:37 PM (#3897479)
Pedro's going in first ballot. Happy to place a bet on it if you want.
   90. Mash Wilson Posted: August 10, 2011 at 11:59 PM (#3897497)
Ehhhhh... I could imagine Pedro not quite making it in first ballot. I don't feel anywhere near good enough about it to bet on it unless I'm getting strong odds, though.
   91. ecwcat Posted: August 11, 2011 at 12:24 AM (#3897515)
Halladay has been good for around 10 years according to the media, and is a complete game/no hitter ace. He's more dominant than Curt Schilling- the big fat jerk.
   92. cardsfanboy Posted: August 11, 2011 at 12:28 AM (#3897519)
Kevin Brown didn't sniff 5% because he was an ####### and was outed as a steroid user. Had he been nicer he might have peaked at 20% or 25%. He doesn't have shiny numbers and he was never really regarded as the dominant pitcher in baseball during his career. There is no good reason to use Kevin Brown as a comparison for Roy Halladay. Or, come to think about it, for anyone. Smoltz and Schilling have things going on for them that Brown doesn't.


Roy Halladay
21-10, 2.44 era, 165 era+, 250.6 ip.
19-7, 2.93 era, 159 era+, 239.3 ip
17-10, 2.79 era, 159 era+, 239 ip.
20-11, 2.78 era, 152 era+, 246ip.
22-7, 3.25 era, 145 era+, 266 ip.
* I left out current season.
Peak totals 99-45, 2.65, 156 era+. 1240 ip.

Kevin Brown
17-11, 1.89 era, 217 era+ 233ip
13-6, 2.58 era, 169 era+, 233 ip
14-9, 2.39 era, 169 era+, 211 ip,
18-7, 2.38 era, 164 era+, 257 ip
16-8, 2.69 era, 150 era+, 237ip

Peak totals 78-41, 2.38 era, 173 era+, 1171ip

Brown's best years BLOWS Halladay out of the water. Halladay gets credit for more wins a few more innings pitched. But yes you are right, Brown shouldn't be compared to Halladay because it's unfair to Halladay who can't keep up.

Career right now they are also very similar, Brown over a similar number of innings pitched as Halladay(from 1992-2003)
Brown 2441 ip, 162-99, 3.00 era, 139 era+, 15sho, 58cg, 349gs.
Halladay career to date 184-90, 3.26 era, 137 era+, 19sho, 64cg, 344 gs, Of course Brown adds about 800 more innings pitched at a much lower level, but the point stands, that Halladay is no different than Brown, except shorter career, and lower best.
   93. 1k5v3L Posted: August 11, 2011 at 12:33 AM (#3897525)
Halladay also won his 7th Cy Young award during last night's game.
   94. Mash Wilson Posted: August 11, 2011 at 12:38 AM (#3897533)
Facepalm.

I really don't feel like trying to explain myself to you again so you can throw out some more ERA+ that the voters don't care about.

Kevin Brown is never going into the Hall of Fame. Let it go. Let it go.
   95. cardsfanboy Posted: August 11, 2011 at 12:47 AM (#3897537)
hit by a bus hofers
Arod, Pujols, Chipper, Jeter, Irod*, Vlad, Ichiro, Mariano.... and that is it.

Thome should also be on that list, but I don't trust the voters. Manny will get hammered on the roid thing, Rolen is arguable(I would put him in, but he plays third and it's tough to get into the hof from thirdbase), Halladay is close, probably the closest of those not at the hit by bus level, but I just don't see the voters putting him in with only 2400ip. With apologies to Santana,
Helton, Andruw, Abreu, Beltran, Giambi, Damon, Posada, Vizquel, Tejada, Mauer, and others.

*Irod is dependent on how serious the voters take the roid accusations, I think by the time he retires it won't matter(at least for him--especially since so much of his game is based upon his defensive reputation)
   96. cardsfanboy Posted: August 11, 2011 at 12:54 AM (#3897544)
Facepalm.

I really don't feel like trying to explain myself to you again so you can throw out some more ERA+ that the voters don't care about.

Kevin Brown is never going into the Hall of Fame. Let it go. Let it go.


I agree Kevin Brown is never going into the hof, disagree the voters in 10 years won't care about era+, in fact I disagree that the voters nowadays don't care about era+... maybe 20 years ago sure, but not nowadays, and especially not in 10 years. If Catfish Hunter entered the ballot today, he would never get elected.

The voters care about career plus peak... 2400 ip doesn't get you into the hof without a peak of Koufax or being on the radio all the time like Dizzy Dean. Halladay is close, to being automatic, but I just do not believe that if he was on the ballot 5 years from now, based upon his numbers right now, that he makes it. Look at how many people on this thread were surprised about how great Santana was and that has only been 2 years since he dropped off the face of the earth.
   97. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 11, 2011 at 12:55 AM (#3897546)
Cfan you can argue for Brown all you want but the fact is he got screwed in hof voting and pretty much everyone saw that coming for a country mile the MSM massively underrated him they obviously do not underrate Halladay
   98. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 11, 2011 at 12:56 AM (#3897548)
Roy Halladay
21-10, 2.44 era, 165 era+, 250.6 ip.
19-7, 2.93 era, 159 era+, 239.3 ip
17-10, 2.79 era, 159 era+, 239 ip.
20-11, 2.78 era, 152 era+, 246ip.
22-7, 3.25 era, 145 era+, 266 ip.
* I left out current season.
Peak totals 99-45, 2.65, 156 era+. 1240 ip.

Kevin Brown
17-11, 1.89 era, 217 era+ 233ip
13-6, 2.58 era, 169 era+, 233 ip
14-9, 2.39 era, 169 era+, 211 ip,
18-7, 2.38 era, 164 era+, 257 ip
16-8, 2.69 era, 150 era+, 237ip

Peak totals 78-41, 2.38 era, 173 era+, 1171ip

Brown's best years BLOWS Halladay out of the water. Halladay gets credit for more wins a few more innings pitched. But yes you are right, Brown shouldn't be compared to Halladay because it's unfair to Halladay who can't keep up.


If the topic is the BBWAA, then in the above comparison, Halladay leads in 20-win seasons 3-0, he leads in Cy Young awards 2-0, and he leads in lack of steroid links 1-0.
   99. Howie Menckel Posted: August 11, 2011 at 12:57 AM (#3897549)
I'll give it a shot. Note the rank in top 10 in IP in league for each pitcher; this might help you see value that you're missing:

Roy Halladay
21-10, 2.44 era, 165 era+, 250.6 ip. FIRST IN IP
19-7, 2.93 era, 159 era+, 239.3 ip. SECOND IN IP
17-10, 2.79 era, 159 era+, 239 ip. FIRST IN IP
20-11, 2.78 era, 152 era+, 246ip. FIRST IN IP
22-7, 3.25 era, 145 era+, 266 ip. FIRST IN IP
* I left out current season. [of league-best 154 ERA+ and FIRST IN IP in 175 IP]
Peak totals 99-45, 2.65, 156 era+. 1240 ip.

Kevin Brown
17-11, 1.89 era, 217 era+ 233ip SIXTH IN IP
13-6, 2.58 era, 169 era+, 233 ip SEVENTH IN IP
14-9, 2.39 era, 169 era+, 211 ip, ELEVENTH IN IP
18-7, 2.38 era, 164 era+, 257 ip SECOND IN IP
16-8, 2.69 era, 150 era+, 237ip SIXTH IN UP

The only year that Brown led the league in IP, he had a 116 ERA+ (that is a valuable pitcher, of course)
   100. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 11, 2011 at 01:00 AM (#3897550)
If Catfish Hunter entered the ballot today, he would never get elected.


Have you been paying attention to Jack Morris's vote totals? There are huge numbers of BBWAA voters who vote for starting pitchers on the basis of wins. Catfish Hunter is in the Hall of Fame in large part because he won 20 games for 5 straight years. If he could somehow manage to do that today, absolutely he'd get elected. Of course, since it's much, much harder to win 20 games nowadays, that's probably what would keep our hypothetical modern Catfish Hunter out of the Hall.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis on Acid
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogTony Oliva turns 76; Gardenhire: 'He should be in hall of fame'
(47 - 7:48am, Jul 23)
Last: Bruce Markusen

NewsblogChase Headley traded to New York Yankees from San Diego Padres - ESPN New York
(93 - 7:45am, Jul 23)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq.

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(826 - 7:40am, Jul 23)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogAs shifts suppress offense, time has come to consider a rule change
(44 - 7:39am, Jul 23)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-23-2014
(2 - 7:35am, Jul 23)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogSports Reference Blog: 1901-02 Orioles Removed from Yankees History
(29 - 7:23am, Jul 23)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(2721 - 7:04am, Jul 23)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogRangers' Yu Darvish Pushes for a Six-Man Pitching Rotation - NYTimes.com
(17 - 6:02am, Jul 23)
Last: Curse of the Andino

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(321 - 4:25am, Jul 23)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(46 - 3:02am, Jul 23)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogCowboy Monkey Rodeo taking the Minors by storm
(9 - 2:27am, Jul 23)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-22-14
(53 - 2:05am, Jul 23)
Last: AT-AT at bat@AT&T

NewsblogTrading for Price would be right move for Cubs | FOX Sports
(73 - 1:52am, Jul 23)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogMLB: Astros telecasts catching on to advanced metrics
(12 - 12:24am, Jul 23)
Last: jwb

NewsblogFSAZ: D-backs cut off McCarthy’s cutter controversy
(26 - 11:08pm, Jul 22)
Last: billyshears

Page rendered in 1.2540 seconds
52 querie(s) executed