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

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

NYT: Forman: Pettitte Falls Short for the Hall of Fame

Mikey…this guy oughta go to that Baseball-Referendum site and get his facts straight!

Beyond those two items, Pettitte’s candidacy starts to unravel. His 3.91 earned run average would be the worst in the Hall of Fame. He did pitch in a hitters’ era, but we can account for that with a stat called ERA+, which is the park-adjusted league average E.R.A. divided by the pitcher’s E.R.A. times 100. In measuring ERA+, 100 is a league-average pitcher, above 100 is better than average and below 100 worse than average. Pettitte’s 116 ERA+ does match up with Hall of Famers like Jim Bunning (114), Robin Roberts (114) and Waite Hoyt (111), but he would still be in the bottom 10 to 20 of all Hall of Fame pitchers, and most of the pitchers with comparable numbers either have a much better peak or many more innings pitched (ERA+ of all Hall of Fame Pitchers.)

Pettitte’s Cy Young and All-Star résumé is thin for a Hall of Fame pitcher as well. His two All-Star Game appearances would tie him with Satchel Paige for dead last among postwar Hall of Fame pitchers. Pettitte did nearly win the 1996 Cy Young Award receiving 11 out of 28 first place votes, but after his sophomore season he never again cracked the top three in Cy Young voting. His 11 first-place votes would place him close to the bottom among Hall of Fame pitchers who competed for Cy Young awards.

Pettitte also lacks what Bill James called black ink — league-leading totals in important categories like earned run average or wins. In 1996, he led the American League in wins, but beyond that he has never led the league in an important category, finishing in the top 10 in E.R.A. only three times and innings pitched just twice. It wasn’t so much that he was injury-prone (five games started top tens), but he never was good enough to work deep into games and rack up a lot of innings.

Repoz Posted: November 04, 2009 at 05:29 PM | 61 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: astros, hall of fame, history, sabermetrics, yankees

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.

   1. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: November 04, 2009 at 05:55 PM (#3377443)
In other news, water is wet.
   2. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:01 PM (#3377450)
I didn't know he was retired.
   3. The Essex Snead Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:06 PM (#3377461)
Did you see his last start?
   4. Jeff K. Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:11 PM (#3377472)
e can account for that with a stat called ERA+, which is the park-adjusted league average E.R.A. divided by the pitcher’s E.R.A. times 100

I'm just imagining the people reading the NYT who've never heard of ERA+ seeing that definition and going "Mm-hmm. Look, honey. Nerdery." :)
   5. PreservedFish Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:14 PM (#3377478)
I'm just imagining the people reading the NYT who've never heard of ERA+ seeing that definition and going "Mm-hmm. Look, honey. Nerdery." :)


I was just thinking that the article would probably be more persuasive if it simply said, "He did pitch in a hitters’ era, but even accounting for that he still wasn't good enough."

Although ERA+ is one fo the stats that keep us clicking on his website, so Sean probably wants to pimp it.
   6. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:18 PM (#3377485)
We could always just run the list.

Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
No, not ever.

Was he the best player on his team?
No, not ever.

Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
No. No.

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Yes, many, many times.

Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
Yes.

Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No.

Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Some? Yes. Most? No.

Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
RTFA.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
He's a True Yankee™.

Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
No.

How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
One, arguably, but never won one. Two seasons jump out as being spectacular, but there was always someone better.

How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
RTFA.

If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
A few, yes.

What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
Proved that if you (eventually) apologize for using steroids, even in a roundabout way, then it's okay that you used steroids.

Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Depends on how you feel about the 'roids.

------------

I don't think I've ever thought of Pettitte in HoF terms. An impressive career, to be sure, but never a baseball immortal.
   7. Nasty Nate Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:18 PM (#3377486)
I didn't know he was retired.


seriously
   8. cardsfanboy Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:19 PM (#3377487)
agree Jeff, people need to shorthand these things (era+ is a pitchers park adjusted ERA relative to his league with 100 being league average, higher the number the better----nothing else is needed and is overkill, accuracy in explanation isn't as important as comprehending the definition--if any more is needed you do a Bob Gibson comparison to Pedro as an explanation or even a colorado pitcher compared to a San Diego pitcher prior to the humidor)

Still I wish people would back off from the black ink argument and stick with the gray ink argument, using black ink doesn't properly adjust for larger leagues. (heck same could be said from gray ink, but at least it doesn't make the player in question look "bad")
   9. RJ in TO Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:22 PM (#3377497)
I'm just imagining the people reading the NYT who've never heard of ERA+ seeing that definition and going "Mm-hmm. Look, honey. Nerdery." :)


It's the NYT. To a fairly large degree, it's a paper built around the concept of nerdery.
   10. 185/456(GGC) Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:23 PM (#3377499)
I don't see why people can't just call it relative ERA instead of ERA+, but I feel like Don Quixote when I mention that.
   11. cardsfanboy Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:25 PM (#3377500)
What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
Proved that if you (eventually) apologize for using steroids, even in a roundabout way, then it's okay that you used steroids.


I like that line. :)

I don't think I've ever thought of Pettitte in HoF terms. An impressive career, to be sure, but never a baseball immortal.

I personally hate the Keltner test, but your answers are too black and white for me, 5 top 5 Cy Young finishes indicates he was well regarded,
Was he the best player on his team?
No, not ever.

not sure who was better on his team in 1997?? Bernie has an argument I guess, but not Cone.
   12. Jeff K. Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:25 PM (#3377502)
To note, I'm not bagging on Sean's explanation, I actually think it was quite concise and good. I don't know whether I'd have included a literal definition or not; it's got to be hard to decide where to draw that line of "just give them the stat" vs. "give them the proper context and understanding otherwise why give them the stat at all?"

One thing I would note is that even cfb in #8 does the thing that jumped out first at me in Sean's wording: "park-adjusted" treated as a known thing.
   13. Don Malcolm Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:32 PM (#3377517)
All of the pitchers with 200+ wins and a .600 or better WPCT have been enshrined in Cooperstown, except for Carl Mays (threw the pitch that killed Ray Chapman, only 207 wins) and Bob Caruthers (19th century special case, extremely short career). Of the pitchers not yet eligible for the Hall with the combination of stats listed above (Clemens, Maddux, Pedro, the Unit, Glavine, Mussina, Wells, Pettitte), the first six are locks. Wells and Pettitte would've made it in the "crony days" of HoF voting, but they probably won't now. Still, it's the excitement of potential travesty that fuels the red-meat lovers here, so...

I don't think Sean's "pimping" anything here. ERA+ (which a certain Stalinist cadre of post-neo types apparently have taken to trash-talking) has been around for more than two decades and is certainly better known than UZR. That was pimping; this isn't.
   14. 185/456(GGC) Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:39 PM (#3377524)
Damn, now there's a post-neosabermetrics? I can't keep track of all these movements. I'm guessing that PNS is the one that worships at the altar of batted Baal data.
   15. cardsfanboy Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:41 PM (#3377526)
One thing I would note is that even cfb in #8 does the thing that jumped out first at me in Sean's wording: "park-adjusted" treated as a known thing.

well when I first wrote it, I didn't include the words park-adjusted, added it just before I posted it, wasn't too sure if it was necessary or not in the simplified definition.

Like many on here, I migrated from the Rob Neyer board, and his real strength was introducing people to sabermetric wisdom by simplifying it so that even if the readers didn't know the numbers behind the numbers, they trusted it because the explanation was worded that they got enough of a gist.

I didn't have to see the studies that says ops relates better with team scoring than average, obp or slugging to trust the conclusion. Once you start there you can branch out and get a better grasp on these concepts to the point that you yourself start questioning the conclusions, (I was never on board with there being a break even point for steals, to me it was taking a random result and pretending it happened at a random time which goes counter to what I knew about steals, just like I questioned hitter strikeouts aren't bad to have to be shown the evidence that makes me agree now) It's a step process, get them to one stat, then another(how many people on bbtf still use raw era for much? ops?)
   16. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:45 PM (#3377538)
5 top 5 Cy Young finishes indicates he was well regarded

Does the fact that he only got one vote in 2005 mean he was that well regarded?
   17. cardsfanboy Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:55 PM (#3377562)
Does the fact that he only got one vote in 2005 mean he was that well regarded?
yep.

you have three votes for Cy, for any starter to make a ballot, is a clear indication you were well regarded. It may have been a bad decision, but still it shows that you were regarded by one of 14 writers.
   18. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:56 PM (#3377566)
Anyone who votes for Andy Pettitte for the HOF should be drawn and quartered.
   19. cardsfanboy Posted: November 04, 2009 at 06:57 PM (#3377570)
ERA+ (which a certain Stalinist cadre of post-neo types apparently have taken to trash-talking)

who is this? and why? I mean sure there are a few flaws, primary the same flaw with era in regards to earned runs versus unearned runs, and arguments about how much defense figures into the number(mind you that is a ridiculous argument as they are debating something era isn't really trying to do) There still isn't a better stat for gauging the results of a starting pitchers seasonal/career performance out there right now, that is as accessible.
   20. 185/456(GGC) Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:04 PM (#3377586)
cfb, my guess is that Don is talking about Cameron and xFIP.
   21. DL from MN Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:05 PM (#3377589)
He's at the bottom but similar to pitchers elected to the Hall of Merit - Billy Pierce is very similar. Right now Pettitte is hovering at the in-out line and his postseason accomplishments help him a great deal.

Black ink lost relevance after the expansion in the 1960s and it's even less relevant now.
   22. BDC Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:20 PM (#3377622)
It's true that Black Ink doesn't give a good cross-era comparison. But given a Hall where the writers keep electing only a couple of guys every year, they mostly draw from the Black Ink layer of the population, the Gwynns and Boggses and Hendersons of the world. Hence it's hard to argue that Pettitte is anywhere within hailing distance of Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, the Unit (all no-brainers absent steroid concerns), and Sean is quite right to point that out.
   23. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:30 PM (#3377642)
Pettitte is a guy who would have sailed in (assuming a few more decent years pushing the wins above 250) in the old days before the cult of the 300 game winner took hold. In an era when people debate whether Mike Mussina will get in, it will be a tough road.

Tossing a gem and winning tonight's game would help a lot. He'll probably need to work cheap so he can stay with the Yanks and push the win total over 270, though.
   24. Jeff K. Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:35 PM (#3377652)
All of the pitchers with 200+ wins and a .600 or better WPCT have been enshrined in Cooperstown, except for Carl Mays (threw the pitch that killed Ray Chapman, only 207 wins) and Bob Caruthers (19th century special case, extremely short career). Of the pitchers not yet eligible for the Hall with the combination of stats listed above (Clemens, Maddux, Pedro, the Unit, Glavine, Mussina, Wells, Pettitte), the first six are locks.

Don, I might point you to a very long thread from this offseason that would argue the very point of Mussina (and Smoltz, et al) and "lock".

Regardless, I don't think Mussina is or should be a lock, I damn sure don't think Pettitte should be going in. I hear his name, and the name that immediately comes to mind is Allie Reynolds. Next is Vic Raschi. Not perfect comparisons to be sure, but still. Pettitte has a 177/155/135/129 best four seasons. He has no other season above 112. Sorry, no. Postseason? Admirable that he had basically the exact same ERA as regular season, and better performance due to stronger competition (though not as big as some claim.) Very good pitcher. Hall of Fame? Not a chance.
   25. "RMc", the superbatsman Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:36 PM (#3377654)
Tonight is Petitte's 40th post-season start? Yikes!
   26. Daunte Vicknabbit! Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:38 PM (#3377660)
Anyone who votes for Andy Pettitte for the HOF should be drawn and quartered.


And his kids should be taken from him.
   27. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:39 PM (#3377661)
5 top 5 Cy Young finishes indicates he was well regarded
Not really. Look at the Cy voting. The 5th place finisher (*) is basically someone who got two or three mentions total on all the writers' ballots, generally a couple of third place votes. Sure, it's not a bad thing, but it basically means nobody thought he was the best pitcher and he got a few bones tossed to him.


(*) He does not have "5 top 5 Cy Young finishes"; he has 4. Three of those are 5, 5, and 4. (He also has a 6.)
   28. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:40 PM (#3377664)
Was he the best player on his team?
No, not ever.

not sure who was better on his team in 1997?? Bernie has an argument I guess, but not Cone.
I'd argue Bernie was better (now THERE'S a guy who isn't getting enough Hall chatter). Pettitte's played his entire career with some pretty great players, sure-fire Hall members, so there's no shame in not ever being #1. Maybe he'll play another five years at this level and go in, Red Ruffing style.

Edit: But I had a vote, I wouldn't give it to him.
   29. Good cripple hitter Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:40 PM (#3377667)
who is this? and why?...There still isn't a better stat for gauging the results of a starting pitchers seasonal/career performance out there right now, that is as accessible.


Daly beat me to it, but try claiming that a pitcher with decent but not great peripherals had a good season based on his ERA+ on a Mariners blog and see what the response is.
   30. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:42 PM (#3377674)
Anyone who votes for Andy Pettitte for the HOF should be drawn and quartered.

Somehow I'm guessing that you're not thinking of Pettitte's career stat line when you say this.....you'd probably blackball Fielder and Leyritz, too.
   31. Weekly Journalist Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:48 PM (#3377685)
Pettitte never admitted to using steroids, he admitted to using HGH. I know to some it doesn't matter but people conflating the two is a huge pet peeve of mine, as while there is ample evidence that steroids are performance enhancing there is no evidence whatsoever that HGH is.
   32. Weekly Journalist Posted: November 04, 2009 at 07:48 PM (#3377687)
But I will say that Andy Pettitte is a more deserving HOF member than Jim Rice.
   33. Don Malcolm Posted: November 04, 2009 at 08:07 PM (#3377714)
Jeff, just in case it wasn't clear, I'm not advocating that Pettitte be enshrined, not on the basis of that stat combination. That's just what has happened. There are about two dozen pitchers who qualify, and of the sixteen who are retired and eligible for election, fifteen are in the Hall. Those are just the facts.

That said, I think he and Wells are on the outside looking in. Though I'd love to see Boomer's acceptance speech...

Now if Pettitte keeps pitching for, say, four more years and gets to ~280 wins, his odds do go up.

Without a link to that thread, I can't evaluate those arguments, but common sense tells me that a guy with 13 seasons of .600+ WPCT, regardless of his run support totals, is going to get in on the first or second try. That's just reality. The historical starting pitcher evaluation tool I've been tinkering with for a little while now ranks both Schilling and Smoltz ahead of Mussina, and Pettitte trails both of them significantly. I suspect Smoltz and Schilling will get in, but it will take them longer than Moose, because of the WPCT.
   34. Srul Itza Posted: November 04, 2009 at 08:09 PM (#3377717)
I don't think Mussina is or should be a lock


3562.2 IP to an ERA+ of 123, which puts him right in the middle of Sean's list.

270-153, for 117 games over .500, or a WP of .638.

Top ERA+ seasons of 163(strike shortened), 157, 145, 142, with a total of 11 seasons at 125 or better.

Taken all in all, why is this NOT clearly a HOF career?
   35. Misirlou gave her his Vincent to ride Posted: November 04, 2009 at 08:17 PM (#3377727)
I believe every pitcher who has ever been 100 or more games over .500 in his career has been elected except for Bob Caruthers. Mussina is well over that threshold.

edit: Andy Pettitte is 94 games over .500. he could get there.
   36. Srul Itza Posted: November 04, 2009 at 08:22 PM (#3377736)
I suspect Smoltz and Schilling will get in, but it will take them longer than Moose, because of the WPCT.


Really? I think Smoltz is carrying the "aura" of a HOFer, by reason of his association with Glavine and Maddux as the Braves Big 3 during their division-winning run; because of his great post-season record; and by reason of his unique status as a great starter turned great closer turned back to a great starter.

By contrast, I get a huge "Bert Blyleven" vibe off Mussina. I think he may have to wait a while.

I could see Schilling going in quick, and I could see him waiting. He had a fantastic peak in Arizona, and was involved in a memorable World Series for which he shared MVP honors, but was overshadowed by Unit; he then went on to be a key player in Boston's first WS in 80+ years, with the whole bloody sock thing; and over all he has a great post-season resume of 11-2, 2 post-season MVPs, and 3 rings. But he also has only a 216-146 record, and has probably rubbed a few voters the wrong way.
   37. sunnyday2 Posted: November 04, 2009 at 08:43 PM (#3377765)
Bernie was better (now THERE'S a guy who isn't getting enough Hall chatter).


I would argue that Bernie Williams IS getting enough HoF chatter. He is getting HoF chatter. And any such chatter is enough.
   38. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: November 04, 2009 at 08:48 PM (#3377776)
Somehow I'm guessing that you're not thinking of Pettitte's career stat line when you say this.....you'd probably blackball Fielder and Leyritz, too.


I think Pettitte has exactly the same business in the HOF as either of those guys. All three are free to buy tickets and see plaques of their betters. Albert Belle's a better candidate than Pettitte.
   39. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 04, 2009 at 08:57 PM (#3377793)
Bernie was better (now THERE'S a guy who isn't getting enough Hall chatter).

Get in line behind Tim Raines, Bernie.
   40. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 04, 2009 at 09:12 PM (#3377812)
Somehow I'm guessing that you're not thinking of Pettitte's career stat line when you say this.....you'd probably blackball Fielder and Leyritz, too.

I think Pettitte has exactly the same business in the HOF as either of those guys. All three are free to buy tickets and see plaques of their betters. Albert Belle's a better candidate than Pettitte.


You may be right on all counts there, Sam, but I still don't think that Mr. Game 5 of 1996 had nothing to do with your original comment about how Pettitte voters should be "drawn and quartered"....
   41. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: November 04, 2009 at 09:44 PM (#3377865)
You may be right on all counts there, Sam, but I still don't think that Mr. Game 5 of 1996 had nothing to do with your original comment about how Pettitte voters should be "drawn and quartered"....


I don't really hold Game 5 of '96 against Pettitte. I hold it against the right field umpire, Rafeal Belliard, Mark Wohlers and Jim Leyritz, in that order.
   42. JPWF13 Posted: November 04, 2009 at 09:53 PM (#3377884)
Now if Pettitte keeps pitching for, say, four more years and gets to ~280 wins, his odds do go up.


I think Pettitte has exactly the same business in the HOF as either of those guys. All three are free to buy tickets and see plaques of their betters. Albert Belle's a better candidate than Pettitte.


If Petitte really pitches 4 more years and reaches 280 wins, and keeps his ERA+ around 115 or so, THEN I think he'd be a valid borderline candidate (ie: Not as good as Moose, but better than Rice).

Yes his W-L was helped quite a bit by the offenses behind him (even more than Jack Morris was)
BUT, you know what, Yankee Dee in many of those years HURT him, he was better than a 115 ERA+ pitcher, perhaps even a 120 (still not as good as his W-L)
His W-L is inflated, but he's no Catfish or Jack Morris, he is./was a better pitcher than those guys.
   43. JPWF13 Posted: November 04, 2009 at 10:00 PM (#3377896)
I damn sure don't think Pettitte should be going in. I hear his name, and the name that immediately comes to mind is Allie Reynolds. Next is Vic Raschi. Not perfect comparisons to be sure, but still. Pettitte has a 177/155/135/129 best four seasons.


Reynolds, 162, 125, 115, 111 (500 less IP, and and ERA+ 5 points worse)
Raschi, 122, 120, 117, 112 (1000 less innings that Petitte)

Look if Petitte retires after this week, he's not in, he shouldn't be in, period.
But those aren't good comps.
Steve Rogers maybe, or Luque, or even Chuck Finley (who I think someone mentioned)
   44. Jeff K. Posted: November 04, 2009 at 10:09 PM (#3377913)
Donathan: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/baseball_library_lally_answering_a_moose_call/
Link
   45. Davo Posted: November 04, 2009 at 10:19 PM (#3377925)
Was he the best player on his team?
No, not ever.

----------------------------

I'd say he was pretty clearly the best player on the '96 Yanks.
   46. Harold can be a fun sponge Posted: November 04, 2009 at 10:23 PM (#3377932)
I'm just imagining the people reading the NYT who've never heard of ERA+ seeing that definition and going "Mm-hmm. Look, honey. Nerdery." :)

Yep. I was thinking it might be more accessible to say something like, "ERA+ compares a pitcher's league ERA to the league totals. 100 is average, above that is better than average and below that is worse." Maybe slip "park-adjusted" in there somewhere.
   47. Srul Itza Posted: November 04, 2009 at 11:06 PM (#3377978)
I'd say he was pretty clearly the best player on the '96 Yanks.


That year Mariano pitched 107 relief innings to the tune of a 239 ERA+. With leverage, that may outdistance Andy. Maybe not, but it was one hell of a performance from the pen.

If not Mo, then only Bernie Williams with 143 games in Centerfield with an OPS+ of 131, back when he could still field the position, is the only competition. So you may be right.
   48. Jeff K. Posted: November 04, 2009 at 11:08 PM (#3377985)
I thought "best player on the team" was supposed to be treated like "best at his position", meaning not "was there one year where he put up the best stats?" but was meant to be more of an implied rolling average thing.
   49. Davo Posted: November 04, 2009 at 11:20 PM (#3377998)
48: If that's the case, I'd again say Pettitte was *probably* the best overall player on the '95-'98 Yankees. He played a major role on some outstanding teams.
   50. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 05, 2009 at 12:10 AM (#3378025)
"I don't see why people can't just call it relative ERA instead of ERA+"

It gets confusing when you talk about the Niekros.

"I'd argue Bernie was better (now THERE'S a guy who isn't getting enough Hall chatter)."

Lots of Latin Grammy buzz to make up for it, though.
   51. smileyy Posted: November 05, 2009 at 12:48 AM (#3378060)

I don't see why people can't just call it relative ERA instead of ERA+, but I feel like Don Quixote when I mention that.


Because "Relative ERA" won't fit into statistical table headers, and people are going to call it by its most common abbreviation. I guess you could call it rERA or something, but at this point, I don't think that's going to displace OPS+ from the vernacular.

Keep jousting those windmills though :)
   52. Jeff K. Posted: November 05, 2009 at 01:03 AM (#3378076)
There's already enough subscripting and the like going on. If I gave a rat's Shooty-face about adoption of stats by the average fan, I would live in fear of the day they stumble across prOPS or tOPS or tERA. I bet not 1 in 20 people would even (out of politeness' sake) let you finish trying to explain a guy with a 130 OPS+ and a tOPS+ of 125 in May and what that really means.
   53. Harold can be a fun sponge Posted: November 05, 2009 at 01:05 AM (#3378079)
Because "Relative ERA" won't fit into statistical table headers, and people are going to call it by its most common abbreviation. I guess you could call it rERA or something, but at this point, I don't think that's going to displace OPS+ from the vernacular.

Well, "ERA+" and "OPS+" and so on were designed to be table headers. I don't think anybody expected people to actually pronounce "E R A plus". These stats were named "Normalized ERA" and "Normalized OPS" 25+ years ago.
   54. Jeff K. Posted: November 05, 2009 at 01:06 AM (#3378084)
I don't think anybody expected people to actually pronounce "E R A plus".

Well, then anybody doesn't have much clue about human nature. :P
   55. Sit down, Sleepy has lots of stats Posted: November 05, 2009 at 01:20 AM (#3378116)
Tonight is Petitte's 40th post-season start? Yikes!


17-9, .654 W%, 3.88 post-season ERA. No idea how that compares to others, but it seems impressive, on it's face. If he gets to 20 PS wins, that would be pretty cool (how many others have done that?)

As a cardinals fan, I always completely dreaded facing Pettitte, and was overjoyed when he went back to NY. Never thought of him as HOF material, though.
   56. Sit down, Sleepy has lots of stats Posted: November 05, 2009 at 01:38 AM (#3378167)
As for the last paragraph in the article, I still don't see how Pettitte doesn't balk every time he throws to first.
   57. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 05, 2009 at 01:42 AM (#3378177)
He does. They just don't call it.
   58. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: November 05, 2009 at 01:49 AM (#3378208)
Who's more valuable? ROBO-PUNTER, or a pitcher who's allowed to balk with impunity?
   59. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: November 05, 2009 at 01:57 AM (#3378236)
As for the Keltner list, every question except three is highly biased against players from an era with 30 MLB teams, compared to earlier decades.

Although "Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?" might benefit players from the current era, I've never understood what good that question does on the list anyway. How many players are playing regularly in the majors right now after having already passed their primes? 100? Luis Castillo, Rich Aurilia, Livan Hernandez, Pedro Feliz, Chan Ho Park, Jason Kendall, Mike Cameron, Jeff Suppan, Carlos Lee, Russ Ortiz - they all get a decisive YES on that question.
   60. Andere Richtingen Posted: November 05, 2009 at 02:22 AM (#3378370)
Although "Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?" might benefit players from the current era, I've never understood what good that question does on the list anyway. How many players are playing regularly in the majors right now after having already passed their primes? 100? Luis Castillo, Rich Aurilia, Livan Hernandez, Pedro Feliz, Chan Ho Park, Jason Kendall, Mike Cameron, Jeff Suppan, Carlos Lee, Russ Ortiz - they all get a decisive YES on that question.

It's particularly weakly applied to a left-handed pitcher.
   61. Zach Posted: November 06, 2009 at 03:51 PM (#3380671)
Although "Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?" might benefit players from the current era, I've never understood what good that question does on the list anyway.

It's not useful for every player, but it does help sort out the players who were finished at 32 from the legitimate candidates.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
greenback slays lewks
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - College Football Bowl Spectacular (December 2019 - January 2020)
(28 - 4:35pm, Dec 14)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogMajor League Baseball threatens to create new minor league system - The Boston Globe
(3 - 4:29pm, Dec 14)
Last: Hank Gillette

NewsblogRed Sox, Pitcher Martin Perez Agree To One-Year Deal
(4 - 4:02pm, Dec 14)
Last: Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K

NewsblogRays sign Japanese outfielder Yoshitomo Tsutsugo to two-year deal
(9 - 3:56pm, Dec 14)
Last: Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head

NewsblogVideo: Josh Donaldson Bought His Mom a Maserati After She Quit Smoking on a Bet
(9 - 3:49pm, Dec 14)
Last: Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head

NewsblogThe Pen: What does MLB do next about its inconsistent baseball? A scientist explains
(9 - 2:56pm, Dec 14)
Last: bobm

NewsblogFormer Padres, Giants manager Bochy to manage French team
(45 - 2:49pm, Dec 14)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

NewsblogThe Hall of Fame may have a Harold Baines problem
(196 - 2:42pm, Dec 14)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogFlorida Fire Frogs Mess Comes At Bad Time For MiLB
(7 - 2:30pm, Dec 14)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe Marlins are talking to Yasiel Puig
(2 - 2:08pm, Dec 14)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogGiants change bullpen location, move fences in at Oracle Park
(13 - 1:14pm, Dec 14)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT- Soccer Thread- October 2019
(957 - 1:10pm, Dec 14)
Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle

NewsblogRyan Thibs’ Hall of Fame Tracker
(464 - 10:23am, Dec 14)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogIn appreciation of Brock Holt, whose job with Red Sox might be gone, but whose legacy is secure
(1 - 10:16am, Dec 14)
Last: Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread, Start of the 2019-2020 Season
(1483 - 10:06am, Dec 14)
Last: Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB)

Page rendered in 0.5282 seconds
46 querie(s) executed