MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: CTWarrior on January 06, 2015, 01:29:38 PM
-
Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz and Craig Biggio. Good class and will help clear up the ballot for Piazza and maybe Bagwell and Raines next year.
Only major quibble is that I think Schilling > Smoltz.
-
Piazza was the best hitting catcher ever, and one of the best hitters period. I think the whole steroids thing is unfairly tainting him.
-
Johnson and Pedro are no-brainers.
Smoltz belongs in the Hall of Really Good.
Biggio belongs in the Hall of Guys Who Stuck Around Long Enough to Reach a Milestone Number.
-
Piazza was the best hitting catcher ever, and one of the best hitters period. I think the whole steroids thing is unfairly tainting him.
Not sure about unfairly (it's only unfair if he didn't use steroids), but he was up to just shy of 70% will get in next year.
-
Johnson and Pedro, no doubt.
Personally think Smoltz wasn't a first ballot guy.
Piazza will end up like Biggio, both have their question marks, both end up in the Hall.
I always wanted to throw a inside heater at Biggio's ribs.
-
With four going in and Don Mattingly now off the ballot, there is something like 2000 more votes excised for the next few years. Guys like Piazza, Mussina, Shilling and Bagwell are going to get a lot more love in the near future.
-
I know I may be in the minority here, but I actually don't think Pedro is HOF material. Yes he was dominant for 7 years, but does that make him a HOF-er? He won 20 games only twice and only had 219 wins. He at least shouldn't have been a first ballot HOF-er.
I see the standards as being way too easy in today's BB HOF world.
-
I know I may be in the minority here, but I actually don't think Pedro is HOF material. Yes he was dominant for 7 years, but does that make him a HOF-er? He won 20 games only twice and only had 219 wins. He at least shouldn't have been a first ballot HOF-er.
I see the standards as being way too easy in today's BB HOF world.
Pedro Martinez is the most dominating starting pitcher of his generation. He is easily deserving, and IMO more deserving than Randy Johnson (who is also obviously deserving IMO too.)
His career ERA of 2.95 is better than any starting pitcher of the last 30 years except Clayton Kershaw. Johnson's is 3.29. Maddux is 3.15. Furthermore, at his peak, 1997-2003, he was going against the "steroid era" hitters.
Don't go by wins and accumulation stats.
-
Furthermore, at his peak, 1997-2003, he was going against the "steroid era" hitters.
Of course, he may have been a "steroid era" pitcher.
-
Of course, he may have been a "steroid era" pitcher.
I mean, I obviously don't know for sure, but did you ever see a picture of him?
-
I mean, I obviously don't know for sure, but did you ever see a picture of him?
He was super skinny as a young guy. He was only skinny as he got older 8-)
-
Check out Pedro's WHIP from 1997 to 2005. That's first ballot HOF.
And please, please do not ever use wins to evaluate a pitcher.
-
Wins can be a misnomer. Depends a lot on your team, your bullpen, your own offense, etc. Nolan Ryan didn't have the best winning percentage, but I believe he has the worst batting average against in history for a pitcher.
Each year a bunch of guys have more wins than normal because they're getting some obscene run support despite their own crappy ERA, just as there are tough luck guys with a great ERA but no run support.
For Biggio....I don't get too upset about players that pile up numbers over longevity. I think longevity isn't the most important thing, but there is a certain consideration that makes it important in some cases. I wouldn't hold a short career against someone either. Biggio also made the all-star team in three different positions, which isn't the easiest thing to do.
-
Pedro Martinez is the most dominating starting pitcher of his generation. He is easily deserving, and IMO more deserving than Randy Johnson
Oh yea? How many combat kills does Pedro have?
(http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1011193/348oawl_jpg_medium.gif)
-
And please, please do not ever use wins to evaluate a pitcher.
I'm all for using advanced metrics to help evaluate players but as long as wins (and not run differential, cumulative WAR or something else) determine who takes the World Series every year, wins definitely count when evaluating starting pitchers. Nolan Ryan's metrics were really good because when he was "on" he was head and shoulders better than anyone in the game, but he found a way to lose a lot of close games when he wasn't overpowering. I know some say that's all luck and no clutch but I don't for a minute believe it. Given his large sample size there were other factors at work making him almost mediocre in the W/L column whether he pitched for good teams or bad ones.
As for Pedro, he's a well deserved first ballot Hall of Famer.
-
The HOF has always overvalued wins for pitchers. That being said, all 4 guys deserved it.
Schilling, Moose, Bags and Piazza will get in hopefully next year
-
I'm all for using advanced metrics to help evaluate players but as long as wins (and not run differential, cumulative WAR or something else) determine who takes the World Series every year, wins definitely count when evaluating starting pitchers.
The problem with wins in a nutshell...
**Pitcher A goes 5 innings, is up 7-5 when he leaves, and the team goes on to win the game - a win.
**Pitcher B goes 9 innings and loses 1-0 - a loss.
Wins are too heavily dependent on what the pitcher's offense does. Half the game is out of their control. IMO ERA is by far the best way to determine a pitcher's value.
-
For Biggio....I don't get too upset about players that pile up numbers over longevity. I think longevity isn't the most important thing, but there is a certain consideration that makes it important in some cases. I wouldn't hold a short career against someone either. Biggio also made the all-star team in three different positions, which isn't the easiest thing to do.
Biggio never made the All-Star team as an OF, only C and 2B. In fact, he only made 7 All-Star Games over a 20-year career. That means that he for nearly two-thirds of his career, he wasn't one of the 2-3 best players at his position in his league, let alone one of the best players in the game. That's NOT the career of a HOFer. I realize that ASGs are not the be-all, end-in in terms of HOF candidacy but those numbers are very telling.
-
The problem with wins in a nutshell...
**Pitcher A goes 5 innings, is up 7-5 when he leaves, and the team goes on to win the game - a win.
**Pitcher B goes 9 innings and loses 1-0 - a loss.
Wins are too heavily dependent on what the pitcher's offense does. Half the game is out of their control. IMO ERA is by far the best way to determine a pitcher's value.
In 1998, Kevin Tapani won a career-high 19 games while having a the third-worst ERA (4.85) of his 16-year career.
In 2001, Jon Lieber had a 3.80 ERA and won 20 games. In 2002, he had a 3.70 ERA and won 6 games.
The Win stat for pitchers is vastly overrated.
-
The problem with wins in a nutshell...
**Pitcher A goes 5 innings, is up 7-5 when he leaves, and the team goes on to win the game - a win.
**Pitcher B goes 9 innings and loses 1-0 - a loss.
Wins are too heavily dependent on what the pitcher's offense does. Half the game is out of their control. IMO ERA is by far the best way to determine a pitcher's value.
No stat is perfect, they're all "unfair" to a certain extent. Is it more fair to compare a San Diego Padre pitcher to a Colorado Rockies pitcher by ERA or wins? The leading winners in the NL and Al the last five years (including ties) are:
NL - Kershaw (2), Wainwright (2), Zimmerman, Gio Gonzalez, Halladay
AL - Scherzer (2), Weaver (2), Price, Verlander, Kluber, Felix Hernandez.
I know sabermatricians aren't too fond of Weaver (and maybe Gio?) but I think that's a pretty good list. There's a reason why Nolan Ryan was never more than 6 games over .500 in a season (in over 25 years) and that he mirrored his team's record rather than exceeding them. And it wasn't bad luck.
-
I know sabermatricians aren't too fond of Weaver (and maybe Gio?) but I think that's a pretty good list. There's a reason why Nolan Ryan was never more than 6 games over .500 in a season (in over 25 years) and that he mirrored his team's record rather than exceeding them. And it wasn't bad luck.
Isn't this exactly what people are referring to when they say you shouldn't be using Wins to evaluate a pitcher? Wins involve way more team-related variables than simply how good a pitcher is, and as such should not be weighted heavily when comparing pitching stats.
-
The problem with wins in a nutshell...
**Pitcher A goes 5 innings, is up 7-5 when he leaves, and the team goes on to win the game - a win.
**Pitcher B goes 9 innings and loses 1-0 - a loss.
Wins are too heavily dependent on what the pitcher's offense does. Half the game is out of their control. IMO ERA is by far the best way to determine a pitcher's value.
While Wins really aren't reflective of much in today's game they were very reflective historically. In the past, good starting pitchers did not just pitch 5 or 6 innings in a game. 20+ complete games was not an unusual statistic. So Wins DID reflect a pretty accurate value of a pitcher. They were not dependent on the bullpen.
-
No stat is perfect, they're all "unfair" to a certain extent. Is it more fair to compare a San Diego Padre pitcher to a Colorado Rockies pitcher by ERA or wins? The leading winners in the NL and Al the last five years (including ties) are:
NL - Kershaw (2), Wainwright (2), Zimmerman, Gio Gonzalez, Halladay
AL - Scherzer (2), Weaver (2), Price, Verlander, Kluber, Felix Hernandez.
I know sabermatricians aren't too fond of Weaver (and maybe Gio?) but I think that's a pretty good list. There's a reason why Nolan Ryan was never more than 6 games over .500 in a season (in over 25 years) and that he mirrored his team's record rather than exceeding them. And it wasn't bad luck.
I like ERA+, which compares your ERA to league ERA based on ballpark. It allows you to compare pitchers from different ballparks and eras on a level playing field.
Last 5 years Leaders
2014 - AL Chris Sale (178 - which means his ERA adjusted for park is 78% better than league average), NL Clayton Kershaw (197)
2013 - AL Felix Hernandez (176), NL Clayton Kershaw (194)
2012 - AL Justin Verlander (161), NL Clayton Kershaw (150)
2011 - AL Justin Verlander (172), NL Roy Halladay (163)
2010 - AL Clay Buchholz (187), NL Josh Johnson (180)
Normally the leader is a very recognizable star pitcher. 2010 was an oddball year, but Buchholz (17-7, 2.33 174 IP) and Johnson (11-6 2.30 184 IP) didn't throw a ton of innings and did pitch extremely well.
Pedro Martinez from 1997 to 2003 (219, 163, 243, 291, 188, 202, 211) was other-worldly good. Nobody's ever had a 7 year streak like that. And if you take away those 7 years his ERA+ for his career is (122) still better than Nolan Ryan (112), Don Sutton (108) Catfish Hunter (104) and a slew of other Hall of Famers. 154 for his career is best ever for a starting pitcher. Pedro lacks innings of some of those guys, but he is a no-doubt HOFer.
-
Wins are terrible. You might as well put a dunce cap on if you're evaluating pitchers today as your baseball opinion means nothing.
ERA/WHIP are good, fantasy advice, draft on WHIP.
ERA+ is the bee's knees.
-
Wins are terrible. You might as well put a dunce cap on if you're evaluating pitchers today as your baseball opinion means nothing.
ERA/WHIP are good, fantasy advice, draft on WHIP.
ERA+ is the bee's knees.
Like most HOF voters, I use the eye test. And whether or not they could have gotten a fastball by Stan Musial.
-
I like ERA+, which compares your ERA to league ERA based on ballpark. It allows you to compare pitchers from different ballparks and eras on a level playing field.
Last 5 years Leaders
2014 - AL Chris Sale (178 - which means his ERA adjusted for park is 78% better than league average), NL Clayton Kershaw (197)
2013 - AL Felix Hernandez (176), NL Clayton Kershaw (194)
2012 - AL Justin Verlander (161), NL Clayton Kershaw (150)
2011 - AL Justin Verlander (172), NL Roy Halladay (163)
2010 - AL Clay Buchholz (187), NL Josh Johnson (180)
Normally the leader is a very recognizable star pitcher. 2010 was an oddball year, but Buchholz (17-7, 2.33 174 IP) and Johnson (11-6 2.30 184 IP) didn't throw a ton of innings and did pitch extremely well.
Pedro Martinez from 1997 to 2003 (219, 163, 243, 291, 188, 202, 211) was other-worldly good. Nobody's ever had a 7 year streak like that. And if you take away those 7 years his ERA+ for his career is (122) still better than Nolan Ryan (112), Don Sutton (108) Catfish Hunter (104) and a slew of other Hall of Famers. 154 for his career is best ever for a starting pitcher. Pedro lacks innings of some of those guys, but he is a no-doubt HOFer.
He has 500 more innings pitched than Sandy Koufax. Koufax ERA+ is 131.
No one doubt Koufax should be in the Hall of Fame.
-
Like most HOF voters, I use the eye test. And whether or not they could have gotten a fastball by Stan Musial.
Bad test. If The Man was guessing fastball, no pitcher could throw one by him.
-
As a Cleveland Indians fan for for the past 20+ years, I learned to hate Pedro Martinez. And that's why I realize that he's as much of a lock first ballot Hall of Famer as I can recall in a long while.
-
As a Cleveland Indians fan for for the past 20+ years, I learned to hate Pedro Martinez. And that's why I realize that he's as much of a lock first ballot Hall of Famer as I can recall in a long while.
As a Yankee a fan I always knew we get him in the 8th inning. :)
But those first seven innings were always horrendous to watch as I'd always hope we'd get at least one run off of him. A definite first ballot HOF-er.
-
Isn't this exactly what people are referring to when they say you shouldn't be using Wins to evaluate a pitcher? Wins involve way more team-related variables than simply how good a pitcher is, and as such should not be weighted heavily when comparing pitching stats.
This is why I have always felt a pitcher striking out 20 people in a game is a far greater feat than pitching a no hitter....statistically it is overwhelmingly true. It was a good argument here back in the day, most people sided with the no hitter. To me, striking out the hitter is a pitcher one on one (to a small degree a catcher...needs to catch the 3rd strike which is a "normal play").
A no hitter, which happens far more times than a pitcher striking out 20, is a great feat, but requires many more things to happen. You can give up 20 line drive killer balls off the bat in a no hitter, but if they go at people, it's still an out. Yes, on the flip side it is possible to strike out 20 and give 10 runs, too.
I still think a 20 strike out performance is a more impressive feat for a pitcher than a no hitter, because he is doing almost all of it himself.
-
Biggio never made the All-Star team as an OF, only C and 2B. In fact, he only made 7 All-Star Games over a 20-year career. That means that he for nearly two-thirds of his career, he wasn't one of the 2-3 best players at his position in his league, let alone one of the best players in the game. That's NOT the career of a HOFer. I realize that ASGs are not the be-all, end-in in terms of HOF candidacy but those numbers are very telling.
Thank you for the clarification. On the radio on the drive home yesterday they erroneously said made the all stars at three different positions. Not going to look it up, I'll assume you are correct.
-
While Wins really aren't reflective of much in today's game they were very reflective historically. In the past, good starting pitchers did not just pitch 5 or 6 innings in a game. 20+ complete games was not an unusual statistic. So Wins DID reflect a pretty accurate value of a pitcher. They were not dependent on the bullpen.
Exactly. Until 1980 or so -- and even well into the 1990s for the kind of elite pitchers who receive HoF consideration -- wins mattered for just the reasons you state.
Look at the innings pitched and complete game stats by guys like Hunter, Ryan, Perry, Seaver, Jenkins, etc -- not to mention Koufax, Drysdale, Ford and earlier pitchers. These guys rarely went fewer than 7 innings, and quite often went 9. Today's CG leaders have 3 or 4 in a season. Just a generation and a half ago, the good starting pitchers had 3 or 4 CGs every 4-6 weeks!
People talk about milestones that will last forever and they bring up DiMag's streak or Rose's hits, but those have a heck of a lot better chance of being eclipsed than the win, IP and CG stats of the all-time pitching greats. I think it's safe to say no pitcher from here on out will have a 40-win season!
-
This is why I have always felt a pitcher striking out 20 people in a game is a far greater feat than pitching a no hitter....statistically it is overwhelmingly true. It was a good argument here back in the day, most people sided with the no hitter. To me, striking out the hitter is a pitcher one on one (to a small degree a catcher...needs to catch the 3rd strike which is a "normal play").
A no hitter, which happens far more times than a pitcher striking out 20, is a great feat, but requires many more things to happen. You can give up 20 line drive killer balls off the bat in a no hitter, but if they go at people, it's still an out. Yes, on the flip side it is possible to strike out 20 and give 10 runs, too.
I still think a 20 strike out performance is a more impressive feat for a pitcher than a no hitter, because he is doing almost all of it himself.
Absolutely. There have only been five 20K games in baseball history -- two by Clemens, one by Kerry Wood, one by Randy Johnson and one by a 1962 Senators pitcher named Tom Cheney, who fanned 21 in 16 innings of work.
Meanwhile, there have been hundreds of no-hitters.
-
Absolutely. There have only been five 20K games in baseball history -- two by Clemens, one by Kerry Wood, one by Randy Johnson and one by a 1962 Senators pitcher named Tom Cheney, who fanned 21 in 16 innings of work.
Meanwhile, there have been hundreds of no-hitters.
Yup, but go back to that thread here from a few years ago and I'll bet it was 3:1 people thinking the no hitter was harder. Makes no sense to me, but whatever.
-
Did I really read people doubting that Smoltz and Pedro should be in? Yikes!
-
Absolutely. There have only been five 20K games in baseball history -- two by Clemens, one by Kerry Wood, one by Randy Johnson and one by a 1962 Senators pitcher named Tom Cheney, who fanned 21 in 16 innings of work.
Meanwhile, there have been hundreds of no-hitters.
I find the celebration with no hitters interesting. Perfect games I understand, but why is it celebrated and remembered forever to allow 3 walks and no hits in a complete game shutout but not no walks and 1 single? I would argue that the guy who threw a one-hitter with no walks pitched a better game than the guy who threw a no-hitter with 3 walks.
At the dawn of baseball, walks counted as hits. If that were still the case, only perfect games would be celebrated.
-
I find the celebration with no hitters interesting.
No hitters are celebrated for a week or so, at most. There were 5 no-hitters in MLB last year, and even the most die-hard of fans couldn't name 3/5.
-
My favorite no-hitter was the one pitched by Minnesota's Scott Erickson early in the 1994 season.
In each of the previous two seasons, he had allowed the most hits in the majors. So here you had the Most Hittable Pitcher In Baseball throwing a no-hitter. It underscores what most of us love about sports so much: We might think we know what's gonna happen, but we don't!
-
Sigh. I miss the old days when you judged hitters by BA/HRs/RBIs and pitchers by Wins/ERA.
WHIP, WAR, etc? Not interested. Guess that makes me a dinosaur.
-
My favorite no-hitter was the one pitched my Minnesota's Scott Erickson early in the 1994 season.
In 2010, the certain first-ballot HOFer Edwin Jackson had a no-hitter where he walked 8 and hit a batter.
-
Sigh. I miss the old days when you judged hitters by BA/HRs/RBIs and pitchers by Wins/ERA.
WHIP, WAR, etc? Not interested. Guess that makes me a dinosaur.
If you don't like WHIP and WAR, and other advanced metrics, I understand.
But use OBP or Slugging Percentage instead of batting average. (Adding the two together gives you OPS.) Use ERA for pitchers instead of wins.
All three are easy to calculate and easy to understand.
-
Sigh. I miss the old days when you judged hitters by BA/HRs/RBIs and pitchers by Wins/ERA.
WHIP, WAR, etc? Not interested. Guess that makes me a dinosaur.
I like the new analytical thinking and stats (not sold on WAR, because I don't think the defensive portion is necessarily accurate), but I agree with you in a sense.
Seeing a batter with
.320 39 126
as he strides to the plate late in the season on a TV broadcast or a pitcher with
21-8 2.84
flashing on the screen while he warms up to start a game evokes something wonderful to me. Guys with numbers like that are unimpeachable stars even if the numbers were juiced by playing in Wrigley or Fenway for hitters and Dodger Stadium or the Astrodome for pitchers.
-
No hitters are celebrated for a week or so, at most. There were 5 no-hitters in MLB last year, and even the most die-hard of fans couldn't name 3/5.
Without looking - Combined Philly no hitter, Kershaw, Beckett, Zimmerman and MadBum?
-
Piazza was the best hitting catcher ever, and one of the best hitters period. I think the whole steroids thing is unfairly tainting him.
Man, 100 times out of 100 you take Pudge Rod over Piazza.
-
Without looking - Combined Philly no hitter, Kershaw, Beckett, Zimmerman and MadBum?
4 of 5 - you beat the challenge. Not MadBum, but a pitcher who was one - Tim Lincecum.
-
Tim Lincecum.
Hey, he's a Bellevue guy!
-
I miss the old days, too. Players strike out way too much these days. It's one thing for power hitters to K a lot, but now you have guys like Rickie Weeks and others of his ilk, who rationalize their high K rate, for the occasional power they provide. Just put the ball in play.
-
I miss the old days, too. Players strike out way too much these days. It's one thing for power hitters to K a lot, but now you have guys like Rickie Weeks and others of his ilk, who rationalize their high K rate, for the occasional power they provide. Just put the ball in play.
Things are different and it ain't just hitters. In 1965 and 1966, Koufax and Drysdale teamed up for 84 complete games.
Of course they were both out of baseball at a relatively young age.