PDA

View Full Version : Will it soon be easier to enter the HOF as a closer than a starter?



2323
10-14-2012, 02:22 PM
It's been hard for closers to enter the HOF for a number of years but now some guys from the 70s and 80s have broken through. Sutter, Eckersley, and Gossage are who immediately come to mind. But now guys are amassing more saves because closers are only pitching one inning and also it's a rarity for starters to go 9. They're not even expected to go 9 anymore like they were back in the day.

The HOF is numbers driven. For years, a deserving Bert Blyleven was denied the Hall because he only had 290 something wins. Now there will be front line starters who will come up for HOF election that are well short of that. And because the Hall is numbers driven and the closers, not the starters, who are racking up numbers relative to previous eras, it seems possible that it will soon be easier to enter the hall of fame as a closer.

Do you think this will be the case? Or do you think the Hall voters will adjust the new benchmark for starters to be 250 or 200 wins?

Nomar
10-14-2012, 06:26 PM
Wins are a stupid stat

nymetsrule
10-14-2012, 06:32 PM
Wins are a stupid stat when you're on a good offensive team. For example, you can't credit the Mets for R.A. Dickey's 20 wins.

Jeffy25
10-14-2012, 06:47 PM
Very very unlikely.

Hoffman might not even get elected, and he probably deserves to be.

There won't be too many closers in Cooperstown

ReJo
10-14-2012, 07:51 PM
Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera are locks

Joemoes
10-14-2012, 07:58 PM
500 or 600 saves will be the criteria essentially.

Joemoes
10-14-2012, 08:02 PM
300 wins will always be an auto vote in barring steroid scandal. 3000 hits also. I see 500 homers being the first tradition broke because of steroid use in baseball

2323
10-14-2012, 08:09 PM
Wins are a stupid stat

That's not being debated.

300 wins has long been a benchmark achievement that guarantees going into the HOF.

abe_froman
10-14-2012, 08:10 PM
no,cumulative stats like wins will fall out of favor as the old timers who havent adjusted to the new metrics start dying off and products of the modern age and the new baselines as their go to stats take over their spots in the voting pool

we'll see a bump in closers as thats become more established role,but the numbers who get in will still be small,but because they flame out faster,their careers are more volatile

metswon69
10-14-2012, 08:10 PM
You'll still see a significant amount of SPs make the hall.

The criteria will change and less value will be put on numbers like "300" because baseball has evolved to the point where that number will be harder and harder to attain.

Other advanced metrics will become more important in determining a pitcher's legacy.

2323
10-14-2012, 08:11 PM
500 or 600 saves will be the criteria essentially.

500-600 saves seems like a more likely accomplishment than 300 wins. A closer only has to get 40 saves for 13 seasons to reach this criteria. Meanwhile, a starter has to average 20 wins for 15 seasons to get 300. 40 saves happens with much greater regularity now than does 20 wins.

metswon69
10-14-2012, 08:11 PM
That's not being debated.

300 wins has long been a benchmark achievement that guarantees going into the HOF.

It won't be anymore.

Refer to my previous post for reasoning :D

Jeffy25
10-14-2012, 08:12 PM
300 wins will always be an auto vote in barring steroid scandal. 3000 hits also. I see 500 homers being the first tradition broke because of steroid use in baseball

3000 hits will no longer be automatic either.


Getting 200 wins soon will be an accomplishment, that is arguably worthy of Cooperstown.

Then again, it's a pointless statistic for any individual pitcher to be measured by.

Jeffy25
10-14-2012, 08:16 PM
500-600 saves seems like a more likely accomplishment than 300 wins. A closer only has to get 40 saves for 13 seasons to reach this criteria. Meanwhile, a starter has to average 20 wins for 15 seasons to get 300. 40 saves happens with much greater regularity now than does 20 wins.

Far more likely

Craig Kimbrel for example, would simply have to play 11 more seasons at his current pace to reach 500 saves

Felix Hernandez, who already has 98 career wins, and has pitched for 8 seasons, needs another 15 seasons at his current pace to reach 300 wins.


200 wins is almost as hard as 500 saves.

2323
10-14-2012, 08:18 PM
You'll still see a significant amount of SPs make the hall.

The criteria will change and less value will be put on numbers like "300" because baseball has evolved to the point where that number will be harder and harder to attain.

Other advanced metrics will become more important in determining a pitcher's legacy.

What about less value being placed on the importance of starters? They pitch once every 5 days. So, right off the bat, a starter is 20% less valuable than they were in a 4 man rotation. And then you add in that even while pitching in 5 man rotations, they still pitch fewer innings.

metswon69
10-14-2012, 08:20 PM
What about less value being placed on the importance of starters? They pitch once every 5 days. So, right off the bat, a starter is 20% less valuable than they were in a 4 man rotation. And then you add in that even while pitching in 5 man rotations, they still pitch fewer innings.

No the criteria of "wins" being one of the benchmarks to determine the quality of a pitcher.

Other stats will begin to show more value much like how they are used in the individual awards for the season.

Pitchers will be voted in by a host of other factors than the "300" win plateau which is becoming harder and harder to attain.

HowFit
10-14-2012, 08:21 PM
Far more likely

Craig Kimbrel for example, would simply have to play 11 more seasons at his current pace to reach 500 saves

Felix Hernandez, who already has 98 career wins, and has pitched for 8 seasons, needs another 15 seasons at his current pace to reach 300 wins.


200 wins is almost as hard as 500 saves.

Kimbrel is unusual tho...

Jeffy25
10-14-2012, 08:22 PM
What about less value being placed on the importance of starters? They pitch once every 5 days. So, right off the bat, a starter is 20% less valuable than they were in a 4 man rotation. And then you add in that even while pitching in 5 man rotations, they still pitch fewer innings.

In 2012, there were 31 pitchers that threw 200 innings

In 2002, there were 42 pitchers that threw 200 innings

In 1992, there were 54 pitchers that threw 200 innings

In 1982, there were 50 pitchers that threw 200 innings

In 1972, there were 52 pitchers that threw 200 innings


It didn't really slow down until the mid 90's, and still, the elite's still pitch over 200 innings every season any way.

The league as a whole will have less players do this, but the best pitchers will continue to do it.

Jeffy25
10-14-2012, 08:24 PM
Kimbrel is unusual tho...

okay, Chris Perez only has to pitch another 12 seasons at his current pace to reach 500 saves.

Chris Perez is no hall of fame closer, and he would reach it at the age of 38

ciaban
10-14-2012, 08:25 PM
Very very unlikely.

Hoffman might not even get elected, and he probably deserves to be.

There won't be too many closers in Cooperstown
i think hoffman has to many saves not to, however, i fear billy wagner will get screwed despite being the best ever.

Far more likely

Craig Kimbrel for example, would simply have to play 11 more seasons at his current pace to reach 500 saves

Felix Hernandez, who already has 98 career wins, and has pitched for 8 seasons, needs another 15 seasons at his current pace to reach 300 wins.


200 wins is almost as hard as 500 saves.

relievers flame out so quickly i really don't think it is, look at rob nen and how his career was cut short due to injury, otherwise we would be talking about him being one of the greatest ever (which he already is) and the carer arc of Frankie Rodriguez, K-Rod was one of the best closer for about 6-7 years, and now is basically a mop up guy

2323
10-14-2012, 08:26 PM
3000 hits will no longer be automatic either.


Getting 200 wins soon will be an accomplishment, that is arguably worthy of Cooperstown.

Then again, it's a pointless statistic for any individual pitcher to be measured by.

While many agree that wins have been an overrated stat, this isn't necessarily also about accepting new age statistics either. Put another way: you don't have to be a sabermetrician to reject wins as a stat. So, people should be careful when assuming that rejecting one stat, will automatically mean embracing another. I think this is where things get interesting in the future.

Another belief that seems to be hardwired into people is the significance of starters in today's game, especially as it relates to the 162 game season, which is where the bulk of statistics are amassed for getting into the HOF. So, if the starters are less impactful, should there really be the same ratio of starters going into the HOF as there have been through the years?

metswon69
10-14-2012, 08:29 PM
Baseball is evolving.

With pitchers going less games and less innings, the criteria has to change with the times.

Great pitchers can still be great without getting to "300" and there will be a host of other measurements to qualify that greatness.

2323
10-14-2012, 08:30 PM
In 2012, there were 31 pitchers that threw 200 innings

In 2002, there were 42 pitchers that threw 200 innings

In 1992, there were 54 pitchers that threw 200 innings

In 1982, there were 50 pitchers that threw 200 innings

In 1972, there were 52 pitchers that threw 200 innings


It didn't really slow down until the mid 90's, and still, the elite's still pitch over 200 innings every season any way.

The league as a whole will have less players do this, but the best pitchers will continue to do it.

You're arbitrarily making 200 innings the number of significance. It's understandable, many people talk in those terms. But if we're having this conversation in 1990 or 1980, is 200 innings as noteworthy? Or is it more like 250 innings?

metswon69
10-14-2012, 08:33 PM
So, people should be careful when assuming that rejecting one stat, will automatically mean embracing another. I think this is where things get interesting in the future.

They will have to.

With guys pitching less games and less innings, the odds of getting to 300 wins in the future decrease greatly.

The game is becoming incredibly more specialized and there is a premium on a pitcher's longevity by not overusing them (that starts in the minor leagues)

You are going to need other statistics/metrics to quantify how good a pitcher is with the number "300" vanishing fast.

It's not that wins are completely irrelevant either btw, it's just the fact they aren't always a great indicator of how well a pitcher pitched that year.

Plenty of guys have gotten with 15 wins with 4+ close to 5 ERAS, that doesn't mean they are good pitchers as much as they get really good run support.

2323
10-14-2012, 08:33 PM
Baseball is evolving.

With pitchers going less games and less innings, the criteria has to change with the times.

Great pitchers can still be great without getting to "300" and there will be a host of other measurements to qualify that greatness.

If it has to change with the times, then shouldn't that also mean acknowledging that starters are less a part of the game than in previous decades? If the game has evolved in such a way where the starters have less of an impact, then shouln't there also be fewer starters entering the hall relative to previous eras?

Jeffy25
10-14-2012, 08:35 PM
While many agree that wins have been an overrated stat, this isn't necessarily also about accepting new age statistics either. Put another way: you don't have to be a sabermetrician to reject wins as a stat. So, people should be careful when assuming that rejecting one stat, will automatically mean embracing another. I think this is where things get interesting in the future.

Another belief that seems to be hardwired into people is the significance of starters in today's game, especially as it relates to the 162 game season, which is where the bulk of statistics are amassed for getting into the HOF. So, if the starters are less impactful, should there really be the same ratio of starters going into the HOF as there have been through the years?

If they can create as much value as their predecessors, yes.


Roy Halladay for example, has created as much career value as Jim Palmer, despite having 69 less career wins and having an ERA .50 higher and 1300 less innings

You can create value without getting as many wins.


Why?

Their career rWAR for example
Palmer - 63.2
Halladay - 63.1

ERA+
Palmer - 125
Halladay - 134

Strike outs
Palmer - 2200
Halladay - 2000

Walks
Palmer - 1300
Halladay - 500

you just have to recreate that value in less chances.

metswon69
10-14-2012, 08:39 PM
If it has to change with the times, then shouldn't that also mean acknowledging that starters are less a part of the game than in previous decades? If the game has evolved in such a way where the starters have less of an impact, then shouln't there also be fewer starters entering the hall relative to previous eras?

No because they still have relevance in an evolved way of evaluating their importance.

Just because a guy got to 300 wins doesn't he was will be more important than a guy who gets 200 Wins in the future.

It's like comparing guys now to when guys hit .400 or had career batting averages of .350 in the earlier 1900s to guys of today.

We know the game has evolved so we qualify greatness differently based on those changes.

metswon69
10-14-2012, 08:43 PM
If they can create as much value as their predecessors, yes.


Roy Halladay for example, has created as much career value as Jim Palmer, despite having 69 less career wins and having an ERA .50 higher and 1300 less innings

You can create value without getting as many wins.


Why?

Their career rWAR for example
Palmer - 63.2
Halladay - 63.1

ERA+
Palmer - 125
Halladay - 134

Strike outs
Palmer - 2200
Halladay - 2000

Walks
Palmer - 1300
Halladay - 500

you just have to recreate that value in less chances.

This..

It's greatness in smaller numbers.

The player is still amazing, it's just things have changed so much around him from the previous eras of baseball that the quantifiers for greatness like "3000" and "300" are no longer as relevant or relevant at all.

Jeffy25
10-14-2012, 08:43 PM
You're arbitrarily making 200 innings the number of significance. It's understandable, many people talk in those terms. But if we're having this conversation in 1990 or 1980, is 200 innings as noteworthy? Or is it more like 250 innings?

Then let's make it 250.

2012 - 0
2002 - 2 (Johnson and Schilling)
1992 - 6 (only Maddux will likely be in the hall one day)
1982 - 13 (several hall of famers, or deserving hall of famers on this list)


So yes, I would agree with this being a better benchmark to clarify your argument with.

In fact, it has only happened 3 times since 2006
Sabathia 08
Halladay 10
Verlander 11

Halladay also did it in 03, and Livan Hernandez did it in 04

So in the last decade, it has been done less than it was done in all of 1992, and totaling 92 and the last decade and it's still less than in 82.

Gotta say I agree with this.


But I don't think it means we will see less hall of fame pitchers. The elite pitchers are still elite comparatively to their era, which is how hall of famers are measured.

We put in about 2 guys per MLB season into Cooperstown. And while there are twice as many position players in the hall of fame as pitchers, I don't see that necessarily changing

Right now, among active players, we probably have about 15ish future hall of famers position players playing in baseball today. And maybe 7ish or so pitchers. Obviously there are some guys that will still break out that we don't know about, or will play a long enough time that we don't know that yet today

But Roy Halladay
Mariano Rivera
C.C. Sabathia
Tim Hudson (if he can pitch into his 40's)
Justin Verlaner
Felix Hernandez


And then you have guys like Strasburg, Cain, Weaver, Haren, Hamels, Greinke and others that we don't know enough about yet. And even guys like Pettitte that could surprise.

2323
10-14-2012, 08:47 PM
If they can create as much value as their predecessors, yes.


Roy Halladay for example, has created as much career value as Jim Palmer, despite having 69 less career wins and having an ERA .50 higher and 1300 less innings

You can create value without getting as many wins.


Why?

Their career rWAR for example
Palmer - 63.2
Halladay - 63.1

ERA+
Palmer - 125
Halladay - 134

Strike outs
Palmer - 2200
Halladay - 2000

Walks
Palmer - 1300
Halladay - 500

you just have to recreate that value in less chances.

I agree that wins are overrated. But what I think is going to happen for a while will be that guys have to be great for a certain period time while having a minimal number of years as a pitcher. I don't think there will be as many Don Suttons getting in by amassing stats by being good for a long time. There's going to need to be a bigger impact than that. I think the significance of wins is going to fade.

Without the traditional benchmarks, like 300 wins, you'll see it being more like other sports where it's a gut feel and people questioning, "when was that guy ever great?". For that reason, it could be much more difficult to get in.

Pinstripe pride
10-15-2012, 09:05 AM
once hoffman and mo get in, yes

ReJo
10-15-2012, 11:37 AM
300 wins will always be an auto vote in barring steroid scandal. 3000 hits also. I see 500 homers being the first tradition broke because of steroid use in baseball

I'm not sure about that either.
Jamie Moyer got awfully close to 300 and he's no hall of famer. It would have gotten him a few more votes if he would have made it but not automatic.

Craig Biggio will test the 3000 hits theory next year. He is very borderline. I think the hits will probably get him in but it may take a few tries

Jeffy25
10-15-2012, 01:17 PM
300 wins will always be an auto vote in barring steroid scandal. 3000 hits also. I see 500 homers being the first tradition broke because of steroid use in baseball

If Jamie Moyer got 300 wins, he would still be no where close to deserving.

Same with Jack Morris, Jim Kaat, Burleigh Grimes, Red Ruffing, and you can add Early Wynn to that list, and he reached 300 wins and is in the hall.

Jeffy25
10-15-2012, 01:22 PM
Craig Biggio will test the 3000 hits theory next year. He is very borderline. I think the hits will probably get him in but it may take a few tries

I think Biggio will get in eventually.


Johnny Damon and Omar Vizquel would have been great tests of 3000 being an automatic, because neither deserves to touch Cooperstown.

2323
10-15-2012, 07:31 PM
No because they still have relevance in an evolved way of evaluating their importance.

Just because a guy got to 300 wins doesn't he was will be more important than a guy who gets 200 Wins in the future.

It's like comparing guys now to when guys hit .400 or had career batting averages of .350 in the earlier 1900s to guys of today.

We know the game has evolved so we qualify greatness differently based on those changes.

You should be more precise in your word useage. When you say "evolve" what you're more accurately referring to is being a contortionist to accommodate a modern player whose significance has been lessened.

metswon69
10-15-2012, 07:49 PM
You should be more precise in your word useage. When you say "evolve" what you're more accurately referring to is being a contortionist to accommodate a modern player whose significance has been lessened.

I think that's pretty precise, the game has evolved over the years.

Pitchers don't pitch nearly as many innings, go as many CG, win as many games in their career (could have something to do with the 100 pitch limit and the fact that these guys make so much money they want to protect their investment but i digress)

Their significance hasn't lessened, it's your opinion of them having changed because they don't do the things previous eras of baseball would have required them to do to get in the HOF.

You're comparing player's greatness when the philosophy of a player's or pitcher's role has changed to an extent.

The game has changed and with that change there are different ways to evaluate how great a player is besides a magic number. The paradigm is now different and the scope in which we evaluate these players is not the same scope used 50 or even 25 years ago.

It's like comparing dead ball era stats to live ball era stats (pre 1920 to post 1920)

The top 5 pitchers with the most wins pitched prior to 1940 and all of them had 360+ career wins.

Do we compare all HOF pitchers to those guys? Because much less would get in if you used that criteria.

hoggin88
10-15-2012, 08:10 PM
Very very unlikely.

Hoffman might not even get elected, and he probably deserves to be.

There won't be too many closers in Cooperstown

Really? I don't see how Hoffman wouldn't get elected.

WOwolfOL
10-15-2012, 09:19 PM
Gonna have to vote by WAR

metswon69
10-15-2012, 11:23 PM
They're are plenty of advanced metrics they can use to distinguish the quality of a pitcher or player's career without hitting those magic numbers.

They do it for individual season awards, they can do it to evaluate a player's career as well.

And for those that don't like it, then blame baseball and blame these organizations that baby especially pitchers to the point where they can't go 250+ innings anymore, have 10-15 CGs, and have limited pitch counts to a 100 for most pitchers.

It's become a cater to a player's type league because these guys are looked at as much as commodities, investments, and merchandising tools as they are baseball players.

That wasn't the case 30 years ago.

You didn't get arbitrary days off, or guys played through nagging injuries more often, relief pitchers amassed over a 100 innings, closers pitched multiple innings, and SP went out there after throwing 130 pitches to pitch their next start without giving them an extra days rest.

That's not baseball anymore.

metswon69
10-15-2012, 11:30 PM
That's why Strasburg was shut down.

He's too important of a commodity to risk losing him to injury again.

These organizations made it this way.

Saying that, these HOF voters understand those circumstances and will evaluate accordingly.