Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: How should the a HOF standard change with the new pitching use?

  1. #1

    How should the a HOF standard change with the new pitching use?

    This is both for relievers and starters.

    Starters: they are still the most important pitcher going 2/3rd of the innings but it is pretty normal that they only go 6 in these days. That will cut into wins but also other counting stats like IP or WAR. That means compared to old starters they are at a disadvantage.

    Relievers: an individual reliever will only pitch like 5% of a teams innings compared to like 15% for a 200 IP starter so I think only very limited relievers should make the hall but still relievers gained importance at the cost of starters. I think 500 SV guys will always make it but what is if more teams shift to a "bullpen ace" instead of a closer for their best reliever? Few teams still do it but with Andrew miller and Chris devenski we have to currently very successful examples of bullpen aces that rarely come in in the 9th but usually like in the 7th and often go more than one inning. I don't think miller will make the hall due to his late start but what is when someone pitche like him in that role for 15 years? By WAR miller is just as valuable as chapman (like 2-3 a year) but he won't get the save numbers.

    We obviously can't just stop putting pitchers in the hall as historically about one third of the HOFers are pitchers, so for every two position players one pitcher must be inducted and by the current standard I just don't see the guys for that. Hoffman will make it next year but after that the 500 SV guys are gone. Maybe Mussina and Schilling (whatever you think of him off the field) will make it but who of the generation after them? There won't be any 4000IP pitchers let alone 300 win guys and even 3000/200 is getting much rarer. And on the closer side there might not come any 500 SV guys soon.

    So for the plethora of position players that will make the hall in the next 10 years who will be the filling pitchers? Or will they maybe even drop the percentage of pitchers because the influence of the individual pitcher went down and now is more distributed on more shoulders?
    I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,705
    It may just be me, but I have no problems putting in many fewer pitchers in the HOF. If they are having less impact than in previous generations, I say leave them out.
    "If on-base percentage is so important, then why don't they put it on the scoreboard?" -Jeff Francoeur"

    Play the Who am I? game in trivia and you can make this signature line yours for three days (baseball signatures only!)


    Go here for all your 1920's/1930's OF info

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,925
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by dominik View Post
    This is both for relievers and starters.

    Starters: they are still the most important pitcher going 2/3rd of the innings but it is pretty normal that they only go 6 in these days. That will cut into wins but also other counting stats like IP or WAR. That means compared to old starters they are at a disadvantage.

    Relievers: an individual reliever will only pitch like 5% of a teams innings compared to like 15% for a 200 IP starter so I think only very limited relievers should make the hall but still relievers gained importance at the cost of starters. I think 500 SV guys will always make it but what is if more teams shift to a "bullpen ace" instead of a closer for their best reliever? Few teams still do it but with Andrew miller and Chris devenski we have to currently very successful examples of bullpen aces that rarely come in in the 9th but usually like in the 7th and often go more than one inning. I don't think miller will make the hall due to his late start but what is when someone pitche like him in that role for 15 years? By WAR miller is just as valuable as chapman (like 2-3 a year) but he won't get the save numbers.

    We obviously can't just stop putting pitchers in the hall as historically about one third of the HOFers are pitchers, so for every two position players one pitcher must be inducted and by the current standard I just don't see the guys for that. Hoffman will make it next year but after that the 500 SV guys are gone. Maybe Mussina and Schilling (whatever you think of him off the field) will make it but who of the generation after them? There won't be any 4000IP pitchers let alone 300 win guys and even 3000/200 is getting much rarer. And on the closer side there might not come any 500 SV guys soon.

    So for the plethora of position players that will make the hall in the next 10 years who will be the filling pitchers? Or will they maybe even drop the percentage of pitchers because the influence of the individual pitcher went down and now is more distributed on more shoulders?
    Excluding the pre modern distance guys, who really are unique due to the different rules they worked under, this is a common problem in baseball history, as pitching loads have generally decreased over time, the one notable exception probably being that late 1960's slide in offense allowing more innings. Regardless, if our peaks are determined by WAA and the career marks by WAR, we have a workable framework that covers pitchers since the modern distance was established. Guys in high IP environments have tended not to go as all out every pitch in order to make those innings totals. Guys in lower IP environments are in that sitation because there's a greater need to go all out every pitch. When you use WAA for peak, they tend to wind up in close proximity.

    For relievers, we have to use the current crop to come close to setting our standard, though we can certainly debate whether Sutter does or doesn't belong based on his peak. There's so few that if we exclude more than one, it's hard to say what the standards are for that group.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  4. #4
    They need to get past the idea that 300 wins is a de facto minimum requirement for starters. They'll waive that for guys like Pedro but it still seems to be in effect for others, most notably Mussina.
    "It's like watching a Western. It's slow, so you can watch the chess moves. Nothing seems to happen, but when it goes down, it goes down big." - Howard Bryant

    3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post
    It may just be me, but I have no problems putting in many fewer pitchers in the HOF. If they are having less impact than in previous generations, I say leave them out.
    You could argue that too. Pitcher is by far the most important position (per game a clayton kershaw is like 3 times more valuable than a hitter like ted williams) but since he only pitches every 5 days his overall importance including defense is actually slightly less than a full time position player.

    So to close that gap for only pitching every 5 days a pitcher has to pitch a lot to equal the hitter. Thus pitchers are almost 50% of the roster but only 30% of the hall of famers, that means there is no guarantee that pitchers get inducted according to their overall prevalence in baseball and maybe if pitchers pitch less that old 2:1 ratio is not suitable anymore.

    Not sure what a good new ratio would be, maybe it would be 1:2.5 or even 1:3, but you certainly can't put just guys like pedro or maddux in when guys like ichiro and beltre will get 90% on first ballot.
    I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post
    It may just be me, but I have no problems putting in many fewer pitchers in the HOF. If they are having less impact than in previous generations, I say leave them out.
    I disagree. You end up punishing the very best starters of entire eras because of manager choices and game paradigms - not because of anything they control.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    I disagree. You end up punishing the very best starters of entire eras because of manager choices and game paradigms - not because of anything they control.
    No player can control how much playing time he gets.
    .


    19th Century League Champion
    1900s League Champion
    1910s League Champion

    1930s League Division Winner
    1950s League Champion
    1960 Strat-O-Matic League Regular Season Winner
    1960s League Division Winner
    1970s League Champion
    1971 Strat-O-Matic League Runner Up
    1980s League Champion
    All Time Greats League Champion

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    I disagree. You end up punishing the very best starters of entire eras because of manager choices and game paradigms - not because of anything they control.
    what is when in the future there are no starters anymore and kind of tandems or another relief after 4-5 model would be used? I'm not saying it is the pitchers fault but it also isn't the DHs fault that the DH is used and many voters still don't like to vote for DHs. I think you have a point but a voter could also say "I don't know if he would held up pitching 250+ IP every year" and look at what guys have actually done.

    I'm not saying the starter has become a DH but he has given up pitching value to other arms and will continue to do so in the near future unless there are dramatic rule changes.
    I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    No player can control how much playing time he gets.
    yes, but I still think it is slightly different whether he at least has the chance to or not. for example if a player gets DHed it might be an unfair decision of the manager because he may have been able to play a position in the field but at least there is a chance he could have played another position.

    but no pitcher no matter how durable will be allowed to throw 300 IP because of the era he plays in. now many pitchers might actually benefit from that (maybe pedro would have been fernando valenzuela or even dwight gooden had he pitched 15 years earlier) but there are also guys who might have been as durable as the old guys but never allowed to show it.
    I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by dominik View Post
    yes, but I still think it is slightly different whether he at least has the chance to or not. for example if a player gets DHed it might be an unfair decision of the manager because he may have been able to play a position in the field but at least there is a chance he could have played another position.

    but no pitcher no matter how durable will be allowed to throw 300 IP because of the era he plays in. now many pitchers might actually benefit from that (maybe pedro would have been fernando valenzuela or even dwight gooden had he pitched 15 years earlier) but there are also guys who might have been as durable as the old guys but never allowed to show it.
    Tough titties.
    .


    19th Century League Champion
    1900s League Champion
    1910s League Champion

    1930s League Division Winner
    1950s League Champion
    1960 Strat-O-Matic League Regular Season Winner
    1960s League Division Winner
    1970s League Champion
    1971 Strat-O-Matic League Runner Up
    1980s League Champion
    All Time Greats League Champion

  11. #11
    Still looking for the magic bullet for my own pitcher rankings. Adjusting for usage patterns is one thing. Adjusting for rule changes (pre-1893 in particular) is nigh impossible.
    "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
    "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
    "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
    "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Chadwick View Post
    Still looking for the magic bullet for my own pitcher rankings. Adjusting for usage patterns is one thing. Adjusting for rule changes (pre-1893 in particular) is nigh impossible.
    most people rank 19th century players separately I think.
    I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,742
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    No player can control how much playing time he gets.
    But now players are being kept from large amounts playing time that is preventing them from being compared to previous players. To GREAT degrees. And if you have proof that an able player was prevented from playing for some reason (bonus baby rules, blocked by a great player, ec.) then that SHOULD be included in their HOF analysis too. Your fact does not change the big-picture point.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,742
    Quote Originally Posted by dominik View Post
    what is when in the future there are no starters anymore and kind of tandems or another relief after 4-5 model would be used? I'm not saying it is the pitchers fault but it also isn't the DHs fault that the DH is used and many voters still don't like to vote for DHs. I think you have a point but a voter could also say "I don't know if he would held up pitching 250+ IP every year" and look at what guys have actually done.

    I'm not saying the starter has become a DH but he has given up pitching value to other arms and will continue to do so in the near future unless there are dramatic rule changes.
    Relievers make the HOF now. We would still need to compare pitchers to their peers given their responsibilities.

    Unless you want to never have pitchers in the HOF ever again and I don't think nobody actually believes that.
    Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 05-19-2017 at 07:07 AM.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    I disagree. You end up punishing the very best starters of entire eras because of manager choices and game paradigms - not because of anything they control.
    Is it any different than when good pitchers are placed in the bullpen due to management? Perhaps some could have been amazing starters. We'll never know, and sometimes baseball/life isn't fair.

    Maybe the guys who could have been low end HOFers are pushed out, and medium level HOFers are pushed down to low end HOFers...sometimes those are the breaks. Look at some of the powerful men who played in the 1900's/1910's. Probably some of them would have been Hall of Famers if they could hit homers post 1920. But they didn't play in that era, and their skills couldn't shine. Pitchers today might be facing the same paradigm.
    Last edited by Toledo Inquisition; 05-19-2017 at 07:29 AM.
    "If on-base percentage is so important, then why don't they put it on the scoreboard?" -Jeff Francoeur"

    Play the Who am I? game in trivia and you can make this signature line yours for three days (baseball signatures only!)


    Go here for all your 1920's/1930's OF info

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post
    Is it any different than when good pitchers are placed in the bullpen due to management? Perhaps some could have been amazing starters. We'll never know, and sometimes baseball/life isn't fair.

    Maybe the guys who could have been low end HOFers are pushed out, and medium level HOFers are pushed down to low end HOFers...sometimes those are the breaks. Look at some of the powerful men who played in the 1900's/1910's. Probably some of them would have been Hall of Famers if they could hit homers post 1920. But they didn't play in that era, and their skills couldn't shine. Pitchers today might be facing the same paradigm.
    There is clear nuance and common sense to be had here. Pedantics and hypotheticals are getting n the way of big picture points.

    Nobody here lessens the stature of 300 IP guys because they didn't match the IP numbers of the 500 IP 19th century guys and VERY few (and with only mild zealousness) dock Clemens and Maddux and Johnson for only throwing 240 instead of 300. People seem to understand why. But now that Kershaw caps out at 210-220, people are moving the discussion goalposts.

    Is there a point in which IP totals become so low that we can talk about it? Sure - it will be an interesting debate. But we shouldn't be at that point for the Greinke's and CCs and King Felix's of the world already. But that and the correlated lack of wins, is what will in effect keep them out of the real HOF.

    Just my opinion. I know some will disagree, and I see their points. Not really in the mood to argue this point going forward.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •