Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: If Pitching wins have lost status what stats will replace them as HOF qualifications

  1. #1

    If Pitching wins have lost status what stats will replace them as HOF qualifications

    Since the importance os Starting Pitcher wins is being downplayed today what new statistical standards should replace them as Hall Of Fame qualifications for starters?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by philliesfiend55 View Post
    since the importance os starting pitcher wins is being downplayed today what new statistical standards should replace them as hall of fame qualifications for starters?
    war, whip, era+
    .


    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    12,163
    I think they'll readjust the pitching wins, going to 250 instead of 300. Maybe even in some cases go as low as 200.
    Onward to SunTrust Park!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,675
    Career ERA and strikeouts have always been important, as well.

    I get the idea that people are looking deeper into win totals but the idea that HOF voters are aboard the Brian Kenny Express and will now start looking primarily at WHIP and ERA+ is another example of people thinking that what is valued around here and at Baseball Prospectus enjoys wide and decisive influence in the wider world, which really isn't true. Those things have made inroads (as they should) but they're nowhere near being the gold standard, especially for the HOF voting pool.
    Last edited by Los Bravos; 03-21-2017 at 01:43 PM.
    "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
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    25,824
    Blog Entries
    1
    I do not believe that pitcher wins will ever go away. Fifty years from now if a pitcher has 300 career wins he's going to be elected to the HoF.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Los Bravos View Post
    Career ERA and strikeouts have always been important, as well.

    I get the idea that people are looking deeper into win totals but the idea that HOF voters are aboard the Brian Kenny Express and will now start looking primarily at WHIP and ERA+ is another example of people thinking that what is valued around here and at Baseball Prospectus enjoys wide and decisive influence in the wider world, which really isn't true. Those things have made inroads (as they should) but they're nowhere near being the gold standard, especially for the HOF voting pool.
    W hen they have the HOF discussions at the MLB network WAR, WHIP and ERA+ were all brought up.
    .


    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

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Los Bravos View Post
    Career ERA and strikeouts have always been important, as well.

    I get the idea that people are looking deeper into win totals but the idea that HOF voters are aboard the Brian Kenny Express and will now start looking primarily at WHIP and ERA+ is another example of people thinking that what is valued around here and at Baseball Prospectus enjoys wide and decisive influence in the wider world, which really isn't true. Those things have made inroads (as they should) but they're nowhere near being the gold standard, especially for the HOF voting pool.
    Correctamundo!

    BK is a great illustration. Viewers will notice that his show (MLB Now) is the only one of its kind on MLB Network. Chris Russo has a show, for crying out loud. That average fan's attitudes and opinions are closer to that obnoxious guy than they are to leading sabermetric analysts.
    "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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    W hen they have the HOF discussions at the MLB network WAR, WHIP and ERA+ were all brought up.
    And they're all important. I chose the word "primarily" in my first post for a reason. Those metrics (and any number of others) are part of the composite case but people also look for a set of career numbers that define your bedrock legacy and wins (and winning percentage) are always a part of those and I think they always will be.

    As is so often the case here, what should be and what will be aren't always the same thing. People have woken up to the fact that a W-L record on it's own doesn't tell you as much as it was once thought to but the idea that it's going to be largely shunned as we go forward just seems wholly unlikely, to me.
    "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

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Los Bravos View Post
    And they're all important. I chose the word "primarily" in my first post for a reason. Those metrics (and any number of others) are part of the composite case but people also look for a set of career numbers that define your bedrock legacy and wins (and winning percentage) are always a part of those and I think they always will be.

    As is so often the case here, what should be and what will be aren't always the same thing. People have woken up to the fact that a W-L record on it's own doesn't tell you as much as it was once thought to but the idea that it's going to be largely shunned as we go forward just seems wholly unlikely, to me.
    I think once Felix Hernandez won a Cy Young in 2010 going 13-12 we got to a plateau where other things were more important than W-L record. We may not quite be there yet for HOF voting, but we're heading that way.
    .


    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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,675
    Halladay's case will be a big test of this.
    "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

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sammamish, WA
    Posts
    5,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    I do not believe that pitcher wins will ever go away. Fifty years from now if a pitcher has 300 career wins he's going to be elected to the HoF.
    Hey I don't want some cyborg compiling his way to 300 wins in 50 years.
    “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Walter Lippmann

    "Fill in any figure you want for that boy [Mantle]. Whatever the figure, it's a deal." - Branch Rickey

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    25,824
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by 1905 Giants View Post
    Hey I don't want some cyborg compiling his way to 300 wins in 50 years.
    Well, 300 wins over 50 years is just 6 wins per season so such a pitcher would have to overcome a perceived weak peak.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Los Bravos View Post
    Halladay's case will be a big test of this.
    All the more reason voters should be clearing the table for him (with the election of Schilling, Moose and Hoffman) before his clock starts.
    "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

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,843
    Regarding WAR, ERA+, WHIP, or any derived statistic, I have doubts. Time will tell.

    Bill James had it correct when he mentioned that everything we know in baseball is in a liquid state and changing all the time. Nothing is set in stone over how tomorrow's stars will be valued. As much as I must admit that 300 Wins is unrealistic, I believe that statistics derived from databases might be equally unrealistic.

    Can WAR be simplified so that an 8th grade fan might memorize the formula and doodle with it when bored in school? Runs Created had that going for it, as did other Jamesian ideas of isolated power, Pythagorean projections and even the Favorite Toy to some extent. To this point in time, WAR has had an occasional dispute over its calculation. I seem to remember something to that effect with the Trout vs Cabrera debates of 2012. Here is a link which drives the point home for this fan.

    http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2013/08/17/...omment-page-2/

    To date, I am unconvinced that things have improved, and maybe that is because any improvements on consistent calculation have been kept secret from the average fan. Why in the world would that be? If we are going to believe that anything can replace a stat which has been used in baseball since any debate over Cy Young vs Kid Nichols in the 1890s, then there MUST be agreement over the calculation of that stat. This must hold to the point that an 8th grade fan could memorize how to do it and debate over it with his buds. Otherwise, the lot of us amount to economists predicting the economy.

    I am not debating the value of derived statistics. WAR, ERA+, WHIP, FIP, and Runs Created or anything else from Bill James, and then Linear Weights from John Thorne and Pete Palmer all have merit. I have used them extensively and defend the use of these stats often.

    Elevating anything to replace Wins? No. Will anything replace Wins, well maybe, and then maybe an adjusted Wins standard would be that anyway. There was a time in the 1970s when nobody would lucidly believe that any pitcher would win 300 again. After all, Bob Gibson had retired with 251, so the logic amounted to 'Who else would ever do it'?

    And then, maybe within 30-40 years, we will clear up the disagreements over how to use a calculator/spreadsheet, and use those derived stats after all. Or, we’ll agree on which website is lucid enough consistently enough to use. But first things first, and the credibility of the number(s) cannot be in doubt.
    Catfish Hunter, RIP. Mark Fidrych, RIP. Skip Caray, RIP. Tony Gwynn, #19, RIP

    A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill.

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test first and the lesson later. -- Dan Quisenberry.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,528
    Quote Originally Posted by abolishthedh View Post
    Regarding WAR, ERA+, WHIP, or any derived statistic, I have doubts. .
    ERA+ is just ERA relative to the league run scoring environment. That isn't derived at all. WHIP is less "derived" than slugg%. It is the same level of math as finding batting average and fewer math steps than finding ERA. I am not sure how you are using the term "derived" here. You aren't using "derived" as an adjective describing how difficult it is to understand. And you claimed that you are not questioning the value of said stats in your 5th paragraph. And it can't be ambiguity or fluffiness as both stats tell you precise and accurate numbers as would adding a player's hit totals. So what do you mean by "derived?"

    I may be confused about the sentence - but WAR is a Sean Smith creation and FIP is a Tango creation. WHIP predated Bill James by a lot.

    And WAR is not kept secret from the average fan. Every site that has WAR shows exactly how it is created and has a breakdown for how each player achieved their WAR totals. The fact that some people in 8th grade cannot understand it does not make it any less valid. Being low high school level math (which is what WAR is) might affect its accessibility - but by itself, does not change its reliability or "value". but you already said that you are not disputing WAR's "value."
    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

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,843
    To clarify what I mean by derived, IMHO, I believe that derived stats include any stat which doesn't translate easily to fans with marginal background on baseball into a specific development on the field. My most passionate disagreement is with WAR, and the others might have been lumped in prematurely, but I will try to embellish the point.

    Total Bases can be understood without too much explanation by an 8th grade kid who has just become familiar with baseball, or to someone from another country, or to adults unfamiliar to the game until witnessing the game in person. The same with ERA without any adjustment..... again without too much explanation and given the adult graduated high school, or that the 8th grader will do so. All the old stats have this advantage.... Batting average, slugging average, or the counting stats.

    WAR might be easily translated, since it is just Wins above Average. But the inquisitive mind might still ask how to do it, right there in the stands or on the way home on his phone's calculator, or at home on a PC. This is how the avid fan like ourselves learned the game, and for a stat to be used by the Hall to replace Wins for selection to the Hall, I would expect that level of accessibility.

    No website disagreement, ease of finding how it is done.

    Ease of explanation..... but where is the WAR formula which I might use on my own?
    Catfish Hunter, RIP. Mark Fidrych, RIP. Skip Caray, RIP. Tony Gwynn, #19, RIP

    A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill.

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test first and the lesson later. -- Dan Quisenberry.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,528
    Quote Originally Posted by abolishthedh View Post
    To clarify what I mean by derived, IMHO, I believe that derived stats include any stat which doesn't translate easily to fans with marginal background on baseball into a specific development on the field. My most passionate disagreement is with WAR, and the others might have been lumped in prematurely, but I will try to embellish the point.

    Total Bases can be understood without too much explanation by an 8th grade kid who has just become familiar with baseball, or to someone from another country, or to adults unfamiliar to the game until witnessing the game in person. The same with ERA without any adjustment..... again without too much explanation and given the adult graduated high school, or that the 8th grader will do so. All the old stats have this advantage.... Batting average, slugging average, or the counting stats.
    ?
    ERA+ And WHIP is easier to compute and take fewer steps than slugging%. People are familiar with slugg% because it has been around a long time. .500 means something because of familiarity - not because it is easier for an 8th grader to understand. ERA+ is one division problem (lg ERA/player ERA) and then times the quotient by 100. It is the same number of steps (2) as finding ERA (divide ER by innings and then multiply by .9). It is probably even easier since you could stll get the info you needed without multiplying by 100 to eliminate the decimal.

    I mean WHIP and ERA+ are stats a 4th grader can figure out. I teach 3rd-6th grade math. So I know. If an 8th grader can't figure out a two-step math problem using order of operations and division/mulitplication, this has become a conversation more about education in America than baseball

    Anyway - 8th graders aren't really watching baseball anyway and nobody really uses WHIP anymore anyway.

    BBRef and FG and BBGauge all have WAR explanations on their websites.
    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

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,843
    Again, I must focus on the calculation of WAR, because the changes described in the Baseball-Reference link include the following:

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/ab...xplained.shtml

    I see that it changed four times since May of 2012, and probably because of the Trout vs Cabrera brouhaha. Further, there is a lot of steps listed which might pose as a challenge for 8th grade level math as I would have known it. If this is the level of math you are able to hold up to in your community and school, then that is terrific. It is true that I most definitely do not wish to debate education progress here.
    Catfish Hunter, RIP. Mark Fidrych, RIP. Skip Caray, RIP. Tony Gwynn, #19, RIP

    A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill.

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test first and the lesson later. -- Dan Quisenberry.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    145
    My argument against over-valuing saber-metrics is that a lot of the stats were designed to PREDICT value in the future.

    They should be used by front office analytical groups, but not necessarily HOF/MVP voting committees.

    They were not intended to replace performance measurements like Runs, RBI, and Wins, which measure ACTUAL outcomes.

    In my opinion the good old-fashioned counting stats should always be the primary factor in determining awards. The saber-metrics stats are another tool to look at player value, but the counting stats tell us what ACTUALLY happened on that particular day/year/career

    Should you give a 150-RBI guy with a .300 OBP a 10-year deal? Hell no! But he should get an MVP.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Sabo-metrics View Post
    They were not intended to replace performance measurements like Runs, RBI, and Wins, which measure ACTUAL outcomes.
    So when we have an inning where the leadoff hitter reaches on an error, the next hitter doubles him to third, and after a strikeout the 4th hitter grounds out with a run scoring, followed by a fly out. you're okay with the leadoff hitter getting a run, the 4th hitter getting an RBI, and the guy who really made the inning, the guy who hit the double, not getting any of what you are terming as "value measurements?"

    IMO pitchers should not be credited with wins or losses. Those are team stats.
    .


    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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •