Andy Pettitte

[Philly-brownsfan]

Originally Posted by RuthMayBond

They will investigate him thoroughly . . .
. . . AFTER they vote him in

Pettitte should return to the Yankees and get his 200th Yankee win next season. (He also has 37 wins for Houston). That's something only 2 other Yankee pitchers have done (Ford & Ruffing). He's certain to get his plaque in Yankee Stadium's Monument Park, but regarding getting into Cooperstown, even if he played two more years, finished his career with 250 wins or more and finished at 100 or more games above .500, and all those post-season wins, people will point to a relatively high career ERA and all the run support he got from the Yankees.
It should prove to be a lively debate in future years once Pettitte has retired and his final career numbers have been established.

[DoubleX]

Originally Posted by Philly-brownsfan

Pettitte should return to the Yankees and get his 200th Yankee win next season. (He also has 35 wins for Houston). That's something only 2 other Yankee pitchers have done (Ford & Ruffing). He's certain to get his plaque in Yankee Stadium's Monument Park, but regarding getting into Cooperstown, even if he finished his career with 250 wins or more and 100 or more games above .500, and all those post-season wins, people will point to a relatively high career ERA and all the run support he got from the Yankees.
It should prove to be a lively debate in future years once Pettitte has retired and his final career numbers have been established.

I agree. Pettitte for the Hall is a hot topic right now, but unless he gets close to 300 wins, I think he'll fall short of the Hall for the reasons you mentioned. He'll hang on the ballot though and there will be writers, likely New York based, who will argue that his big game pitching and championships should put him over the top. The interesting thing is that Pettitte really hasn't been that special in the postseason. He's had a ton of opportunities by virtue of playing on lots good teams. and thus has been able to set records have his share of memorable moments, but his 3.90 postseason ERA is right in line with his 3.91 regular season ERA. I think the best way to describe him is that he's a pro, he goes out there and battles, and while he might not be great, you can feel good about him giving his team a chance to win.

[henrich]

Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose

Just like his teams. Blyleven, John, Kaat and Morris can't say as much.

I would vote for Blyleven, John, Kaat and Morris for the Hall. Pettitte is getting closer and he hasn't passed Mussina yet, but I think he will. Someone mentioned Cone earlier and I think he had a similar case to Pettitte currently.

[Los Bravos]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear

Pettitte has a chance to pass Morris by a significant margin. It's possible he'll be in the area of Blyleven, John, and Kaat for wins, but with a much better winning percentage. Hardly chopped liver.

According the the Hall voters, two of those guys are definitively chopped liver and the other one is a bologna sandwich.

Originally Posted by DoubleX

The interesting thing is that Pettitte really hasn't been that special in the postseason. He's had a ton of opportunities by virtue of playing on lots good teams. and thus has been able to set records have his share of memorable moments, but his 3.90 postseason ERA is right in line with his 3.91 regular season ERA.

Bingo. It's very interesting to look at his October record game by game.

[Philly-brownsfan]

Pettitte has threatend to quit the last couple of years.
The IDEA that he wanted to pitch in Old Yankee Stadium's last year made him come back in 2008.
the thought of pitching in New Yankee Stadium's first year made him come back in 2009.
Now he's understandably charged up by pitching for the 2009 World's Champs.
He wants to come back in 2010 to help the Yankees repeat and on a personal level he needs 8 more wins for his 200th win as a Yankee. He'd bE just the third Yankees pitcher to do that.
I don't think he'll hang around long enough to get near Mussina's 270 career wins.
Perhaps the Yankees will sign him for 2010 wih an option year for 2011. That would take Pettitte through his 39th birthday. That's far longer than he intended to pitch a few years ago. Possibly by then his lifetime record for New York and Houston will be 250 to 255 wins and 150 to 155 losses. He's currently at 94 games above .500 at 229-135. If he can climb to 100 wins above .500 and over 250 career wins that would be a strong boost for his Hall Of Fame candidacy. Excepting those with short careers, mOST Pitchers WHOSE WINNING PERCENTAGE IS .625 or more (5 wins for every 8 decisions) make the Hall). Pettitte is currently at .629.
Pettitte's known as a homebody. He's not going to pitch into his mid-40s like Randy Johnson or Nolan Ryan did. He probably won't be around the big leagues in 2012 to celebrate his 40th birthday in uniform.

[Bravesfan1984]

Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose

His winning percentage is a good indicator of what playing for the Yankees all those years does for winning percentages. I don't buy his winning percentage at face value, nor do I think he was a better pitcher than any of the four listed. Better than Brown or Cone? No way. I don't think he's better than Key. As for Wells, maybe. But winning percentage is going to be higher when you pitcher for the Yankees as opposed to the Reds and Tigers.

Agreed the teams he played for have won 90+ games 7 times and 100+ games 5 times while having an era at almost 4.00. He has been made to look better because the teams he has played.

[Bravesfan1984]

Originally Posted by White Knight

With a winning percentage like his, I disagree. What about Mike Mussina? Won't Andy in three years surpass him, if he hasn't already?

Mussina has a lower career era and has not played on great teams like Pettite his whole career. I do not consider Mussina a HOFer either though.

[ol' aches and pains]

Originally Posted by White Knight

This thread totally needs to be reopened, as the poll numbers are way too lopsided.

Since it's up for discussion again, I will reiterate-if Pettite is a HOF'r and Blyleven isn't, there needs to be an investigation.

[dominik]

He would need close to 300 wins. Maybe 280+ at least.

His longevity is impressive, but he never had a HOF peak.

[Los Bravos]

How many votes have been registered since this was bumped and how has the percentage changed? I haven't kept a close watch but I think his approval percentage has slipped just in the last few days.

[cardsfanatic]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear

While this is true now, it's not necessarily going to be the case.

When Gaylord Perry was Andy Pettitte's age, he had one fewer career win than Pettitte does now, and nowhere near the winning pct. Pettitte is a guy who MIGHT win 300. I'm not betting on it, but who was betting on Gaylord Perry the day he won his 200th game?

If Perry hadn't had a big season at age 40, would he be memorable? Or would he be just another Fergie Jenkins? Or, even worse, just another Bert Blyleven?

Pettitte is good enough to where he MIGHT do what Perry did in his late career. It's not likely he will, but it's NEVER likely. The HOF is for those who do the UNLIKELY, and Pettitte still has a chance to do the unlikely.

This post ended up being true, in response to my post. Nearly two years later, I feel differently about Pettite. I think if he hangs around 2-3 more seasons and has 14-15 win seasons -- in otherwords, pushes his record up to 260-270 wins, that he just might be deserving of a call from the HOF.

So, I've changed my mind, essentially. Two years ago I felt he had no chance but now, I think he has a decent shot.

[cardsfanatic]

Originally Posted by Bravesfan1984

Mussina has a lower career era and has not played on great teams like Pettite his whole career. I do not consider Mussina a HOFer either though.

And how do you feel about John Smoltz?

[Los Bravos]

If you're think he'll talk John up, you're barking up the wrong tree. Go have a look in the Smoltz thread and dial back a few pages. In spite of that screen name, he doesn't like Smoltz because John doesn't have enough wins to suit him. Such is the crackerjack analysis we routinely get from him.

Pettitte is perceived (correctly, in my opinion) as a cheater. It's really just that simple. Every other argument that can be mustered for him is overshadowed by that fact. He may eventually become fodder for discussions around here of who should be in and isn't, but he's not sniffing the inside of the Hall absent a real sea change of the voters in the next few years.

[cardsfanatic]

Originally Posted by Los Bravos

If you're think he'll talk John up, you're barking up the wrong tree. Go have a look in the Smoltz thread and dial back a few pages. In spite of that screen name, he doesn't like Smoltz because John doesn't have enough wins to suit him. Such is the crackerjack analysis we routinely get from him.

Yes, heaven forbid the guy be consistent in his views. If he's opposed to Smoltz as well then all that does is bolster my respect for the guy. At least he's fair across the board in his assessments which is more than I can say for most people around here.

The mere thought that because he's a Braves fan he _must_ support Smoltz for the HOF is quite comical to me. Just wait for my thread where I bash all other Cardinal fans that don't support Willie McGee for the Hall. If you are a Cardinal fan you _must_ support McGee through blind homerism. No dissent is allowed!

[Bravesfan1984]

Originally Posted by Los Bravos

If you're think he'll talk John up, you're barking up the wrong tree. Go have a look in the Smoltz thread and dial back a few pages. In spite of that screen name, he doesn't like Smoltz because John doesn't have enough wins to suit him. Such is the crackerjack analysis we routinely get from him.

Pettitte is perceived (correctly, in my opinion) as a cheater. It's really just that simple. Every other argument that can be mustered for him is overshadowed by that fact. He may eventually become fodder for discussions around here of who should be in and isn't, but he's not sniffing the inside of the Hall absent a real sea change of the voters in the next few years.

Where did I say I did not like John Smoltz? I rooted for him while and was glad he was a part of the team. Just because I do not think he is a Hall of Famer does not mean I do not like him.

[Los Bravos]

Okay, fine. You think he's a swell guy. You still have him short of the HOF (which is your right, even though it's a silly position.)

I read his original question to you to be a challenge to you wanting to keep Pettitte out because he assumed you would favor John, solely because of your screen name. Having recently seen your negative assessment of Smoltz's suitability for induction, I just wanted to set him straight.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by cardsfanatic

Yes, heaven forbid the guy be consistent in his views. If he's opposed to Smoltz as well then all that does is bolster my respect for the guy. At least he's fair across the board in his assessments which is more than I can say for most people around here.

The mere thought that because he's a Braves fan he _must_ support Smoltz for the HOF is quite comical to me. Just wait for my thread where I bash all other Cardinal fans that don't support Willie McGee for the Hall. If you are a Cardinal fan you _must_ support McGee through blind homerism. No dissent is allowed!

BravesFan1984 is consistent; he's the ultimate "Small Hall" guy here.

The reason I have problems with "Small Hall" guys is that they propose making the process of HOF enshrinement totally unfair to not only scores of players, but to the FANS of those players.

The HOF has had a de facto standard for enshrinement since the mid-1940s. That standard is this: A player who can claim to have been, at some period of seasons in his career, to have been the best player in his league at his respective position, can expect induction into the HOF. Exceptions to this rule would be guys who played at a time when there was a surplus of talent at a particular position (Earl Averill in the DiMaggio years, Duke Snider in the era of Mantle and Mays).

The HOF has not been "only for the greatest" since the mid-1940s. The HOF hasn't been for only the Ruths and Cobbs and Groves and Spahns snce the forties. The HOF has been for the Earl Averills and Duke Sniders since the forties; it's been for the Elmer Flicks and the Jim Rices (some of them) since the forties. It's a long-term standard. To jack the standard up to where we say "no way" to John Smoltz is not only wholly unfair to John Smoltz, it is unfair to his fans. It is one thing to jack up HOF standards to where we say "No more Frankie Frisch VC selections!". It's quite another to tell guys the equal of Earl Averill and Duke Snider that they're no longer good enough for the HOF.

Guys who would view Jack Morris' induction, or who view Jim Rice's induction as "lowering the HOF standards" just don't understand who the HOF has taken on ROUTINELY since the forties. Those who view the HOF as "only for the greatest" need to think about how they would feel if the criteria for a desired honor were jacked up 7 levels just when it was THEIR turn to be recognized.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

The problem with "small Hall guys" is that you just can't up and change the standards of the Hall once they've been in place for so long and are so well established. Over the years, the voters have made their approximate criteria apparent. Once that's been done, I'm of the opinion that the criteria shouldn't change.

The voters aren't perfect, but they've gotten better, and certainly more consistent. There are a few undeserving players who have slipped in, and there are an even smaller number of true snubs. The lousy selections have largely stopped, and the snubs will probably continue to happen. However, these two small groups of players are what statisticians (in the academic sense, not the baseball sense) call outliers. They're floating in no man's land, apart from the groups of players they've been inappropriately put in. The cluster of Hall of Famers and the cluster of non Hall of Famers are what we should try to fit candidates to at this point.

It's not that hard to see that Smoltz fits into the cluster of HOFers. To exclude him would be to change the standards for induction - there is no real modern precedent for excluding a pitcher with his resume.

Pettitte, on the other hand, is a tougher case to crack. He's had a better career than Catfish Hunter, but didn't peak quite as high. Hunter was also a controversial selection. Pettitte's clearly inferior to Schilling, whose candidacy has (perhaps unfairly) always had its critics. Although Pettitte's relative ERA isn't terrible, his actual ERA would currently be the highest among HOFers. If he retired today, I probably wouldn't vote for him. However, he won't retire today, and I think his fate depends on what he does over the next few years. If his ERA rises above 4.00, his candidacy is probably shot. If he can manage 250 wins and keep his ERA where it is, he'll be a strong candidate. If he gets in and Bert Blyleven doesn't, I'll lose some faith in humanity.

[Paul Wendt]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear

...
The HOF has had a de facto standard for enshrinement since the mid-1940s.
...
The HOF has been for the Earl Averills and Duke Sniders since the forties; it's been for the Elmer Flicks and the Jim Rices (some of them) since the forties. It's a long-term standard.
...
Guys who would view Jack Morris' induction, or who view Jim Rice's induction as "lowering the HOF standards" just don't understand who the HOF has taken on ROUTINELY since the forties.

Right - "some of them".
Wrong - everything else.
That the Hall of Fame recognition has been for some of the Jim Rices belies the "long-term standard" and the "ROUTINE" election since the forties.

[Ace Venom]

My biggest problem when considering Andy Pettitte's candidacy is that there are too many pitchers who are on the outside looking in and that includes closers. Consider the pitchers from this era who will get in way ahead of Pettitte:

Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Tom Glavine
John Smoltz
Mike Mussina
Curt Schilling

And here are some that deserve to get in before Pettitte that aren't on that short list:

Roger Clemens
Bert Blyleven
Carl Mays
Trevor Hoffman
Dan Quisenberry
Mariano Rivera
Lee Smith
John Franco

None of those are in any particular order. However, Pettitte would not be the worst selection. He would be a better choice than fellow 200 game winners Tommy John, Luis Tiant, David Wells, Kenny Rogers, Jamie Moyer, Jack Morris and Jim Kaat, just naming a few examples.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by Ace Venom

Mike Mussina

Moose and Andy are an interesting comparison. Both have the high win/low loss percentage. However, I think if Andy gets to 270, he'll be regarded as the better pitcher. I'm still not sold on Moose going in the HOF. He screwed himself by retiring in his prime (well, 39 is not prime, but he still won 20 games and could have done two or three more years).

[nyykan_t]

Originally Posted by White Knight

Moose and Andy are an interesting comparison. Both have the high win/low loss percentage. However, I think if Andy gets to 270, he'll be regarded as the better pitcher. I'm still not sold on Moose going in the HOF. He screwed himself by retiring in his prime (well, 39 is not prime, but he still won 20 games and could have done two or three more years).

Not if Pettitte's ERA is over 4.00 which is likely when he hangs around long enough to get 270 wins.

Moose did a smart move. Aging pitcher can lose their stuff pretty fast and sudden. 30 wins are still a lots for a 39 years old pitcher. It is not a sure thing that he can get to 300 wins. One bad year can easily pushes his ERA over 3.90. Then suddenly he puts himself in a very bad position. He will be directly compared to Jack Morris. If Jack Morris is outside the Hall, why Moose? I know it is unfair but lots of voters will view it in this way. Even if he gets 300 wins, the ERA may cost him the induction. Not many voters look at ERA+. They will just look at the raw ERA and determine that Moose is not good enough to be inducted.

Now Moose retired after the 20 wins season. Later it will give some imagination to some voters that he is capable to be the next 300 games winners. Also it never hurts when you end your career as a 20 wins pitcher. That will give a good impression to the voters. And his raw ERA is high but still acceptable to HOF standard. His ERA+ looks good too. His decision of retiring actually helps his case.