David Wells?

[DoubleX]

This isn't to ask if he has a shot at the Hall (because he doesn't really), but does he have a shot at staying on the ballot? In this era where even reaching 200 wins is a difficult rareity, Wells has 227 wins, and could quite well pass 250 with a couple of more seasons. His ERA is a high 4.06, but that is actually a 110 ERA+, almost the same as Tommy John and higher than Jim Kaat. Wells also has a pretty impressive .614 winning percentage.

Anywho, my point is that if guys like John and Kaat could stick on the ballot, I don't see why Wells should not. His win total, while lower than Kaats and Johns, would likely be just as impressive because of the era.

[538280]

I certainly don't support him, but looking at Wells for the first time he wouldn't be such a horrible HOF selection. His won-lost record is certainly HOF caliber. Using Bill James' "Fibonacci Win Points" he introduces in The Politics of Glory, Wells has 223 win points, which is a HOF type total, and when adjusting because pitchers in this era don't win as many games as others, the won-lost record is more than sufficient.

He was not really as effective as the record would suggest, though. The 110 ERA+ falls a bit short for someone in this era with his longevity, and his peak years aren't that great either (only three full seasons ERA+ over 120, one ERA+ over 130).

Despite the lack of great ERAs, I would say they may be good enough given the outstanding W-L record. But, the W-L record, as you probably can guess without me telling you, is more a function of Wells' teammates ability than his own. He received 10% above average support over his career, which means the W-L record is misleading and Wells doesn't belong in.

Will he stay on the ballot? My guess would be yes. Many writers really overrate wins and losses when it comes to pitchers, and Wells is as good there as anyone over the past 15 years.

[ElHalo]

Wells has always been one of my favorite ballplayers, just because his personality is so much better than most players' (seriously, doesn't Wells remind you of every friend you've ever had?). That said, he was really, really not that good of a pitcher to warrant HoF induction.

[Chadwick]

I doubt very much that David Wells will garner the 5% necessary to remain on the ballot. Consider that Wells is extremely likely to become eligible for the BBWAA ballot at the same time as, at least, some of the following (superior) candidates:

Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
Tom Glavine
Kevin Brown
Curt Schilling
Mike Mussina

Plus relievers Rivera, Hoffman and Franco.

Consider the 2007 ballot will have Blyleven, Morris, John, Gossage and Smith already on it, plus freshman Bret Saberhagen (2 Cy Young Awards) and that media favorite David Cone will see his first ballot 2 years later (2009).

If Wells pitches in 2006 and then retires, he'll join the ballot in 2012. It's possible that Blyleven (15th ballot), Gossage (13th), Morris (also 13th), Smith (10th), Hershiser (7th) and maybe even Cone (4th) would still be on the ballot at that time. Most likely is that Blyleven and Gossage get elected before then and that Wells debuts on a ballot where Jack Morris is probably the best-supported starting pitcher. That's if Clemens, Maddux, Johnson or someone else still active isn't on the same ballot.

The more starting pitchers there are on Well's first ballot, the smaller the likelihood of his remaining on the ballot a second year.

Which brings me to the question...should he? IF he's a no-brainer NON-Hall-of-Famer, then what's the point of muddling the discussion of legitimate candidates by throwing in someone who clearly isn't in the group?

[ElHalo]

Consider the 2007 ballot will have Blyleven, Morris, John, Gossage and Smith already on it, plus freshman Bret Saberhagen (2 Cy Young Awards) and that media favorite David Cone will see his first ballot 2 years later (2009).

If Wells pitches in 2006 and then retires, he'll join the ballot in 2012. It's possible that Blyleven (15th ballot), Gossage (13th), Morris (also 13th), Smith (10th), Hershiser (7th) and maybe even Cone (4th) would still be on the ballot at that time. Most likely is that Blyleven and Gossage get elected before then and that Wells debuts on a ballot where Jack Morris is probably the best-supported starting pitcher. That's if Clemens, Maddux, Johnson or someone else still active isn't on the same ballot.

The more starting pitchers there are on Well's first ballot, the smaller the likelihood of his remaining on the ballot a second year.

Which brings me to the question...should he? IF he's a no-brainer NON-Hall-of-Famer, then what's the point of muddling the discussion of legitimate candidates by throwing in someone who clearly isn't in the group?

Wells doesn't make my HoF, but in my view he's probably more deserving than Morris, Hershiser, or Cone. Probably not as deserving as Blyleven (who I honestly don't think will ever make it). If Morris is the best SP on the ballot, then Wells should definitely overtop that.

[cjedmonton]

While I also don't consider Wells to be a HOFer (at least not during his first several years on the ballot), I do think he has had a remarkably underrated career. Although the first half of his career (pre-1995) was pretty innocuous, since then, he has put up some very strong numbers. The W/L record, perfect game, and win total given the era in which he's playing aside, let's not forget that this guy's calling card is his incredible control. In fact, his 61 walks allowed from '03-'05 is the lowest 3 year consecutive total in history among those with at least 175 IP in each of those years (Babe Adams allowed 59 from '19-'21, but only pitched in 160 frames in 1921). In addition, Wells' 665 career walks in 3,206 innings is the 4th lowest total since 1876 among those with 3,000 IP (and 2 of those above him played exclusively in the 19th century, only Lew Burdette has a lower career total than Wells among 20th century folks with at least 3,000 IP).

Many of you have seen my crude evaluation formula in an attempt to rank the greatest lefties since 1900. Through 2005, Wells ranks a very impressive 28th. For comparison sake, here are the 5 southpaws currently above and below him.

#23 Tommy John 612.238
#24 Jim Kaat 604.634
#25 Rube Marquard 591.741
#26 Vida Blue 584.448
#27 Billy Pierce 558.951
#28 David Wells 520.363
#29 Dutch Leonard 505.950
#30 Mike Cuellar 500.250
#31 Frank Tanana 496.848
#32 Dave McNally 481.080
#33 Fernando Valenzuela 479.206

Southpaw Legacy

[Chadwick]

So? Giving up fewer walks doesn't necessarily translate into Hall of Fame votes. Ask Bob Tewksbury.

And I don't consider John, Kaat, Marquard, Blue or Pierce Hall-of-Famers either. Twenty-eighth looks good among left-handed pitchers but is hardly Hall-of-Fame territory unless it's 28th all-time (which Wells is clearly not.)

I say one-and-done.

[cjedmonton]

So? Giving up fewer walks doesn't necessarily translate into Hall of Fame votes. Ask Bob Tewksbury.

And I don't consider John, Kaat, Marquard, Blue or Pierce Hall-of-Famers either. Twenty-eighth looks good among left-handed pitchers but is hardly Hall-of-Fame territory unless it's 28th all-time (which Wells is clearly not.)

I say one-and-done.

If you re-read the very first line to my post, you'd see that I agree that Wells is not a HOFer (unless he really pours it on during his last season or two). At any rate, I wish I had a list of the top 30 career marks for a righty. You would see that Wells' 520 mark is nowhere near the top 30 overall. Since my focus is southpaws, that who I feel most comfortable discussing. 1,900+ lefties have pitched in the majors since 1900, so 28th isn't just good, it's outstanding. In contrast, roughly 5,000 righties have pitched since then, so I would estimate that at least 75 righties have a higher mark than Wells. That would, in all likelihood, put him somewhere close to the top 100 all-time. Not too shabby.

[Cowtipper]

Well, back in 2006, it looked like David Wells wasn't going to be a Hall of Famer. And now, in 2009, it still doesn't look like he's going to be a Hall of Famer. His record of 239-157 isn't that bad, however other counting numbers, like strikeouts, are somewhat lacking, his ERA is too high and his ERA+ is pretty low. I don't think he's a Hall of Famer.

(He is statistically similar to three Hall of Famers: Herb Pennock, Carl Hubbell and Juan Marichal, in that order of similarity, which is pretty impressive).

[Bothrops Atrox]

(He is statistically similar to three Hall of Famers: Herb Pennock, Carl Hubbell and Juan Marichal, in that order of similarity, which is pretty impressive).

Just because his W-L record is similar, does not mean that he is overall, "statisticaly similar."

[jjpm74]

Cone was one and done. The same will happen to Wells.

[Cowtipper]

Just because his W-L record is similar, does not mean that he is overall, "statisticaly similar."

Unless the Similarity Scores at baseball reference compare just their W-L records, then I think they are more similar than just what their records indicate.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Unless the Similarity Scores at baseball reference compare just their W-L records, then I think they are more similar than just what their records indicate.

W-L is the biggest factor, but it also considers number of K's (regardless of era or K-BB ratio), ERA (regardless of era), IP totals (regardless of era), GS (regardless of era). So basicaly it takes a couple of counting stats and non-era, non-park, non-defense adjusted ERA, compares them and gives them a score. Pretty much useless when comparing players real ability. It might show some connection between probablitiy of election, since many voters do not look at context either.

I mean just compare Marichal and Wells. Which do you trust more? Your common sense or this metric? How many slightly above average to good players have to score "closely" to legit HOF guys before you stop looking at Sim. Scores as a good reference? And that is not saying you think Wells is a HOFer, but why even act like they are close to close?

[Paul Wendt]

A group project in this forum, the Collaboration Game version one, selected 500 players in rank order including 141 pitchers. David Wells, Jamie Moyer, and Dennis Martinez are not among them, which puts them all not far outside 125 career starting pitchers from the major leagues.

Another group project, Top 100 Pitchers, selected 200 pitchers in ten "tiers" of twenty. Martinez squeaked into tier six on a tiebreaker; Moyer and Wells are in tier seven. That probably puts them all not far inside 125 career starting pitchers from the major leagues.

The Hall of Fame now recognizes only 56 in that class, including a few who are not put in the top 500 or in tier seven described here. Adding those who are in the BBF Hall of Fame or the Hall of Merit and the probable hall of famers from the Randy Johnson generation makes about 70, or 75 counting all of the actual hall of famers.

None of Martinez, Moyer, and Wells scored a vote for the BBF HOF or the Hall of Merit last year, although there about twenty career starting pitchers from the major leagues in each group of also-rans.

[538280]

I have to disagree with what I said in January 2006, I doubt Wells will make it past the first year. While he does have a pretty good won-lost record that compares well to some HOFers, I still don't think he's viewed by writers as being a particularly special pitcher. He's more viewed as that fat loudmouthed guy. I can't see many writers voting for him, though, who knows, I bet he gets higher than Kevin Brown so I guess that could be higher than 5%. But either way he won't challenge to possibly get in.