HOF Pitchers: Past, Present and Future
dallasactuary
Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
What makes a pitcher good enough for the HOF?
To answer that I looked at the pitchers actually in the HOF to see what standards they set, which pitchers who also met those standards had been excluded, and which pitchers who aren't yet eligible meet those standards. I did NOT try to identify any "one off" standards - the particular set of circumstances that may have allowed one specific pitcher to get in - but in looking at what I did look at, I'm pretty sure that all the fluke HOF members are just that - flukes.
And in looking at standards, I only looked at one thing - earned runs allowed - although I looked at it from a variety of perspectives. Not allowing runs is the only task a pitcher is charged with, and the HOF, perhaps surprisingly, has let people in on pretty much only that standard.
I looked at earned runs allowed in five ways, all of them related to how many earned runs a pitcher allowed in relation to an average pitcher. Over the course of a given season, a good pitcher will allow about 10 fewer earned runs than an average pitcher, a very good pitcher 20 runs, a great pitcher 30 runs, and phenomenal pithcers 40+. For each HOF pitcher, I measured:
1. Career runs allowed less than average (RALTA)
2. RALTA for the "meat" of a pitcher's career. Here, I simply lopped off seasons at the beginning and the end of a player's career if it helped that pitcher.
3. RALTA for the pitcher's best three seasons
4. RALTA for the pitcher's best five seasons
5. The number of seasons the pitcher had a RALTA of 30 or more
#1 and #2 measure career value, #3 and #4 measure peak value, and #5 measures consistency.
The HOF standards that I found were as follows:
To be in the top 10 of the HOF requires a career RALTA of 329, "meat" RALTA of 361, top 3 of 155, top 5 of 220 and at least 5 30+ seasons.
To be in the top 50% of the HOF requires a career RALTA of 246, "meat" RALTA of 257, top 3 of 123, top 5 of 178 and at least 4 30+ seasons.
To be in the top 80% of the HOF requires a career RALTA of 170, "meat" RALTA of 190, top 3 of 101, top 5 of 139 and at least 3 30+ seasons.
For context, the only pitchers who meet the top 10 in all five categories are Young, Johnson, Grove and Alexander. They are the cream of the HOF.
The other pitchers who meet the top 50% in every category are Mathewson, Vance, Newhouser, Hubbell, Seaver, Walsh, Feller, Carlton, Gibson, Marichal, Palmer, Coveleski, Brown, Niekro and Perry. This is the group who, if we ever got the chance to weed out the pitchers who might not belong, would still be standing by any reasonable standard.
The only pitchers who fail to meet even one of the top 80% standards are Gossage, Sutter and Fingers (but not Wilhelm or Eckersley) out of the bullpen, and Chesbro, Hunter, Haines, Marquard and Bender among the starters. We can agree to disagree on whether these relievers have accomplished something worthy of the HOF, but the starters on this list are the dregs of the HOF - no question worth discussing about it.
Which pitchers who meet the top 80% requirements in every category did NOT get in? Of those no longer being considered, it's a short list: Harder, Saberhagen, Cicotte, Pierce, and Finley. None of these are stellar candidates, but neither would they have been completely out of place in the HOF.
A few pitchers meet the minimum requirements, but aren't stellar candidates either, who will be coming up in five years or less: Mike Mussina and Tom Glavine.
Then there's the group who will be coming up in five years or less who not only meet all the minimum standards, they meet the top 50% standard in every category: Kevin Brown and Curt Schilling. Just to make it perfectly clear, Brown and Schilling are better than MOST HOF pitchers at not allowing runs to score, which is to say they are better at pitching. Also in this group, but already eligible, are Bert Blyleven and Dave Stieb - they, too, were better pitchers than MOST HOFers. It is possible that NONE of these pitchrs will make the HOF,and there is no compelling reason why ALL of these pitchrs should not be in the HOF.
Finally, there's the tsunami of phenomenal pitchers that will come up for a vote in the near future. Clemens, Maddux, Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson not only meet the top 50% standard in every category - they meet the Top 10 standard in every category. For example, in career RALTA Clemens is #2, behind only Young; Maddux, Johnson and Martinez would be #4, #5 and #6. It has been lost in the surge in home runs and runs scored generally, that we have just witnessed the greatest four pitchers to pitch at the same time in history.
Some other interesting tidbits:
1. I looked at a LOT of other pitchers and if I haven't mentioned them then they weren't really HOF material. Among these were Jim Kaat and Jack Morris who would be planted firmly in the bottom 20% of the HOF among the other flukes if they got in. Yes, they were better than Rube Marquard but so was Frank Tanana (by a mile) and so was Doyle Alexander. Tanana was better than Morris, too, and none of these guys belongs within a mile of the HOF. {Of the names just tossed around, Kaat is by far the best - he can get within 100 yards of the HOF.}
2. Nolan Ryan does not meet the top 50% standard in any category, and he only meets the top 80% standard in the two career measures. I'm glad Ryan is in the HOF, but he was not as good a pitcher as most other HOFers. He's as good an example of a "one off" HOF pitcher as anyone.
3. Of pitchers still pitching in their primes, Santana, Oswalt and Halladay have already met the top 50% peak standards and are approaching the top 50% career standards.
4. Andy Pettitte meets a couple of the top 80% standards, but that's it. I thought he would do better.
5. Mariano Rivera has met the career top 50% standards. He will be the third deserving relief pitcher in the HOF when he gets there.
Not that I expect anyone will read the whole list of pitchers I looked at, but here it is. If you want to know how one or two others fared against the HOF standards, you can look them up. If a pitcher you think is deserving isn't on this list, you are delusional.
Name Career Meat Top 3 Top 5 Great Seasons
Young 814 817 223 365 14
W. Johnson 663 675 206 311 10
Grove 643 648 218 334 13
GC Alexander 516 525 163 248 7
Seaver 415 415 145 221 7
Mathewson 401 444 153 240 9
Feller 361 361 155 217 5
Hubbell 353 374 161 228 4
Gibson 344 372 146 216 6
Spahn 329 377 129 178 2
Palmer 320 337 130 194 6
Perry 318 350 128 182 4
Ford 316 316 113 170 4
Niekro 306 341 125 185 4
Lyons 303 327 113 171 4
Newhouser 302 310 162 234 5
Wilhelm 289 293 86 130 1
Carlton 282 338 155 217 4
M. Brown 279 284 129 188 4
Walsh 274 277 140 220 5
Faber 271 271 141 178 2
Vance 266 287 180 236 4
Coveleski 266 291 123 188 6
Plank 261 261 88 134 2
Marichal 256 272 147 207 4
Jenkins 251 261 107 158 2
Waddell 246 250 137 188 3
Rixey 235 235 101 146 3
Roberts 234 251 135 198 4
Gomez 232 253 156 212 4
Drysdale 231 239 107 157 3
Koufax 220 225 139 198 4
Ryan 217 227 91 137 1
McGinnity 206 227 146 200 4
Willis 205 214 140 197 3
Eckersley 202 202 101 141 2
Dean 200 209 121 167 2
Lemon 195 211 105 162 3
Bunning 193 257 113 175 4
Hoyt 172 186 95 137 2
Ruffing 170 240 112 166 3
Gossage 155 187 91 127 2
Sutton 152 190 101 139 3
Grimes 120 165 117 172 3
Wynn 117 165 105 155 2
Sutter 117 130 85 110 1
Fingers 107 121 57 77 0
Haines 105 109 85 112 1
Bender 97 125 67 95 0
Chesbro 89 133 96 127 1
Pennock 80 165 110 151 2
Hunter 56 116 98 121 2
Marquard 33 74 79 106 0
Clemens 728 728 183 286 12
Maddux 559 597 175 276 10
R. Johnson 544 556 190 304 10
P. Martinez 490 507 211 313 7
Schilling 344 356 127 197 6
Smoltz 331 344 103 156 3
Mussina 328 328 113 177 5
Blyleven 325 360 124 193 5
K. Brown 319 337 146 221 6
Glavine 306 353 117 181 6
Rivera 258 265 83 129 1
Stieb 247 263 132 198 4
Saberhagen 245 248 118 174 3
Pierce 231 246 116 169 3
Cone 229 269 111 167 3
Finley 203 221 108 156 3
Luque 200 213 136 167 2
Quinn 199 200 83 123 0
Cicotte 193 195 130 170 3
Tiant 184 206 100 149 2
Harder 183 231 134 186 3
Reuschel 183 187 97 138 1
John 182 222 84 115 1
Cooper 176 190 82 125 1
Guidry 168 172 118 152 2
L. Jackson 158 166 75 110 1
Koosman 146 152 94 137 2
Simmons 142 188 91 136 1
Hershiser 141 176 102 148 3
Hoffman 136 136 52 77 0
L. Smith 135 139 54 78 0
Kaat 129 182 84 132 0
Wood 128 176 114 149 1
Chance 128 139 93 120 1
Wells 123 148 76 112 0
K. Rogers 119 143 95 134 2
Newcombe 119 129 78 119 0
Pappas 118 129 66 100 0
Gooden 117 131 104 133 1
Blue 114 142 106 139 2
Newsom 110 120 127 161 2
Derringer 108 120 79 107 1
S. McDowell 106 158 108 150 3
Hough 104 128 71 112 0
D. Martinez 101 125 89 134 2
M. Stottlemyre 101 101 65 94 0
Friend 100 146 83 119 0
Tanana 99 130 91 125 1
Moyer 99 154 82 124 0
Powell 90 90 79 106 1
M. Marshall 88 105 73 112 0
Morris 78 137 75 119 0
J. Perry 78 98 71 108 0
Lolich 63 70 74 91 1
Sam Jones 62 78 80 101 1
Osteen 52 73 58 80 0
Face 47 77 44 61 0
Podres 45 74 66 78 1
Valenzuela 41 96 69 93 1
D. Alexander 40 72 82 103 1
Dauss 27 29 57 72 0
Mullin 16 27 50 68 0
Whitehill 5 67 64 84 0
Reuss -5 88 70 97 0
Burdette -32 43 67 82 0
J. Niekro -39 20 51 67 0
Santana 237 250 142 208 4
Oswalt 222 222 134 186 4
Halladay 219 240 130 195 5
Hudson 207 207 108 151 2
Pettitte 195 197 116 133 2
To answer that I looked at the pitchers actually in the HOF to see what standards they set, which pitchers who also met those standards had been excluded, and which pitchers who aren't yet eligible meet those standards. I did NOT try to identify any "one off" standards - the particular set of circumstances that may have allowed one specific pitcher to get in - but in looking at what I did look at, I'm pretty sure that all the fluke HOF members are just that - flukes.
And in looking at standards, I only looked at one thing - earned runs allowed - although I looked at it from a variety of perspectives. Not allowing runs is the only task a pitcher is charged with, and the HOF, perhaps surprisingly, has let people in on pretty much only that standard.
I looked at earned runs allowed in five ways, all of them related to how many earned runs a pitcher allowed in relation to an average pitcher. Over the course of a given season, a good pitcher will allow about 10 fewer earned runs than an average pitcher, a very good pitcher 20 runs, a great pitcher 30 runs, and phenomenal pithcers 40+. For each HOF pitcher, I measured:
1. Career runs allowed less than average (RALTA)
2. RALTA for the "meat" of a pitcher's career. Here, I simply lopped off seasons at the beginning and the end of a player's career if it helped that pitcher.
3. RALTA for the pitcher's best three seasons
4. RALTA for the pitcher's best five seasons
5. The number of seasons the pitcher had a RALTA of 30 or more
#1 and #2 measure career value, #3 and #4 measure peak value, and #5 measures consistency.
The HOF standards that I found were as follows:
To be in the top 10 of the HOF requires a career RALTA of 329, "meat" RALTA of 361, top 3 of 155, top 5 of 220 and at least 5 30+ seasons.
To be in the top 50% of the HOF requires a career RALTA of 246, "meat" RALTA of 257, top 3 of 123, top 5 of 178 and at least 4 30+ seasons.
To be in the top 80% of the HOF requires a career RALTA of 170, "meat" RALTA of 190, top 3 of 101, top 5 of 139 and at least 3 30+ seasons.
For context, the only pitchers who meet the top 10 in all five categories are Young, Johnson, Grove and Alexander. They are the cream of the HOF.
The other pitchers who meet the top 50% in every category are Mathewson, Vance, Newhouser, Hubbell, Seaver, Walsh, Feller, Carlton, Gibson, Marichal, Palmer, Coveleski, Brown, Niekro and Perry. This is the group who, if we ever got the chance to weed out the pitchers who might not belong, would still be standing by any reasonable standard.
The only pitchers who fail to meet even one of the top 80% standards are Gossage, Sutter and Fingers (but not Wilhelm or Eckersley) out of the bullpen, and Chesbro, Hunter, Haines, Marquard and Bender among the starters. We can agree to disagree on whether these relievers have accomplished something worthy of the HOF, but the starters on this list are the dregs of the HOF - no question worth discussing about it.
Which pitchers who meet the top 80% requirements in every category did NOT get in? Of those no longer being considered, it's a short list: Harder, Saberhagen, Cicotte, Pierce, and Finley. None of these are stellar candidates, but neither would they have been completely out of place in the HOF.
A few pitchers meet the minimum requirements, but aren't stellar candidates either, who will be coming up in five years or less: Mike Mussina and Tom Glavine.
Then there's the group who will be coming up in five years or less who not only meet all the minimum standards, they meet the top 50% standard in every category: Kevin Brown and Curt Schilling. Just to make it perfectly clear, Brown and Schilling are better than MOST HOF pitchers at not allowing runs to score, which is to say they are better at pitching. Also in this group, but already eligible, are Bert Blyleven and Dave Stieb - they, too, were better pitchers than MOST HOFers. It is possible that NONE of these pitchrs will make the HOF,and there is no compelling reason why ALL of these pitchrs should not be in the HOF.
Finally, there's the tsunami of phenomenal pitchers that will come up for a vote in the near future. Clemens, Maddux, Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson not only meet the top 50% standard in every category - they meet the Top 10 standard in every category. For example, in career RALTA Clemens is #2, behind only Young; Maddux, Johnson and Martinez would be #4, #5 and #6. It has been lost in the surge in home runs and runs scored generally, that we have just witnessed the greatest four pitchers to pitch at the same time in history.
Some other interesting tidbits:
1. I looked at a LOT of other pitchers and if I haven't mentioned them then they weren't really HOF material. Among these were Jim Kaat and Jack Morris who would be planted firmly in the bottom 20% of the HOF among the other flukes if they got in. Yes, they were better than Rube Marquard but so was Frank Tanana (by a mile) and so was Doyle Alexander. Tanana was better than Morris, too, and none of these guys belongs within a mile of the HOF. {Of the names just tossed around, Kaat is by far the best - he can get within 100 yards of the HOF.}
2. Nolan Ryan does not meet the top 50% standard in any category, and he only meets the top 80% standard in the two career measures. I'm glad Ryan is in the HOF, but he was not as good a pitcher as most other HOFers. He's as good an example of a "one off" HOF pitcher as anyone.
3. Of pitchers still pitching in their primes, Santana, Oswalt and Halladay have already met the top 50% peak standards and are approaching the top 50% career standards.
4. Andy Pettitte meets a couple of the top 80% standards, but that's it. I thought he would do better.
5. Mariano Rivera has met the career top 50% standards. He will be the third deserving relief pitcher in the HOF when he gets there.
Not that I expect anyone will read the whole list of pitchers I looked at, but here it is. If you want to know how one or two others fared against the HOF standards, you can look them up. If a pitcher you think is deserving isn't on this list, you are delusional.
Name Career Meat Top 3 Top 5 Great Seasons
Young 814 817 223 365 14
W. Johnson 663 675 206 311 10
Grove 643 648 218 334 13
GC Alexander 516 525 163 248 7
Seaver 415 415 145 221 7
Mathewson 401 444 153 240 9
Feller 361 361 155 217 5
Hubbell 353 374 161 228 4
Gibson 344 372 146 216 6
Spahn 329 377 129 178 2
Palmer 320 337 130 194 6
Perry 318 350 128 182 4
Ford 316 316 113 170 4
Niekro 306 341 125 185 4
Lyons 303 327 113 171 4
Newhouser 302 310 162 234 5
Wilhelm 289 293 86 130 1
Carlton 282 338 155 217 4
M. Brown 279 284 129 188 4
Walsh 274 277 140 220 5
Faber 271 271 141 178 2
Vance 266 287 180 236 4
Coveleski 266 291 123 188 6
Plank 261 261 88 134 2
Marichal 256 272 147 207 4
Jenkins 251 261 107 158 2
Waddell 246 250 137 188 3
Rixey 235 235 101 146 3
Roberts 234 251 135 198 4
Gomez 232 253 156 212 4
Drysdale 231 239 107 157 3
Koufax 220 225 139 198 4
Ryan 217 227 91 137 1
McGinnity 206 227 146 200 4
Willis 205 214 140 197 3
Eckersley 202 202 101 141 2
Dean 200 209 121 167 2
Lemon 195 211 105 162 3
Bunning 193 257 113 175 4
Hoyt 172 186 95 137 2
Ruffing 170 240 112 166 3
Gossage 155 187 91 127 2
Sutton 152 190 101 139 3
Grimes 120 165 117 172 3
Wynn 117 165 105 155 2
Sutter 117 130 85 110 1
Fingers 107 121 57 77 0
Haines 105 109 85 112 1
Bender 97 125 67 95 0
Chesbro 89 133 96 127 1
Pennock 80 165 110 151 2
Hunter 56 116 98 121 2
Marquard 33 74 79 106 0
Clemens 728 728 183 286 12
Maddux 559 597 175 276 10
R. Johnson 544 556 190 304 10
P. Martinez 490 507 211 313 7
Schilling 344 356 127 197 6
Smoltz 331 344 103 156 3
Mussina 328 328 113 177 5
Blyleven 325 360 124 193 5
K. Brown 319 337 146 221 6
Glavine 306 353 117 181 6
Rivera 258 265 83 129 1
Stieb 247 263 132 198 4
Saberhagen 245 248 118 174 3
Pierce 231 246 116 169 3
Cone 229 269 111 167 3
Finley 203 221 108 156 3
Luque 200 213 136 167 2
Quinn 199 200 83 123 0
Cicotte 193 195 130 170 3
Tiant 184 206 100 149 2
Harder 183 231 134 186 3
Reuschel 183 187 97 138 1
John 182 222 84 115 1
Cooper 176 190 82 125 1
Guidry 168 172 118 152 2
L. Jackson 158 166 75 110 1
Koosman 146 152 94 137 2
Simmons 142 188 91 136 1
Hershiser 141 176 102 148 3
Hoffman 136 136 52 77 0
L. Smith 135 139 54 78 0
Kaat 129 182 84 132 0
Wood 128 176 114 149 1
Chance 128 139 93 120 1
Wells 123 148 76 112 0
K. Rogers 119 143 95 134 2
Newcombe 119 129 78 119 0
Pappas 118 129 66 100 0
Gooden 117 131 104 133 1
Blue 114 142 106 139 2
Newsom 110 120 127 161 2
Derringer 108 120 79 107 1
S. McDowell 106 158 108 150 3
Hough 104 128 71 112 0
D. Martinez 101 125 89 134 2
M. Stottlemyre 101 101 65 94 0
Friend 100 146 83 119 0
Tanana 99 130 91 125 1
Moyer 99 154 82 124 0
Powell 90 90 79 106 1
M. Marshall 88 105 73 112 0
Morris 78 137 75 119 0
J. Perry 78 98 71 108 0
Lolich 63 70 74 91 1
Sam Jones 62 78 80 101 1
Osteen 52 73 58 80 0
Face 47 77 44 61 0
Podres 45 74 66 78 1
Valenzuela 41 96 69 93 1
D. Alexander 40 72 82 103 1
Dauss 27 29 57 72 0
Mullin 16 27 50 68 0
Whitehill 5 67 64 84 0
Reuss -5 88 70 97 0
Burdette -32 43 67 82 0
J. Niekro -39 20 51 67 0
Santana 237 250 142 208 4
Oswalt 222 222 134 186 4
Halladay 219 240 130 195 5
Hudson 207 207 108 151 2
Pettitte 195 197 116 133 2
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
0
Comments
Some interesting, and somewhat lengthy information presented.
The HOF, regardless of any typical or common "measures" used, does not have an official statistical formula, for addmission.
A lasting impression made on baseball, may often overtake some numerical accomplishments. Leading the league, winning an award, setting a record, and similar, may influence HOF quality, more than career adjusted ERA +, for example. Is it right or wrong, who knows for sure ?, the debate pertaining to such, is part of what makes baseball so entertaining to discuss.
Rube Marquard is often mentioned as a HOF hurler, of lesser quality. Richard William was a fine pitcher, he set an all time consecutive games won record of 19, back in 1912. He has been a league leader in wins, strikeouts, K/9, and W-L %. He had the skill to throw a no-hitter, win 20+ games 3 different times, and has appeared in five separate WS.
His performances, and noteworthyness, as judged by voters some 45 years ago, were enough to gain Hall entry.
Times change, and the pool of players available, and the performance levels, also change.
Reasonable choice in 1971 ?, Probably yes, in 2008 ?, Probably not.
jaxxr - Marquard's admittance into the Hall is based entirely on who was on the selection committee in 1971. The period between 1970 and 1974 has more awful selections by the veterans committee than all of the other years combined.
<< <i>Nice post >>
Thank you.
>>
Some interesting, and somewhat lengthy information presented. >>
My calling cards.
<< <i>The HOF, regardless of any typical or common "measures" used, does not have an official statistical formula, for addmission. >>
Agreed, but that's what I found most interesting about the whole exercise. The HOF appears to be creating a new "formula" for admitting relief pitchers - did I mention that "closer" is a bogus position? - but there are very, very few exceptions to the RALTA formula for starters, even though I know the voters never actually thought of it that way.
Look at it this way - any pitcher who leads the league in meaningful categories a meaningful number of times, or is good enough to pitch long enough to reach 250 wins, 3,000 strikeouts, or whatever, is a very good pitcher. And those pitchers are going to have allowed a lot fewer runs than an average pitcher. The few exceptions are Frisch's friends from the early 70's period, a Native American (he has no other apparent qualifications), and Chesbro and Hunter, who in the most alarming of coincidences both pitched for the Yankees. These five constitute the "fluke" group in the HOF, and the reason they got in is easily explainable without even looking at their stats.
There appears to be a growing group of pitchers who meet the "minimum standards" I defined who may never get in, but the number of starters who get in without meeting them is small and probably will never increase. Jack Morris, for example, by the existing and historical standards of the HOF is just nowhere close - and the HOF voters seem always to have known that. Likewise, those hoping Kaat or John get in are almost certainly out of luck.
Bottom line, I was surprised by how easy and accurate it was - using a formula - to predict who was and was not a HOF pitcher.
aro-
I toyed with the idea of actually creating a ranking based on these stats but decided not to - at least not yet. But as a starting point for a ranking the "meat" value plus the Top 3 value is an excellent start.
The "closer" is now a HOF reality,
A part time player, somewhat similar to, a pinch hitter, pinch runner, or defensive replacement.
The game has changed, and the "values" percieved by many, have as well. It is really hard to properly compare closers to reliefmen from the past, or starters from any era.
Aro,
Yes, my point is, standards, frame of reference, the amount of players, Etc., has changed much. A pick from 1971 would be very less likely to be selceted in 2008.
The Vet committee make some questionable picks from 1970-1974, as you stated. The most "awful" group ever ?
The special 2006 election had some intestings ones, single year comparison of "special" picks,
2006= Ms. Effa Manley, Alex Pompez, Cum Posey, Jose Mendez, Sol White, and J.L. Wilkenson were among the group
1971= Dave Bancroft, Rube Marquard, Satchel Paige, Joe Kelly, and Harry Hooper were amongst.
One of only 10 I think to pitch a perfect game which takes more then just luck to accomplish.
Other then that, good thread, one in which I'll sit back and watch the fireworks from the sideline.
(if any erupt)
Steve
Fireworks ?
Dont we all realize there is no absolutely perfect 100% way, to evaluate players ?
Aren't we all open-minded enough to see "other" perspectives ?
Isn't good-natured, sometimes even logical discussion, about baseball great fun ?
As a note, I joined SABR back some 15-20 years ago, and did gain a greater appreciation for stats, yet a common concept promoted was that stats are always incomplete, no matter how much depth and detail can be amassed, they dont tell everting.
Without elaborate examples and unique circumstances noted, let's just say, I feel they are vastly important, but not all telling.
Jim "Catfish" Hunter might not be among the very best hurlers in the HOF, however,
he did some leave some lasting impressions on the game, some, perhaps better than him, could not.
A perfect game is truly a memorable pitching accomplishment, Six different WS appearances is among the better hurler marks,
8 selections to the All-Star game shows some large peer approval, winning a CY Young award will always be a noteworthy feat, and I believe, he is the last pitcher to complete 30 games in a single MLB season.
Do these, and other items, offest his somewhat mediocre career ERA + ?, certainly the HOF thought they did.
<< <i>A perfect game is truly a memorable pitching accomplishment, >>
I guess, but of the 10 pitchers to throw one only Cy Young deserves to be in the HOF and Hunter is the only other one to make the HOF. Kenny Rogers has one, and Kenny Rogers was a much better pitcher than Hunter, but Rogers will never sniff the HOF. This is an example of trying to justify a HOF selection after the fact - there is no evidence that HOF voters care much about whether a pitcher has a perfect game.
<< <i>Six different WS appearances is among the better hurler marks >>
WS appearances is not a "hurler mark" - it's a team mark. Allie Reynolds threw in 6 WS - all of them wins - and went 7-2. Allie Reynolds was a better pitcher than Catfish Hunter. Again, there is no evidence that HOF voters care about this.
<< <i> 8 selections to the All-Star game shows some large peer approval >>
All-Star pitchers are selected by the manager - in Hunter's case it was almost always HIS manager. Sorry, this is a non sequitor.
<< <i> winning a CY Young award will always be a noteworthy feat, and I believe, he is the last pitcher to complete 30 games in a single MLB season. >>
Winning a CY Young has gotten a lot of pitchers a vote or two for the HOF, but I can't think of any pitcher but Hunter where it might have mattered if they won one or not. Vida Blue has one, and he's a better pitcher than Hunter, but he's never going to the HOF. Likewise Dean Chance. Pitchers who deserved a Cy Young and never got one, like Phil Niekro and Jim Bunning got in anyway. And I imagine it would be fairly easy to create a list of accomplishments more impressive than "last pitcher to complete 30 games" that would stretch to the moon and back.
The point is that Hunter and the rest of the fluke group - and ONLY the fluke group - require this sort of deciphering to determine why they got in the HOF. Every other pitcher got there by being significantly better than most of their peers over a long stretch of time. Hunter didn't do that and as such he is a fluke in the HOF. Period. Replace Reggie Jackson as Hunter's right fielder with, say, Pat Kelly and Hunter would be thought of today with his true peers: Jerry Koosman, Dean Chance and Denny Martinez. GOOD pitchers, not great pitchers, and certainly not HOF pitchers.
Put Bert Blyleven on Reggie Jackson's team throughout the prime years of his career and he'd be thought of with his true peers: Palmer, Perry and Niekro. Reggie Jackson was a great, great player and I hope Hunter sends him at least a thank you card every year at HOF induction time. Bobby Darwin, Dave May and George Vukovich probably shouldn't expect anything from Blyleven, though.
In those 5 years he was 1st, 2nd or 3rd in CY Young voting (maybe a 4th place finish too) The Yanks (Billy) blew his arm out after 1 or 2 seasons
or he would have racked up a couple more.
Kenny Rogers failed to win 20 once. If you ask his peers they all will say that Catfish belongs. No he didn't throw the ball through the wall, he was a
workhorse for some of the best teams of the 70's. A money pitcher, that when his team mates knew it was his turn they thought "win'.
Just because you rank him low does not mean he was some scrub, on the contrary, he was much better then you continually give him credit for.
Don Sutton is another pitcher that seems to get the short end of the stick when people look soley at stats, ask any player who they would rather have in a big game
Sutton or Ryan and the vast majority would IMO pick Sutton. Ditto Jack Morris.
Steve
However he was alot better then you seem to think.
Steve
I am pretty sure, a fellow gets more "fame", by winning a CY award, by throwing a perfect game, by pitching in 6 WS, for two different teams, by winning 20+ games five times,
than a guy who may have a park adjusted, career ERA + , about 10-15 % better.
Does it mean he is a better pitcher, not necessarily, but does it entail more "famous" accomplishments in baseball, probably yes.
I don't think I could have been any more direct but I'll repeat it anyway. Jim Hunter was a GOOD pitcher - almost exactly as good as Jerry Koosman, Dean Chance and Dennis Martinez. That is in no way intended as an insult - these were all GOOD pitchers.
But the unavoidable point is that while every good pitcher in the HOF and out of the HOF has his own unique accomplishments of the "last to complete 30 games" variety, and almost every good pitcher (and many not-so-good pitchers) has won 20 games when they got to pitch for a great team, and so on and so on, the characteristics of HOF pitchers are consistent and identifiable - except for the flukes. It is often pointed out the poor picks the VC made in the early 70's, and Pop Haines was certainly one of their worst; but Pop had 20 win seasons and WS wins and he was every bit as good a pitcher as Jim Hunter. Even Rube Marquard pitched in 5 WS, won 200 games and had 3 20 win seasons, but I don't think anybody who's heard of him would refute that he is the worst pitcher in the HOF and that there are hundreds of better candidates. Take Marquard out of the HOF and it is not at all obvious to me that Hunter does not take his place as the absolute worst pitcher there. He'd still be a good pitcher, though.
Haines and Hunter and the rest are flukes. Period. Unlike every other starting pitcher in the HOF they finished their careers barely above average, with bad and sometimes awful seasons balancing out their handful of good seasons. You can decide that allowing runs is not an important measure of a pitcher - you appear to have already decided that - but in the HOF pitchers who saved as few runs as Haines or Hunter are flukes. If you think Hunter happens to be a fluke who deserves to be in the HOF then that's one thing, but it is not really debatable that whatever standard got Hunter into the HOF was different than the standard that has been applied to nearly all other pitchers.
is still pretty darm good,
and though guys from the more distant past had lesser cumulative pools to be compared to when elected,
I would vote for Haines as the least qualified, fairly, legally, and officially elected HOF pitcher.
The awful selections were from either the Giants (Bancroft, Youngs, Kelly and Lindstrom, Marquard)or Cardinals (Haines, Hafey, Bottomley and Haines)
The statistics were not perceived any differtently in 1971. If you were a friend of Frisch and were a good player you had an excellent chance of getting in the Hall.
To put it in perspective it would be like dallasactuary being the only one on the committee and selecting Ron Fairly and Roy White for the Hall of Fame.
<< <i>To put it in perspective it would be like dallasactuary being the only one on the committee and selecting Ron Fairly and Roy White for the Hall of Fame. >>
That's a perfect analogy. There seems to be this belief that BECAUSE a player is in the HOF or BECAUSE a player was an All-Star or BECAUSE a player won a Cy Young Award, that the player is somehow transformed into a better player. But that's nonsense; the player is who he is, and what matters is whether he deserved these honors not whether he got them. Players have won awards and been named to the HOF for truly frivolous reasons and it is not required of us that we pretend otherwise.
If Joe Gordon had actually BEEN better than Ted Williams the year he won the MVP then he would have made the HOF ages ago - and he would have deserved it. But he wasn't close to as good as Williams that year, the HOF voters always knew that, and rightly ignored it.
Still, jaxxr's point is well taken. Hunter is in the HOF because of his fame - because he played for the Yankees, because he had a cool nickname and because he was surrounded by teammates who made him look better than he was - not because he earned it by his pitching over the course of his career. And that cheapens the HOF in exactly the same way that getting in because you know Frankie Frisch does.
This is where you and I disagree, he actually made them look better.
Steve
You make a good case for the favoritism possibly shown, in 1971, but are incorrect about a couple things,
Jow Kelly, HOF 1971, he never played for the Giants as you suggested,
he has a carrer .317 BA and OPS+ of 143, plus he was an outstnading defender. Several others from the1971 specials were also not Giants nor Cards, Harry Hooper and Satchel Paige for exanple.
The 2006 special group was probably more based on favoritism, than other particular year.
Stats are percieved a bit different now, than they were in 1971,
ERA +, OPS+, Park Factors, WInShares, and several other items, were not used, or were as influential in 1971. That, plus the smaller amount of potential HOFers, due to the mere smaller size of the player pool, could add a little justification to the "questionable" 1971 selections.
<< <i>he was surrounded by teammates who made him look better than he was
This is where you and I disagree, he actually made them look better.
Steve >>
OK, but you will have to explain to me how, pitching every fourth day, Hunter was able to make non-HOFers like Gene Tenace, Joe Rudi and Sal Bando hit so well. I can see how Bando and Rudi coming in 2-3 in RBI might inflate a pitchers W/L record, but I need help seeing how a pitcher inflated their RBI totals. Or was it Hunter pitching every fourth day that turned Campy and Green into Gold Glove infielders? Or maybe it was Hunter's above average pitching (every fourth day) that made Reggie the best hitter in baseball for a decade? Was it being in the presence of pitching greatness (every fourth day) that gave Mike Epstein his 163 OPS+ in 1972, the same year he inspired Holtzman and Odom to go 34-17? Even with Hunter out of the game, was it his inspiring presence that made Rollie Fingers so good? Or was Billy North thinking about impressing Hunter when he stole 53 bases? Maybe Bobby Bonds was going 30/30 with an OPS+ of 151 due to some hitting and running tips from Hunter? Maybe White and Munson were destined to fall apart until Hunter arrived, and it was only his glorious presence that inspired them to have the same great seasons they had always had? Possibly Ed Figueroa had a better W/L and ERA than Hunter only because Hunter tanked on purpose to make Figueroa look better? Or did the Yankees win back-to-back WS while Hunter was struggling to hang in the game (after not winning while he was still good) due to some residual "Hunter effect"? Was it a coincidence that the Yankees won their WS after Reggie showed up, just as the A's three WS just happened to occur with Reggie in the lineup? If your theory is correct, I will not only admit that Hunter belongs in the HOF, I will sacrifice a goat to him and go forth to proclaim that He is risen; because your theory and the mere humanity of Catfish Hunter are entirely incompatible.
Or possibly, as improbable as it sounds, pitching for most of his career on the best teams in baseball inflated Hunter's W/L record, since I think we are all in agreement that his other stats aren't close to HOF level, and this carried a Koosman-quality pitcher to the HOF. At least I won't have to kill any goats, so I hope I'm right.
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
He just wasn't as good a pitcher as Bert Blyleven or many others who are not in the Hall of Fame.
One those distinctions are clear and seperated, then ther isn't much of an issue.
I think we can all agree that Satchell Paige is a no doubt Hall of Famer so his inclusion by the committee is like giving voters credit for electing Mike Schmidt. Harry Hooper was a bad selection but I will say that he was better than most of the other Hall of Famers elected in 1971.
Some relief here!
...past and future!
rd
P.S. Pretty tough to be better than Mariano & The "Eck-Man"!
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
of how you want to skew rankings to prove that. I wonder have you ever played the game? Your stats leave out so many variables.
They do though make for good conversation. I wonder what players from that era would say to you regarding him being a fluke?
Whitey Ford gets the same treatment from many that only look at the teams he played on. FWIW Hunter went from the high school diamond
to the major league one, not many have done that and excelled. Regardless of the teams he played for and the parks he played in I
saw him pitch, I heard what people said at the time about him and none of it compares to your 20/20 hindsight.
His being on the Yankees has zero to do with him making the hall, he was hall of fame bound before the Yankees got him
He was by accounts of the time one of the best pitchers in baseball. To say he is a fluke is ignorant at best.
Steve
Actually it would be Reggie sending the thankyou note to Hunter, he has even said as much.
Steve
<< <i>Whitey Ford gets the same treatment from many that only look at the teams he played on. FWIW Hunter went from the high school diamond
to the major league one, not many have done that and excelled. >>
On these two statements, I rest my case.
1. Whitey Ford may or may not have had those things said about him, but it doesn't matter. Whitey Ford allowed 316 fewer runs than an average pitcher over the course of his career, Hunter 56. Whitey Ford not only fits in nicely among other HOF pitchers, he fits in near the top; Hunter sits atop only Rube Marquard. Yet another perfect example of why what people said about a player or what they claim to remember about a player are close to meaningless - every single person is going to say and remember different things. Any person who says that Ford is a fluke is just plain wrong - there is no way to rank pitchers where Ford does not come out near the very top. There are LOTS of ways to rank pitchers where Hunter ranks closer to the midlle than the top.
2. In the "last person to complete 30 games" category, we can now add "went from the high school diamond to the major league one"; yet another standard created to justify Hunter's - and only Hunter's - admittance to the HOF. And again, you are as entitled to believe that Jim Hunter belongs in the HOF as I am entitled to believe that Bill Mazeroski belongs in the HOF - I am not saying you are wrong or crazy to think that. But my eyes are open to the fact that Mazeroski qualifies on a basis that is different than the basis applied to everyone else. In other words, I admit that Mazeroski is a fluke. It is your insistence that Hunter is not a fluke in exactly the same way that I am disagreeing with. If you think that he belongs in the HOF, fine, but there is simply no reasonable way to deny that whatever standard gets Jim Hunter into the HOF is not the standard that was applied to the other pitchers - or to the scores of pitchers who have been excluded despite pitching more effectively than Hunter.
A single standard, or two now that we have "closers" in the mix, explains every pitcher in the HOF except five - and those five don't come close to meeting that standard. I can't think of a better word than "fluke" to describe them, and you can substitute one you like better, but it's just silly to pretend that there is no difference between these five and all of the others when the difference is so big.
Dallas, did you mistakenly omit Sandy Koufax, or do you think he is not HOF-worthy?