Hall of Fame pitching candidates
Mike & Mike this morning discussed pitching candidates for the Hall of Fame. I figured I'd throw in my two cents.
Shoe Ins
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Tom Glavine
Pedro Martinez
Tom Glavine is often labeled as a guy who is close, but in. He's a dead lock, and it is not even close. Glavine as of this writing has 286 wins. Of the 30 pitchers who have won 275 or more games, 22 are in the Hall, three are still active, and two were 19th century pitchers. That leaves Bert Blyleven, Tommy John and Jim Kaat. Let's stack up the numbers.
Glavine: 286-186 (.606), 3.44 ERA, 120 ERA+
Blyleven: 287-250 (.534), 3.31 ERA, 118 ERA+
Kaat: 283-237 (.544), 3.45 ERA, 107 ERA+
John: 288-231 (.555), 3.34 ERA, 111 ERA+
Two things should come out right away. The first is that Glavine's win percentage is over .600. There is simply no precident for leaving out a pitcher with this many wins AND this high a winning percentage. Also note that Blyleven, who pitched effectively as long, posted nearly as good an earned run average in context.
Pedro Martinez has 204 wins right now. Compare his record to pitchers let in with few wins. The Black Ink Test is a tool that measures how often a player led his league in something. It's a good tool both for measuring players with high peaks, and players from different eras. The average Hall of Fame pitcher has a Black Ink score of 40.
Pedro Martinez: 204-88 (.697), 2.75 ERA, 166 ERA+, Black Ink: 55
Jack Chesbro: 198-132 (.600), 2.68 ERA, 110 ERA+, Black Ink: 27
Dizzy Dean: 150-83 (.644), 3.02 ERA, 130 ERA+, Black Ink: 52
Lefty Gomez: 189-102 (.649), 3.34 ERA, 125 ERA+, Black Ink: 46
Addie Joss: 160-97 (.623), 1.89 ERA, 142 ERA+, Black Ink: 19
Sandy Koufax: 165-87 (.655), 2.76 ERA, 131 ERA+, Black Ink: 78
Dazzy Vance: 197-140 (.585), 3.24 ERA, 125 ERA+, Black Ink: 66
Rube Waddell: 193-143 (.574), 2.16 ERA, 134 ERA+, Black Ink: 46
Ed Walsh: 195-126 (.607), 1.82 ERA, 145 ERA+, Black Ink: 67
All of the above players scored high on the Black Ink test except for Jack Chesbro and Addie Joss. Chesbro won 41 games in 1904, and is essentially in the Hall on that statistic alone. Addie Joss's raw numbers are eye popping, but he was never the best pitcher in the league. Pedro Martinez stacks up favorably with all these players, and his winning percentage and ERA+ are better than any pitcher on the list. In fact, Pedro's ERA+ ranks number one all time, and his winning percentage is second behind Al Spalding among HOF pitchers (And Spalding pitched most of his career in the National Association, which MLB does not recognize in official statistics).
On the Bubble
Mike Mussina
Curt Schilling
John Smoltz
These pitchers are harder to judge, and even I am not certain of their Hall of Fame qualifications. Mussina's going to have a tricky time because he never won 20 games, and we know voters love those big round numbers. Mussina's won 19 games twice, 19 three times, and 17 twice. One problem is that Mussina's best years were 1994-95, when he missed several starts due to the strike. It is not difficult to think Mussina would have won four games between August 12 and the end of the 1994 season, and just one more game in four starts in 1995. He led the league in wins in 1995.
If you look at Mussina's record, again you see a superior win/loss percentage (.643 in this case). Let's make a comparison for Mussina here. Eleven pitchers have won 225 or more games, not made the Hall, and pitched after 1900 (not counting active players). I will not add another table because frankly, most readers have not heard some of these names. As a group, they had winning percentages between .491 and .577. Their adjusted ERAs ranged from 101 to 118. They scored between 7 and 20 on the Black Ink test.
Mussina blasts them out of the water in win percentage and adjusted ERA. His record there is superior to any pitcher not in the Hall of Fame. The Black Ink test is trickier, because Mussina only scores a 14. But if you move on to the Gray Ink test (which measures top ten appearances instead of just leading a category), Mussina stands out. Only Bert Blyleven beats Mussina in that category, and Blyleven really should be in the Hall as well. Mussina does not have that one outstanding season. But he's clearly superior to any fringe candidate.
Curt Schilling is the opposite. Not great counting numbers, but some tremendous seasons. Just for fun, here's Schilling next to another current pitcher
Curt Schilling: 202-134
Kenny Rogers: 201-134
Of course Schilling's ERA is nearly a run lower and he has about a thousand more strikeouts. What makes Schilling odd is that he also never won a Cy Young award, which you would think is a prerequisite for making the Hall on a short career. I think Schilling's a deserving candidate though, as he scores favorably on all the Hall of Fame standards tests. If he finishes his career with 220-225 wins with his current win percentage, he should be a lock.
There's no really good statistical judge for John Smoltz. Dennis Eckersley reshaped the closers' role. Smoltz was just a closer for a few years. Obviously he was a great closer and deserves some credit for that, but how much? A closer is not as valuable as a 20 win pitcher, and probably not as valuable as a 15 win pitcher. What about 12 wins? Add 36 wins to his total, give him credit for the 15 wins in the postseason, and he's up to around 233 wins. I would not vote for Smoltz just let, but if he reaches 200 wins, then you have a guy who also has 154 saves and an amazing 15-4 record in the postseason. It's hard to go against that.
Others
It is difficult to predict the future of pitchers. Among the top 100 active pitchers in wins, only Andy Pettitte has a legitimate shot at the Hall. There are many pitchers in the sub 100 win club who could make a run, noteably Johan Santana. The problem is there is little difference in the peak values of great pitchers and good pitchers. The difference is how long they last. Many pitchers like Fernando Valenzuela had great peaks, but only had a few great years. Some guys look like HOFers at age 30 and are gone by age 33. But even if you can not identify a single Hall of Famer or even a 300 game winner in the current generation, chances are someone will outlast the pack.
I'll take a look at HOF closers in the future.
6 Comments
Recommended Comments