Official Hall of Fame Discussion

22,028 Views | 304 Replies | Last: 18 hrs ago by Farmer1906
AggieEP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TarponChaser • 3:16p, 6/30/25
Has anyone ever dinged Nolan? He was a near unanimous pick for the Hall of Fame.

The ding on deGrom here is that he has an unnatural amount of no decisions along with very poor injury timing. The question is whether that combination makes him unelectable to the hall despite other stats that tell us that he's one of the best pitchers ever.
Reply Quote
TarponChaser
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieEP • 3:42p, 6/30/25
AggieEP said:
Has anyone ever dinged Nolan? He was a near unanimous pick for the Hall of Fame.

The ding on deGrom here is that he has an unnatural amount of no decisions along with very poor injury timing. The question is whether that combination makes him unelectable to the hall despite other stats that tell us that he's one of the best pitchers ever.

Yes they have.

Of course he was near-unanimous for the HOF but lots of folks have pointed to his relatively low career wins and lack of Cy Young trophies to push him down the list of all-time top pitchers.
Reply Quote
2
Dekker_Lentz
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:59p, 6/30/25
AG
There will be a recalibration of the hall of fame for starting pitching. No doubt about that. The game is much harder for pitchers today than any point.

That being said the issue with deGrom is he put together some amazing seasons. But did he put together an amazing elite careers.

For better or worse, the Hall of Fame is about amazing elite careers.

In terms of WAR, deGrom rank 133 (45.3 WAR) is closer to Garriet Cole rank 158 (42.5 WAR) than to Chris Sale rank 80 (55.9 WAR).


https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_pitch_career.shtml

At some point deGrom's shorter career through injury is a hindrance. I agree a third Cy-Young gets him in. I think 120 wins is another milestone that would help if he doesn't get a third Cy-young.

Currently, he has two WAR outlier seasons that he won Cy-Youngs. There is argument that he only had a few hall of fame seasons, but not an overall hall of fame career.
Reply Quote
4
TarponChaser
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dekker_Lentz • 4:34p, 6/30/25
Dekker_Lentz said:
There will be a recalibration of the hall of fame for starting pitching. No doubt about that. The game is much harder for pitchers today than any point.

That being said the issue with deGrom is he put together some amazing seasons. But did he put together an amazing elite careers.

For better or worse, the Hall of Fame is about amazing elite careers.

In terms of WAR, deGrom rank 133 (45.3 WAR) is closer to Garriet Cole rank 158 (42.5 WAR) than to Chris Sale rank 80 (55.9 WAR).


https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_pitch_career.shtml

At some point deGrom's shorter career through injury is a hindrance. I agree a third Cy-Young gets him in. I think 120 wins is another milestone that would help if he doesn't get a third Cy-young.

Currently, he has two WAR outlier seasons that he won Cy-Youngs. There is argument that he only had a few hall of fame seasons, but not an overall hall of fame career.

I'm not at all sure the game is harder for pitchers today. Now, the way pitchers are used definitely makes it harder for them to count stats.

But league-wide BA, OBP, SLG are all down significantly from where they were 20-25 years ago. It's a chicken/egg argument but is that because pitchers are so much better or are hitters that much worse?

Interestingly, per Baseball Reference (https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/bat.shtml) the runs per game (per team) have remained relatively constant (within a half-run) over that time frame while Ks are up almost 2 per game and BB are also pretty consistent.
Reply Quote
2
jja79
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgRyan04 • 4:49p, 6/30/25
AG
AgRyan04 said:
Good point.....wins are probably the worst metric out there to measure a pitcher's individual performance.


My point of view is probably different than others here as I've been attending MLB games for 61 years.

Steve Carlton won 27 games on a 59 win Phillies team because he could go every 4th day (41 starts) and didn't leave it up to the bullpen (30 CG). He's the greatest lefthander I've ever seen. I saw Koufax but I was probably 9 or 10 so couldn't really appreciate it.

I'm going to start HOF campaigns for Don Wilson and JR Richard based on this thread.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
jja79
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgRyan04 • 4:51p, 6/30/25
AG
Yes.
Reply Quote
AustinAg2K
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieEP • 5:30p, 6/30/25
AggieEP said:
We're talking about one of the top 2-3 men to ever pitch a baseball (when he's healthy)


Except we're not.
Reply Quote
6
AustinAg2K
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TarponChaser • 5:48p, 6/30/25
TarponChaser said:
Dekker_Lentz said:
There will be a recalibration of the hall of fame for starting pitching. No doubt about that. The game is much harder for pitchers today than any point.

That being said the issue with deGrom is he put together some amazing seasons. But did he put together an amazing elite careers.

For better or worse, the Hall of Fame is about amazing elite careers.

In terms of WAR, deGrom rank 133 (45.3 WAR) is closer to Garriet Cole rank 158 (42.5 WAR) than to Chris Sale rank 80 (55.9 WAR).


https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_pitch_career.shtml

At some point deGrom's shorter career through injury is a hindrance. I agree a third Cy-Young gets him in. I think 120 wins is another milestone that would help if he doesn't get a third Cy-young.

Currently, he has two WAR outlier seasons that he won Cy-Youngs. There is argument that he only had a few hall of fame seasons, but not an overall hall of fame career.

I'm not at all sure the game is harder for pitchers today. Now, the way pitchers are used definitely makes it harder for them to count stats.

But league-wide BA, OBP, SLG are all down significantly from where they were 20-25 years ago. It's a chicken/egg argument but is that because pitchers are so much better or are hitters that much worse?

Interestingly, per Baseball Reference (https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/bat.shtml) the runs per game (per team) have remained relatively constant (within a half-run) over that time frame while Ks are up almost 2 per game and BB are also pretty consistent.


A pretty good argument could be made that pitchers have it easier today because they are only expected to go five or six innings and once only every five days. Guys today can go all out because they know they aren't going to be needed for 120 pitches. Stats show that hitters are far more effective against a pitcher the third time through the inning. What would guys ERAs be throughout history of they never had to face a guy a third time?

Edit: I actually think it would be an interesting project to see what kind of stats guys would have if they were regularly pulled after 6 innings/100 pitches like pitchers are today. Like what would Nolan Ryan's or Steve Carlton's ERA be if you only include the first six innings of games. Obviously cumulative stats like Ks, IPs, wins, etc. would be way down, but I suspect average stats (ERA, WHIP, etc.) would go up.
Reply Quote
4
3 edits
Dekker_Lentz
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TarponChaser • 5:52p, 6/30/25
AG
I was predominately thinking about how pitchers are being used and where the counting stats will land in the future compared to the past.

What constitutes a successful pitching career today seems very much in flux.

But those other stats are very interesting. Thank you for pointing them out.
Reply Quote
1
jja79
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:19p, 6/30/25
AG
I'm adding Ron Guidry, Mike Cuellar and Sonny Siebert to my HOF campaign.
Reply Quote
4
AggieEP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 6:35p, 6/30/25
Statistically speaking we are. Go to baseball reference and sort pitchers all time by quality stats (not quantity stats) and it's deGrom consistently at the top of those lists.

2nd ALL TIME in WHIP

1st ALL TIME in K/BB rate

4th ALL TIME in adjusted ERA+

37th ALL TIME in FIP (behind 36 dead ball guys, Clayton Kershaw is the next closest active player at 89th

1st among active players in ERA, 43rd best ERA of ALL TIME behind 41 dead ball guys and Mariano Rivera.

I'm open to discussion on his hall of fame case, but statistically speaking, we are watching one of the best pitchers to ever play the game. Maybe we could say top 5 of all time, and maybe that gives me a bit more wiggle room on the claim, but it's no exaggeration that deGrom is inner circle Hall of Fame good when he's healthy. The caveat is that how much health is required for a guy to get into the hall.
Reply Quote
2
AggieEP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 6:41p, 6/30/25
Too hard to say, they also generally had to throw fewer pitches per at bat because they didn't have guys working the count like we do now. (Three true outcomes world)

They also didn't face batters who could have pitching machines simulate their stuff in the cage during warmups.

They didn't have to face batters armed with a complete scouting report of every pitch they've ever thrown in every situation.

They had guys sacrifice bunt and hit behind runners giving themselves up, things that we now know decrease your ability to score multiple runs in an inning.


Guys like Nolan we're also a rare breed throwing 100 mph, guys had to gear up for his velo, now every team has 4-5 guys throwing 100.
Reply Quote
2
AustinAg2K
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieEP • 7:13p, 6/30/25
AggieEP said:
Statistically speaking we are. Go to baseball reference and sort pitchers all time by quality stats (not quantity stats) and it's deGrom consistently at the top of those lists.

2nd ALL TIME in WHIP

1st ALL TIME in K/BB rate

4th ALL TIME in adjusted ERA+

37th ALL TIME in FIP (behind 36 dead ball guys, Clayton Kershaw is the next closest active player at 89th

1st among active players in ERA, 43rd best ERA of ALL TIME behind 41 dead ball guys and Mariano Rivera.

I'm open to discussion on his hall of fame case, but statistically speaking, we are watching one of the best pitchers to ever play the game. Maybe we could say top 5 of all time, and maybe that gives me a bit more wiggle room on the claim, but it's no exaggeration that deGrom is inner circle Hall of Fame good when he's healthy. The caveat is that how much health is required for a guy to get into the hall.


The problem with using only those stats is that they are skewed in favor of pitchers who have lower number of innings. When a guy goes through the twilight of their career, they tend to get worse and things like ERA and WHIP go up. I'm not going to go calculate it, but I suspect if you only took Pedro's first 12 years, he'd be at least as impressive, if not more so, than deGrom. Remember, he was putting up a sub 2 ERA in the height of the steroid era. There are other phenoms who were incredible for 10 years, and then faded. There are also guys who didn't figure it out until later in their careers. It took Randy Johnson 5 years before he really figured it out, but once he did, he was the most dominate pitcher I've ever seen. He probably hung around to long, too, which hurts his career averages. I'm guessing his prime years are better than deGrom's.

Also, I don't think you can just ignore injuries when you are talking about the greatest ever to throw a ball. Many of the greats knew that they had to take something off so they could pitch longer. Having less than 1500 innings in 12 years is a massive negative. It means you can't count on him to be there everyday.

I think it's fine saying he has had one of the top 2 or 3 seasons, or one of the top 2 or 3 talents of the last 20 years, but to say he's one of the top 2 or 3 to ever pick up a baseball, when he rarely shows up and hasn't gone through the twilight of his career? Not even close.
Reply Quote
3
AustinAg2K
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieEP • 7:27p, 6/30/25
AggieEP said:
Too hard to say, they also generally had to throw fewer pitches per at bat because they didn't have guys working the count like we do now. (Three true outcomes world)

They also didn't face batters who could have pitching machines simulate their stuff in the cage during warmups.

They didn't have to face batters armed with a complete scouting report of every pitch they've ever thrown in every situation.

They had guys sacrifice bunt and hit behind runners giving themselves up, things that we now know decrease your ability to score multiple runs in an inning.


Guys like Nolan we're also a rare breed throwing 100 mph, guys had to gear up for his velo, now every team has 4-5 guys throwing 100.


All true. You can make arguments both ways. Personally, I feel like today's baseball has skewed to far into stats and one true outcome. Hitters today could learn to take a little off with two strikes and punch a ball to the opposite field instead of striking out. However, hitters today are definitely stronger and more athletic than 40 years ago. Stats cut both ways. Pitchers know hitters tendencies and hitters know pitchers.

Side note, could you imagine Mickey Mantle with today's training methods?
Reply Quote
1 edit
AggieEP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 7:46p, 6/30/25
Fair points, part of what sent me down this rabbit hole as I mentioned in the OP was that 37 year old deGrom is dominating again this year. He is also taking something off his velo so he can hopefully stay healthy.

I don't know how long he'll want to pitch, but this version of him is still good. As mentioned by others, maybe not the CY frontrunner, but he's in the top 5. Without these first 3 months of this year I think I'd have a much harder time showing the confidence I have that he's a HoF'er. This season is proving (to me) that he's not a flash in the pan, he's great even as he ages.

ETA: I looked at Pedro, he was cooked at 34 years old and out of the league at 37. Last 4 years 22-18 with a 4.58 ERA with a lot of injuries only pitching 57 times those last 4 years.

As I look at Pedro, the real difference here is he debuted at 20 years old and already had 65 wins by the time he was 25 (when deGrom debuted). You might know this story, but deGrom went to Stetson as a SS and didn't full time pitch until his junior year, so some of his delayed debut is on him for chasing his own dream of being a position player.
Reply Quote
1 edit
AustinAg2K
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieEP • 9:17p, 6/30/25
AggieEP said:
As I look at Pedro, the real difference here is he debuted at 20 years old and already had 65 wins by the time he was 25 (when deGrom debuted).


65 wins and about 800 more innings pitched, a thousand more strikeouts, forty more complete games, etc.

Looking closer at deGrom, he's had one truly great season. Three or four very good seasons. Then he has a bunch of great half seasons. He has only had two complete season (arbitrary going with 150 innings for a complete season) with an ERA+ over 150. Pedro had 7 in his first 12 years. Randy Johnson's prime years (going with 93-04), he had an overall ERA+ of 166, a WHIP of 1.077, and an insane SO/9 of 11.8. Those are just the first two names I thought of. A true stat head could probably find other examples of guys who had a decade of total dominance, but whose career averages are pulled down by the twilight years.
Reply Quote
3
W
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jja79 • 10:53p, 6/30/25
AG
jja79 said:
I'm adding Ron Guidry, Mike Cuellar and Sonny Siebert to my HOF campaign.
Ron Guidry...there's a name

Guidry's 9-year stretch (1977-1985) blows deGrom's career out of the water

wins, innings, complete games, etc..,

(and he battled injuries too)
Reply Quote
AggieEP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to W • 11:27p, 6/30/25
Guidry pitched 1000 more innings than deGrom has so far and they are nearly identical in WAR.

He's a good player and I don't mind discussing his merits on their own, but deGrom has to pitch 1000 innings at 0.0 WAR for us to say they are comparable.

The likely scenario is that deGrom (barring injury... knocks on lots of wood) is going to finish around 55-60 WAR despite the injuries putting him solidly in the same company with Sabathia (62 WAR) Halladay (64 WAR) and well ahead of guys like Jack Morris (45 WAR).
Reply Quote
Farmer1906
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to W • 11:34p, 6/30/25
AG
W said:
jja79 said:
I'm adding Ron Guidry, Mike Cuellar and Sonny Siebert to my HOF campaign.
Ron Guidry...there's a name

Guidry's 9-year stretch (1977-1985) blows deGrom's career out of the water

wins, innings, complete games, etc..,

(and he battled injuries too)


We judge how good a player is by how many innings he plays? Sounds very Altuve vs whoever people used to argue.
Reply Quote
1
Marvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieEP • 11:36p, 6/30/25
AG
AggieEP said:
Guidry pitched 1000 more innings than deGrom has so far and they are nearly identical in WAR.

He's a good player and I don't mind discussing his merits on their own, but deGrom has to pitch 1000 innings at 0.0 WAR for us to say they are comparable.

The likely scenario is that deGrom (barring injury... knocks on lots of wood) is going to finish around 55-60 WAR despite the injuries putting him solidly in the same company with Sabathia (62 WAR) Halladay (64 WAR) and well ahead of guys like Jack Morris (45 WAR).

Maybe I am wrong- not an advanced stat guy- but I think WAR compares players against their contemporaries, not against players from different generations.
Reply Quote
2
AggieEP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 11:40p, 6/30/25
How can you say he's only had one great season? He won the Cy Young twice and by nearly unanimous votes and over guys like Scherzer and Kershaw that are both hall locks. In 2020 (covid year) he didn't miss a single start and finished 3rd in the CY voting.

Then as mentioned his 2021 season was trending towards the single greatest season in MLB history for a pitcher, including all the dead ball era guys.

I think at a minimum we have to recognize that from 2015-2021 he was not only dominating but also consistently available. The fact that he missed most of the next 3 years shouldn't detract from the 7 consecutive years where he was available and dominating. One great year is a dishonest way to look at that 2015-2021 run.
Reply Quote
jja79
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to W • 11:42p, 6/30/25
AG
Go look at Don Wilson and JR Richard. Short careers but dominating. Both completed roughly 1/3 of their starts and had 20 and 19 shutouts respectively. Wilson threw 2 no hitters.

I agree with you that Guidry blows deGrom out of the water. The 27-3 season was something to see.
Reply Quote
2
AggieEP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Marvin • 11:48p, 6/30/25
WAR is comparative but does give a rough idea of a player's value/contribution to winning and can be used roughly to compare across eras. (Although the point you bring up is valid, it can't be used to definitively compare players across eras)

Correct in that Guidry is being compared against players of his era, while deGrom is compared to players of his era for the calculations of their WAR. But... WAR does give us a rough way to compare players from different eras as well by allowing us to see how far they deviated in a given year from the performance of a replacement level player. i.e. a 5.0 WAR in 1980 means the same thing as a 5.0 WAR in 2025 in terms of performance in comparison to peers during the season.

It's one of those stats that holds up pretty well when you look at the legends of the game and see that guys like Babe Ruth were 10+ WAR players and when a guy like Judge has a great year his WAR sits around the same number.

Context is always key though and understanding that the definition of a "replacement level player" has morphed over the years considerably should be taken into consideration when analyzing WARs across eras.
Reply Quote
2 edits
jja79
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieEP • 12:05a, 7/1/25
AG
His 2021 was better than Bob Gibson's 22-9 with a 1.12 ERA, 28 complete games and 13 shutouts in 34 starts?
Reply Quote
1
AustinAg2K
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieEP • 1:07a, 7/1/25
AggieEP said:
How can you say he's only had one great season? He won the Cy Young twice and by nearly unanimous votes and over guys like Scherzer and Kershaw that are both hall locks. In 2020 (covid year) he didn't miss a single start and finished 3rd in the CY voting.

Then as mentioned his 2021 season was trending towards the single greatest season in MLB history for a pitcher, including all the dead ball era guys.

I think at a minimum we have to recognize that from 2015-2021 he was not only dominating but also consistently available. The fact that he missed most of the next 3 years shouldn't detract from the 7 consecutive years where he was available and dominating. One great year is a dishonest way to look at that 2015-2021 run.


Sorry, but I don't think his 2019 season was a historically great season. It was very good, and he deserved the NL CY, but the competition was also weak that year. I mean the #2 vote getter was Hyun Jin Ryu. If he played in the AL, there's a good chance he finishes 3rd, behind Verlander and Cole.

2020 wasn't his fault, but it still wasn't a full season. No one played a full season. If someone had finished hitting .400, pretty much everyone would say it's a sham.

That's great he was tending towards the greatest season ever for half a season in 2021. Maybe they can set up a wing of the Hall for greatest half seasons.

I don't think anyone is saying deGrom isn't a great pitcher when healthy. I think people (or at least I do) have a problem with the hyperbole of being one of the two or three greatest pitchers to ever pick up a ball, or greatest season ever. You are picking stats that make your case and ignoring those that don't. Fine you want to ignore wins, because the pitcher doesn't have complete control over that. However, he does have complete control over innings pitched. Even against contemporaries, he has a very low number of complete games and shutouts (Framber Valdez has more). He has virtually no post season experience. You can say it's not his fault, and his teams suck, but you play the game to win championships, and the one time his team did, he wasn't any part of it.
Reply Quote
1
AggieEP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 8:17a, 7/1/25
I don't discount your opinions at all, logical and valid points. I do think a nearly unanimous CY does indicate a great year, but suppose you can argue everyone else just sucked that year and he was the least sucky.

I do take a slight issue with controlling how many innings you pitch though. You can find a few guys like Framber that are still finishing games occasionally, but it's an entire league wide phenomenon that pitchers don't go much past 7 even when they are dominating. Maybe deGrom asks out of games early, and that would negatively effect how I think about him, but I think it's more likely that the manager pulls him against his will most nights. I still pitch in a men's league, and I never want to come out when I start, it's part of the mentality of a starter to go deep and finish strong. However, the game has really changed and very few starters are allowed to see a lineup a 4th time or throw more than 110 pitches.

In 2018 he was 2nd in innings pitched, and in 2017 and 2019 he was 10th overall, so compared to his peers, when healthy he pitched a full load just as much as anyone else does. It's a bit disingenuous to infer that he's going any shorter in games than anyone else these days.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Faustus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 8:41a, 7/1/25
AustinAg2K said:
TarponChaser said:
Dekker_Lentz said:
There will be a recalibration of the hall of fame for starting pitching. No doubt about that. The game is much harder for pitchers today than any point.

That being said the issue with deGrom is he put together some amazing seasons. But did he put together an amazing elite careers.

For better or worse, the Hall of Fame is about amazing elite careers.

In terms of WAR, deGrom rank 133 (45.3 WAR) is closer to Garriet Cole rank 158 (42.5 WAR) than to Chris Sale rank 80 (55.9 WAR).


https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_pitch_career.shtml

At some point deGrom's shorter career through injury is a hindrance. I agree a third Cy-Young gets him in. I think 120 wins is another milestone that would help if he doesn't get a third Cy-young.

Currently, he has two WAR outlier seasons that he won Cy-Youngs. There is argument that he only had a few hall of fame seasons, but not an overall hall of fame career.

I'm not at all sure the game is harder for pitchers today. Now, the way pitchers are used definitely makes it harder for them to count stats.

But league-wide BA, OBP, SLG are all down significantly from where they were 20-25 years ago. It's a chicken/egg argument but is that because pitchers are so much better or are hitters that much worse?

Interestingly, per Baseball Reference (https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/bat.shtml) the runs per game (per team) have remained relatively constant (within a half-run) over that time frame while Ks are up almost 2 per game and BB are also pretty consistent.


A pretty good argument could be made that pitchers have it easier today because they are only expected to go five or six innings and once only every five days. Guys today can go all out because they know they aren't going to be needed for 120 pitches. Stats show that hitters are far more effective against a pitcher the third time through the inning. What would guys ERAs be throughout history of they never had to face a guy a third time?

Edit: I actually think it would be an interesting project to see what kind of stats guys would have if they were regularly pulled after 6 innings/100 pitches like pitchers are today. Like what would Nolan Ryan's or Steve Carlton's ERA be if you only include the first six innings of games. Obviously cumulative stats like Ks, IPs, wins, etc. would be way down, but I suspect average stats (ERA, WHIP, etc.) would go up.


Well sure, they've already turned the lineup over twice that inning and plated at least 13 runs.
Reply Quote
1
The Original Houston 1836
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieEP • 9:34a, 7/1/25
AggieEP said:
WAR is comparative but does give a rough idea of a player's value/contribution to winning and can be used roughly to compare across eras. (Although the point you bring up is valid, it can't be used to definitively compare players across eras)

Correct in that Guidry is being compared against players of his era, while deGrom is compared to players of his era for the calculations of their WAR. But... WAR does give us a rough way to compare players from different eras as well by allowing us to see how far they deviated in a given year from the performance of a replacement level player. i.e. a 5.0 WAR in 1980 means the same thing as a 5.0 WAR in 2025 in terms of performance in comparison to peers during the season.

It's one of those stats that holds up pretty well when you look at the legends of the game and see that guys like Babe Ruth were 10+ WAR players and when a guy like Judge has a great year his WAR sits around the same number.

Context is always key though and understanding that the definition of a "replacement level player" has morphed over the years considerably should be taken into consideration when analyzing WARs across eras.
I hope you can appreciate the irony that you're discounting Wins, the stat that has been around since Day 1, but champions WAR - which is WINS above replacement, a made-up stat from 20 years ago.
Reply Quote
3
AggieEP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Original Houston 1836 • 9:50a, 7/1/25
Are you telling me that you'd rather have 1998 Rick Helling (20 game winner) than 2018 Jacob deGrom (10 game winner) on your team?

Because if so... we don't have much common ground on how we see the game.
Reply Quote
3
BCSWguru
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieEP • 10:10a, 7/1/25
it appears one of you views personal stats as a priority and one of you values team wins.
Reply Quote
The Original Houston 1836
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieEP • 10:43a, 7/1/25
AggieEP said:
Are you telling me that you'd rather have 1998 Rick Helling (20 game winner) than 2018 Jacob deGrom (10 game winner) on your team?

Because if so... we don't have much common ground on how we see the game.
That's ridiculous cherry picking and you know it.


Would you rather have 10-9 Jacob Degrom or 24-4 Dwight Gooden?
Reply Quote
1
Farmer1906
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Original Houston 1836 • 10:48a, 7/1/25
AG
The Original Houston 1836 said:
AggieEP said:
Are you telling me that you'd rather have 1998 Rick Helling (20 game winner) than 2018 Jacob deGrom (10 game winner) on your team?

Because if so... we don't have much common ground on how we see the game.
That's ridiculous cherry picking and you know it.


Would you rather have 10-9 Jacob Degrom or 24-4 Dwight Gooden?
I think you're missing the point. 1985 Gooden had a 1.52 ERA, 2.13 FIP, and an 8.9 WAR. That's a fantastic season, whether he went 24-4 or 4-24.

So much of wins is outside of the control of a pitcher. Why judge him heavily on it? Why not focus on what the individual is actually doing?

Reply Quote
AggieEP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BCSWguru • 10:52a, 7/1/25
Not a correct assessment of the discussion here.

The hall of fame is (mostly) an individual achievement with a small boost (or big boost if you're a Yankee) given for team success.

So in this thread discussing the merits of a player's hall of fame credentials it just makes sense to focus more on the individual stats.

As a Rangers fan, that 98 season for Helling was exactly what the team needed for team success (wins) and I can appreciate that separately from individual greatness like deGrom. It's just the specific purpose of this thread is hall of fame credentials, which almost always tend towards an analysis of individual stats.

ETA: also team wins come as a direct result from individual players doing their jobs. deGrom on that 98 Rangers team would have been like 30-1 with the insane run support Helling got that year. Helling finished with only 20 wins because of how poorly he pitched most of the season despite great support.
Reply Quote
2 edits
AggieEP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Original Houston 1836 • 11:01a, 7/1/25
I'll add on to Farmer's post and say that I'd take either player and it'd be a really hard decision if you forced me to pick only one to pitch a deciding game in their prime. They pitched almost identically, but team success was radically different in their best seasons.

You seem to be missing the point that if a pitcher gives you a 7 innings 2 hit 14K game, he's really done his job well. If he doesn't get the win, we don't just discount that start. I've never seen anyone look at Trout's 10 WAR seasons and say... well yeah he hit 50 bombs, carried a 325 average and stole 30 bases, played gold glove defense... but who cares, he's a bum because the Angels lost 90 games.

A hitter that goes 3-4 with 2HRs and 5 RBIs in a loss still counts those towards his end of year counting totals even if he strikes out with the bases loaded to end the game in a one run loss.

Baseball is a wonderful combination of individual battles leading to team success. Every guy has a set of individual battles within their control, deGrom is one of the best ever at winning his battles and giving his team a great chance to win. But he can't do it all, and so it's silly to focus so heavily on the wins which are likely the dumbest stat in baseball because it does so little to capture the impact of a pitcher on a game.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
AustinAg2K
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieEP • 11:36a, 7/1/25
AggieEP said:
Are you telling me that you'd rather have 1998 Rick Helling (20 game winner) than 2018 Jacob deGrom (10 game winner) on your team?

Because if so... we don't have much common ground on how we see the game.


Well, since the point is to win games, yes, I would rather have Rick Hellings 20 wins than deGrom's 10, regardless of what all the other stats say. Now, if you're saying who do I think is the better pitcher, or who do I think is more likely to have success in the future, that's different. But if the choice is 20 wins or 10 wins, give me the 20 every time.
Reply Quote
1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.