Poll: Does Jamie Moyer deserve to be in the HOF?
Posted by Andy on May 10, 2010
It's Jamie Moyer Week here at the Baseball-Reference.com Blog. I say that because I know my post for tomorrow is about him and I've written something about him just about every day for a week already.
Please go back and read the posts and comments about Moyer here and then vote in the poll below.
May 10th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
As a Mariner fan, I have a lot of love for Moyer, but he was rarely considered the best pitcher on his own team, let alone in MLB during his tenure. Bonus points for consistency and longevity don't come close to compensating for his consistent and lengthy mediocrity.
It's an amazing thing to be near MLB average for 10 years let alone 24, but the Hall of Fame is reserved for those who are significantly better than that.
May 10th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
I spend 5 days on vacation away from the computer and I miss a series of posts about one of my favorite pitchers in the game right now. Not enough time to collect my thoughts on him and his HOF candidacy, but I did want to say RIP Robin Roberts. Only a few weeks away from seeing his "record" broken by Moyer
May 10th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
He is a one time all star and was only even considered for the Cy young 3 times. This is coming from a Philly fan nonetheless
May 10th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Should Moyer be? No, not unless he sticks on for even longer and it becomes impossible NOT to pick him. His stats are a dead ringer for Jack Morris's, but it's a pile of scenery with no highlights. I'm pulling for Moyer for have a couple of more years of 13-9 and ERA+ of 110, but I'm not kidding anyone, and even then, he'd be a weak candidate, but impossible not to pick.
May 10th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
If Moyer wasn't so awful or absent from MLB during the time period 1989-92 or even up to 1996, then he'd easily be at 300 wins. His career took a huge plunge after the Cubs traded him after the 1988 season.
May 10th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
i don't care if he plays for 30 years and gets 10 wins a year 300 wins is 300 wins....and he should be in...
May 10th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Isn't it ironic? Jamie Moyer could possibly be the first 300-game-winner to not be elected into the Hall of Fame, yet also the LAST 300-game-winner ever.
Slim, slim chance, but, still.
May 10th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
This is a joke, right? Jamie has been hanging on for 5 years to get to 262 wins at 47. At that age 38 victories represent a huge challenge. Even if he arrives at his half-century birthday with 300 wins it will not make him an "automatic" HOFer. The standards for the hall are, legitimately, I think, changing. Wins are not the only indicator of a pitcher's value (this is obviously a gross understatement). SABRmetrics have given us many tools for defining a player's value and wider acceptance of these tools have and will diminish the importance of the old "absolute" indicators of greatness (300 wins, 500 Homers, 3,000 hits etc.). Also, these milestones were nothing if not arbitrary-nice, round numbers that sound good. The obsession with these contrived milestones has caused us to overrate certain players while denying truly great ones their just rewards. It is a travesty that no one seems to be seeking "justice" for for Tommy John or Bert Blyleven (although the latter is about to reach Cooperstown). Both of these pitchers experienced injuries that denied them numerous wins (TJ missed an entire season) and this makes the argument that "they failed to win 300" completely ridiculous. John won 288 games and Blyleven 287. Very few observers would try to argue that Mussina, Moyer, Morris, Denny Martinez, Tanana, Wells or Pettite were greater hurlers than Pedro Martinez. Yet he had 219 victories while the pitcher above with the least wins is Pettite with 238 and counting. What about Hubbell (253) Gibson (251) or Marichal (243)? Come on people, have we all lost all semblance of common sense? There are probably 25 or more pitchers who were better than Moyer and are not in the Hall. If he gets 300 wins will it somehow magically make him better than Tommy John? If he were to reach 330 victories would it suddenly make him TWICE the pitcher Sandy Koufax was? At that point he would have twice the wins that Sandy did. I could site examples like these almost interminably, but why beat a dead horse. The answer is NO.
May 10th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Ernie, it's not a joke, it's a poll. I happen to agree with you entirely, except for your suggestion that nobody is supporting Blyleven. I have posted four separate times here arguing his case for HOF.
May 10th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
I don't see how Moyer could go into the hall, given that pitchers with better careers (Blyleven, which has been a personal cause of mine; Tommy John; Jim Kaat; and even Tony Mullane and Gus Weyhing going back to the 1800's to early 1900's) are not in. However, if he somehow manages to get to 300 wins (which is the only reason I don't think John and Kaat made it) then he will eventually make it in. Hell, Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry made it in with 300, even though they were known for 'doctoring' the ball.
May 10th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Again I will voice support for both Moyer and Kaat, and even give half a nod to both John and Mullane.
May 10th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
David, he's simply done an incredible job of making up for lost time. Those early seasons should have been peak productivity years.
He's taken a most unique path to his 262 wins. At the age of 30, he had just 46 wins, and a dozen of those came that year. Within two years, he was being told he should find a new profession. He turned his career around at age 33. How many pitchers -- or anyone, for that matter -- could do that?
Whether he's legitmate Hall caliber is secondary to the fact that he's still a marvel. If he somehow winds up with more wins than 99% of all other pitchers in the history of the game, it'd be tough to say "no".
Frank, I actually think John is the one who should be at the top of the list. He won 20 three times, after he hurt his elbow in a season in which he already had 13 wins by mid-season, missed the entire next season and split 20 decisions in his comeback year...and still won 288 games. It's not a stretch to think he would have had those 12 wins easily, if not for the elbow injury.
He made four All-Star teams, and led the league in shutouts three times. The last of the three was an incredible 14 years after the second.
It's amazing how good some of these so-called "second banana" guys really were. John won 80 games over the 1977-'80 seasons. If he were doing that today, he'd be making $15-million a year.
May 10th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
I think it's a very slippery slope to make arguments like "if John hadn't hurt his elbow..." and start adding wins. He's a pitcher, pitchers get hurt, that's the nature of the game. If you want to pretend John's injury didn't occur, you'd have to do it for every pitcher. How many pitchers we never even heard of could have won 300 games if they didn't get hurt? It's impossible to project. Maybe in a world where pitchers don't get hurt, Moyer never even gets a chance to prove himself again because there are no rotation openings....he fades out of the game with those 46 wins.
May 11th, 2010 at 1:20 am
I like Blyleven, too. I have also supported his candidacy. But, back to the main question, is Jamie Moyer good enough for Cooperstown? He needs another 38 wins to be SERIOUSLY considered. He has fewer strikeouts than many of the Hall of Fame candidates and only TEN shutouts. Jamie Moyer does have a World Series ring, but he'll need some BIG years between now and his retirement.
I hope he makes it and I want to say "yes", but I can't until he reaches Nolan Ryan's strikeout record or over sixty shutouts.
May 11th, 2010 at 1:54 am
True enough, I guess. But still, you have to wonder...
There's nothing wrong with playing a little "What if...?" I mean, we all think stuff like "Imagine if Babe Ruth was hitting in the modern era, and had all the training advantages, smaller ballparks, juicier baseballs, lower mounds, jet travel instead of the trains."
It's all part of the game.
Besides, we do make exceptions for players who lost time to serious injury. And we give benefit of the doubt to players who barely have five or six seasons in their careers that would make them Hall-worthy.
Sandy Koufax was the greatest pitcher on the planet...for five years. We've tossed more than half his career out the window when considering his qualifications. Why not just take the best five or six seasons from everyone's career?
Just based on his CWS/LAD/NYY totals, John was 260-182, 3.17, 44 shutouts. Bob Gibson was 251-174, 2.91, 56 shutouts. Not a huge difference. John's California/Oakland years actually drag him down a bit.
In his similarity scores, six of the 10 pitchers listed are HoFers, one of the remaining four is Glavine (a shoo-in), and the other three are Kaat, Blyleven and Tony Mullane.
Three old cats (and a Kaat), straddling the fence like no others.
Back to Moyer, I don't think even he entertains serious thoughts of the Hall. I think he simply gets his kicks out of still being able to do what he's doing. To be 47 years old, with a fastball that tops out at 83 on a good day, and having won in double-digits in 13 of the last 14 seasons...
How cool is that?
May 11th, 2010 at 2:24 am
Something I never really realized about Moyer. He was REALLY good, like I wish he was on the Phillies back THEN good, from 1996-2003. Even including 2000 when he wasn't that good, his ERA+ for that span is 121.
On a side note, it always bugs me when some older fan talks to me about Sandy Koufax. 106 ERA+ before his five year run of dominance and then retired at 30. Hardly the greatest pitcher ever.
That said, it's kinda neat to think that if Koufax had been born the same year as Moyer, his final season would have been 1993!
May 11th, 2010 at 3:04 am
And Jamie was just getting warmed up.
To be fair to Sandy, he was forced into retirement because of the arthritis in his left elbow.
He was a master craftsman for those five seasons, but my point was that his short burst of brilliance has allowed him to gain the HoF standing that others are denied when they, too, suffer from career-ending/threatening injuries.
If you need a minimum of 10 years in the Bigs to be eligible, how many of those 10 years need to be of Hall caliber?
I do believe that, given good health, Koufax could have set the baseball world on its ear for another 5-6 years. Who knows what his 1968 "Year of the Pitcher" numbers might have looked like.
But, there's Johnny Twisto's slippery slope again...
May 11th, 2010 at 5:40 am
JeffW-
It's my understanding that part of the reason Koufax's arthritis was so bad was his pitching style. If that's the case, we absolutely can not play the "What if" game for him. Either he had a 5 year run of dominance that quickly ended because of how he achieved that dominance OR we assume he could have pitched longer had he pitched differently and have to fairly assume "differently" would have meant "worse" if only because it would have been hard for him to have been any better. Koufax didn't have some freak accident that ended his career or a genetic disorder. This is where "What if" thinking gets a little ridiculous. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. For some guys, I think it's fair to play. Munson and Gehrig are two examples off the top of my head and I'm sure there are more. But for players whose success can be attributed to a playing style that ultimately contributed to their injury, it just doesn't compute.
May 11th, 2010 at 7:36 am
BSK, how are Munson and Gehrig two examples of short run dominance? Gehrig is one of the five greatest players to ever play the game of baseball. Munson had 3 great years, surrounded by merly average ones. What Koufax did was remarkable and that is why he is in the Hall of Fame. The best example of a "what if" thinking would have to be Ralph Kiner. Here is a guy that led the league in homers in his first 7 years, then played 3 more and was out of baseball with 369 homers.
In regards to Moyer, he has had a very good career, however, I just don't see dominance there or greatness for that matter. If he ever made it in to the Hall of Fame before Mussina did, I would be sick.
May 11th, 2010 at 8:30 am
I think the point is that Gehrig and Munson are cases where projecting the "what-if" is a fair thing to do. It's unnecessary to Gehrig's HOF case, of course, and not sufficiently helpful to Munson's.
As far as Moyer goes, I think he clearly is more comparable to Kaat or Tommy John than to most of the modern pitchers who are in. There could be an argument if he reached 300 wins, but the odds that a guy who is already the oldest non-knuckleball starter in baseball history will remain effective for three more years are astronomical.
May 11th, 2010 at 11:31 am
BSK,
I understand what you (and Johnny Twisto) are saying. Good or bad, however, it certainly is used to boost some players' credentials, but not others.
If Sandy had just those five Hall-caliber seasons, let's say so, and agree that he either needs more, or those five are enough. Then, apply the same standards to the other cases (Edgar Martinez, for instance).
The Edgar Martinez of 1992, 1995-2001 was certainly a Hall-caliber offensive player. That's eight years of high quality numbers, with two batting crowns and seven All-Star appearances, and you can add two more .300+ seasons (1990-'91), as well.
If he's forced to retire because of the bad hammies with just those 10 seasons, is he in? In that scenario, his career average is right around .320. And it's ended by circumstances involving a "freak accident," so it seems to meet BSK's standard.
Maybe the Hall career is actually in there, but Gar (and John) are being knocked down because they played on. If you already have the requisite numbers for serious consideration, should your case be devalued by having played other seasons that were less successful? It didn't seem to hurt Sandy.
Again, is five years enough to cement someone's Hall status?
Getting back to Moyer, what about the fact that -- with more extensive bullpen use at the back end, and fewer starts per season to begin with -- pitchers like Moyer are still able to rack up so many wins?
He's getting the wins with far fewer opportunities per season. They're strung out more, over more seasons. But they are still there.
Even if we can't say he would win "X" number of those additional starts, we can still admit that he's not even getting the chance to prove it, one way or another. League leaders in games started have dropped over the last 50 years, from around 40-45 to 34-35. Is that fair game in approaching career win totals?
If you can still rack up 260 or more wins, with so many fewer opportunities per season, that says something about perseverence. Despite his long career, Moyer is still only 18th in career starts. Comparing Moyer to John, TJ got 288 wins, but started 700 games. Moyer has just 26 fewer wins, despite 85 fewer starts.
I admit to being surprised by that comparison. Whether that vaults Moyer into the fence-straddling class, with John (Kaat, Blyleven and Mullane) may be in how you apply the numbers.
Is it short burst of brilliance (Koufax), career pile of numbers (300 wins, 500 homers, regardless of all else), or do we parse the percentages more, as in the case of Moyer/John?
One last thought: In the "He was never one of the 4-5 best pitchers of his era" argument used against John, who is to say that there are only so many legit Hall-caliber pitchers in any given stretch of years?
Does saying John suffers by comparision to Seaver, or Carlton, or Palmer necessarily tar his qualifications against the entire history of Major League pitchers?
Maybe that era (mid-to-late-'70's) was just particularly rich in extraordinary pitching talent. After all, there were also Ryan, Sutton, Niekro, Perry, Jenkins, Hunter, and even "shooting stars" like J.R. Richard (another great "short burst" argument, with freak, career-ending, illness/injury).
Maybe John and the others, like Richie Ashburn, simply have to wait their turn.
When (if) no one else reaches 250 wins in the next 20 years, perhaps John, Kaat, Blyleven, and even Moyer will be re-evaluated.
May 11th, 2010 at 11:49 am
From my perspective, as someone not born when Koufax retired, I'll agree that the sudden end to his career has probably added to his myth. He seems greater because he went out on top. But from what I have read/heard, he was regarded as legendary even in his own time. He didn't just have 5 great seasons, he had 5 tremendous seasons, bolstered by great pennant race and World Series performances. I don't think Edgar Martinez ever reached those heights. Every voter probably has some sort of sliding scale in their minds, whether they actually break down the numbers or not. The more legendary the peak, the briefer the career required. If Pedro Martinez couldn't return after hurting his arm in 2001, I'd still support him for the HOF, because for a few years he had pitched as well as it is possible to pitch. Johan Santana was the best pitcher in baseball, but he didn't reach Koufax/Martinez heights, so he needs more bulk to his career. Jamie Moyer has never been a "great" pitcher, but the HOF has recognized both great players AND great careers, and Moyer is approaching what could be considered a great career. (Personally I probably wouldn't support him even if he gets to 300 wins, but I expect he would eventually get elected.)
May 11th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Let me clarify.
My point was with playing the "what if" game, not with specific players HOF cred. I used Munson and Gehrig because they had abrupt endings to their careers completely out of their control. If Gehrig didn't have his disease, he might have strung together a few more seasons (though he clearly already made his case and then some). And if Munson didn't die in a plane crash, who is to say what he would have done?
For Koufax, the issue is different. Saying, "If he didn't get hurt, he would have done that for 2 or 3 or 5 more years." Well, who's to say he could have pitched effectively in a manner that would have kept him healthy? His injury was directly related to his pitching style which was directly related to his success. You can't really take the one without the other and, if you do, you get into hypotheticals that are just unreasonable and, ultimately, irrelevant.
Now, does that mean Koufax doesn't belong in the HoF? I'm certainly not arguing that. Only that he is a bad candidate for the "What if" game, one I'm reluctant to play at all and particularly opposed to for a guy like Koufax.
Imagine a ball player who made a deal with the devil, agreeing to literally trade his right arm for 3 consecutive Triple Crown, MVP seasons. This is a player who would otherwise be a solid regular but nothing more. Now, some might look at him in hindsight and say, "Imagine if he never lost his arm! Who knows what he would have done!" Well, we actually know exactly what he would have done: he would have stayed a solid regular. He only achieved his success at the direct expense of his arm. So we can't "What if" him because there is no "What if".
Now, that's a bit out there, I get, and clearly there is more gray area for Koufax in terms of exactly what contributed to his injury. BUT, it's the best way I could try to illustrate myself. Let's just hope Koufax didn't ACTUALLY make a deal with the devil...
May 11th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Wow. You're asking us to genuinely consider an actual deal with the devil and, even more amazingly, your argument makes sense.
May 12th, 2010 at 2:08 am
What was it Jim Bouton said in Ball Four, about a pill that would guarantee 20 wins, but might take five years off a pitchers life...?
Johnny, my own "sliding scale" puts a guy who has a .320 composite average in his 10 best seasons in the Hall. Edgar's BA/OBS/SLG/OPS package shows just what a fine hitter he was.
BSK, point taken on Sandy's injury. Maybe "What if...? isn't fair with Koufax. But I originally used Koufax simply because he best met the definition of "short burst" that I was looking for. He had an astonishing five-year run (evidently costing him longevity because of his pitching style) that was the overwhelming bulk of his career success.
I was using Sandy primarily as a springboard to highlight John's totals for a portion of his career that I believe made him Hall-worthy. I used a John/Gibson comparison to highlight where that slice of John's career put him.
Look at another Hall lefty, Herb Pennock, who won 241 games in 22 seasons. John won his highlighted 260 games in one less season, with an ERA that was .43 lower. It's almost exactly the same difference with another Hall hurler, Waite Hoyt. Hoyt won 237 games in 21 seasons, with a 3.59 ERA. John beats them both, handily.
Here's another: Ted Lyons. He was 260-230, 3.67 ERA in 21 seasons. The wins are the same, but Lyons has 48 more losses, and an ERA that's half-a-run higher.
How is John less worthy? Of the three, only Hoyt got in through the "back door" (Veterans' Committee). Pennock and Lyons were deemed worthy by the writers.
At the very least, I believe these comparisons show that John was/is very undervalued.
May 12th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Andy-
I'll take that as a compliment. I think! Would it have been more appropriate if I replaced "devil" with "Steinbrenner"?
May 13th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Being a HOFer seems to be relatively arbitrary, but people seem to fall into the category of either brilliance spread out over a standard length career, or above average performance spread out over a very long career. (In the case of Koufax--extreme brilliance spread out over only 5 years.) If the aged Moyer hangs on as a productive player for a few more yars, he could fit into the category of being above average performance spread out over a very long career. (In his case, extraordinarily long, and more "average" than "above average." If he hits 300 wins, he probably belongs. For me, the reason I'm cheering for Moyer is that he is so different than most pitchers today. He throws slow and slower, and wins or loses with the breaking ball at the knees and around the corners. There just aren't many like him. (Sort of like knuckleballers.) I always liked Maddux over harder throwing pitchers for the same reason. There's something intriguing about someone who can get a batter out using trickery. I say "Moyer, hit your 300 and enter the HOF."
May 16th, 2010 at 12:13 am
so i just read this thread and im pretty impressed by everyones baseball knowledge, and it seems like on argument to make about moyer is are 5-8 brilliant years(koufax, john) better than 25 average years, with some brilliance sprinkled in. i can say this, no pitcher will ever win more games then jamie moyer has now, and he is from the old school, i think a lot of the fame voters will, after a few years realize what he did.
hes no first ballot, likely last ballot, but once you see the "dominant pitchers" of this era, like pedro, whos got 219 wins in an era where you pitch at least 10 less games a year than back in the day. even if pedro won 50% of those extra games in his prime hed have 269+win and a career era under 3. thats hall worthy when you throwing to roided up morons.
johan santana has only 125 wins and hes already looking like hes on the downside of his career. we cant judge pitchers like they used to back in the day, with relievers and closers its a whole different game. that said moyer deserves to be in the hall based on his post 30 career, his longevity, his consistancy and just playin the game right. since no one will ever win even 250 games again, i think once moyers career is measured hell be in.
May 16th, 2010 at 12:16 am
is tim lincecum hall worthy? couple great years but his throwing motion is eventually gonna ef his shiz up. theres something to be said for an 83 mph fastball and a 77mph change up that has been getting people out for 25 years.