POLL: Tom Glavine & the Hall of Fame
Posted by Andy on June 11, 2010
I was surprised to see some discussion on another thread that Tom Glavine might not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He's got 305 wins, 2 Cy Young awards (and 3.15 career Cy Young shares which is 8th all-time), five 20-win seasons, played in 5 World Series and one once, pitched 3 complete games in the World Series, and also had a .244 career OBP with 90 RBI in 1,323 AB. He wasn't on the disabled list until the last year of his career.
I could call up all sort of positive stats for Glavine. Let me see what I can do make a case against him, and then let's all vote in the poll below.
- His career ERA+ of 118 puts him behind a bunch of good-but-not-Hall-worthy pitchers such as Jimmy Key, Dave Stieb, Bret Saberhagen, Andy Messersmith, Kevin Appier, Ron Guidry, and David Cone. (Counter-argument: he pitched a lot more innings than those guys and it's hard to maintain a really high ERA+ over 4,000+ innings. Also most of the other 60 guys ahead of Glavine are HOFers or future HOFers.)
- Among the pitchers with at least 2,000 IP in the last 50 years, Glavine is well below-average in strikeouts per 9 IP and also well below-average in walks per 9 IP (in the latter case, I'm using 'below-average' to mean that he walked more batters than the average pitcher.)
- His neutralized pitching stats show he was more deserving of a .563 winning percentage than his actual figure of .600. If he had a .563 W-L% on the same number of actual decisions, that would be a career record of 286-222. There are pitchers with similar actual records (Tommy John 288-231 and Jim Kaat 283-237) who are also not in the HOF.
- His neutralized stats also suggest that he didn't deserve a single 20-win season. His high is 18 wins, in both 1991 and 1996.
- He had a 4.61 ERA over 10 starts in the NLDS and a 6-10 record in 17 starts in the NLCS.
I don't think this is a very compelling case against Glavine. (Keep in mind I support him being in the HOF.)
What do you think?
June 11th, 2010 at 10:28 am
I read a book a long time ago by keith olberman and dan patrick that had a chapter about the hall of fame and they used an argument that i've never really seen done anywhere else, and i think it's the best way to do it...
we can't ever accurately judge Glavine against anyone other then the people he played with in his time. So i'm more interested in how he ranked against players that played during the years he played. meaning his ranking using the years of 1987-2008.
I don't know, I guess I just hate trying to judge players from different eras with abstracts like win counts or k/9inn. Also, can anyone explain why having a low k/9 rate would be bad? I mean he got the outs didn't he? What's so much better about a strikeout?
June 11th, 2010 at 10:39 am
I was talking about Glavine with a buddy of mine in January and he asked me if Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz were all eligible for the HOF at the same time, and you had to only pick 2 of the 3, who would you take. I said Maddux and Glavine without hesitation. He made a pretty good arguement for omitting Glavine and taking Smoltz instead. I also asked quite a few people the same thing and I was shocked at how many people would put Smoltz in the HOF before Glavine. To me, Glavine is a automatic, first ballot HOF'er. 300 wins, especially now with the state of pitching today, will probably never be achieved again. The only guy with a real good chance would be Sabathia.
June 11th, 2010 at 10:50 am
A career ERA+ of 118 is certainly not a disqualification because it's quite good, especially when reviewed in the context of a lengthy career. The longer a pitcher sticks around, his career ERA+ numbers will decrease, but that doesn't have any impact on his HOF qualifications. As brilliant as Greg Maddux was as a pitcher, his career ERA+ of 132, which is exceptional, still somehow seems less than our image of him. It's a few points lower than Harry Brecheen, who scores a 134, and is tied with Noodles Hahn. And that illustrates the problem of rating a pitcher just on ERA+. I don't know how many discussions I've had with people who proclaim, Pitcher A is as good or better than Pitcher B, because of his ERA+. Really? So you're telling me that Tim Hudson is as good a pitcher as Tom Seaver because they have the same ERA+?
Being compared to names like Cone and Guidry and Saberhagen is not a bad thing for Glavine. Most would agree they were HOF-caliber pitchers for points during their careers. Where they fall short is in longevity and their peaks weren't so dominant that they could get into the HOF being being short of the counting stats. Glavine probably wasn't as good a pitcher as Saberhagen when he was at his very best. He never had a single season as dominant as Guidry's '78. Yet he beats them both on the overall quality of the career.
Easy vote. HOFer.
June 11th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Aren't most 20 wins seasons at least a little luck, though? Was Glavine getting really high run support, or was he lucking into 20 win seasons, and unlucking in 16 win seasons, when he deserved 18?
June 11th, 2010 at 10:58 am
By Hall of Fame Standards and HoF Monitor, Glavine is a lock. Five of the top 10 similarity scores for Glavine belong to HoFers (6 if you count future HoFer Randy Johnson). I say yes.
Maddux, Glavine and Mussina will all be eligible the same year. Maddux is a lock. If you had to choose between Glavine and Mussina, who do you choose?
June 11th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Brian I think it's fair to say that seasons with 17+ wins have, on average, some good luck, just like seasons with 17+ losses have, on average, some bad luck. Most .500 seasons are probably closer to neutral in terms of luck.
But compare Glavine to Maddux. Maddux had 2 20-win seasons and 5 19-win seasons. Pretty damn good. His neutralized pitching record, however, has him with SIX 20-win seasons, including 5 in a row, and another 19-gamer. So it's not a clear cut case that all 20-win seasons are a product of luck.
June 11th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Whiz,
I would have to take Glavine over Mussina there. Mussina I believe is a HOF'er, but if you had to pick one or the other, I would take Glavine.
June 11th, 2010 at 11:39 am
When it comes to the HOF, there are always nay-sayers. The ones trying to block Clemons, Bonds and Rose are louder, perhaps; but their objections sound a LOT like those against Speaker for supposedly throwing games.
As for Glavine, though {and Smoltz and Maddox}; they'll all be in by 2018. Count on it.
June 11th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Actually, you can't compare his neutralized stats to other non-neutralized stats, so none of those comparisons are actually a case against Glavine 😉
June 11th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I'm the only one who expressed doubts about Glavine, and they aren't really doubts. If I had a vote, I'd leave him off the first year, and then vote him in until he made it. As far as I'm concerned he belongs in. I was really just lamenting that a guy (Blyleven) who basically had a very similar career in terms of IP, ERA+, WPA, etc. is coming this close to getting the shaft because he didn't hit the magic 300, when the difference is *clearly* the teams they played on.
For pitchers of this generation, I have a hard time ranking Clemens[*], Maddux, Johnson and Pedro Martinez. I think all 4 have a case for not just best of this generation, but also best all-time. Glavine, Mussina and Smolz clearly come after these guys. I'd say all seven deserve to be in. I'd take the last three in this order if I have to choose: Smolz > Glavine > Mussina. Moyer doesn't quite make the cut for me, even if he gets 300, but the voters will put him in if he lasts that long. If he really puts in another 3-5 years as an average starter or close, I won't cry too hard when they put him in, even though I'd still maintain he doesn't belong. There have been worse travesties.
Schilling is the toughest pitcher to call for this generation (IMO). He pitched at the standard of Smolz/Glavine/Mussina, maybe even a hair better, but his career was a few years shorter. If he had another 3-4 good years, he's in for sure, but as it is, I could call him either way. Part of me thinks he should be in, but his career doesn't really distinguish itseflt enough from guys like Gooden, Cone and Hershisher who the voters panned right off. I was shocked when those three all went off the ballot in their first year. I thought Cone at least was borderline and figured he would hang around 15 years might make it if the stars aligned. Gooden's denoument was mediocre, but he had 2-3 years as dominant as they come.
So the real question is: is seven too many or too few for this era of pitchers relative to how many guys are in the hall from other eras? Should we be looking for candidates to enshrine? perhaps passing the trio of first ballot dissed above to the veteran's committee for justice, or voting in schilling and Moyer or maybe somebody else? Or should we be figuring out who to cut out of Smolz, Glavine and Mussina?
There has been expansion -- maybe it's easier to rack up high ERA+ today than it was in 1950 or 1960, and it seems like fewer guys are in the hall from that era than I'm wanting to put in for this one, even though some of them looking at stats, don't seem to measure up even to guys I'm saying are borderline. Compare Whitey Ford to Curt Schilling, for instance. Anybody here who is old enough to have seen games pitched by the guys retired in the 60s and early 70s available to comment? Was there something there in Ford's game that the stats don't capture?
To me, this is the relevant conversation to be having. how many should get in of the batch of pitchers retired in the last few years or about to do so in the next few? Seven? 10? five?
[*] ignoring issues around steroids and looking purely at career performance on the mound.
June 11th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Schilling is a very interesting case, indeed.
June 11th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
One thing about Ford is that Stengel tended to match him up against tougher opponents.
June 11th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
This had better be another sanity check.
June 11th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Schilling is one of 4 pitchers in history to strikeout 3,000 batters and walk less than 1,000 batters (Maddux, Jenkins and Pedro are the others). He is also only 1 of 2 pitchers to strike out 3,000 batters and allow less than 3,000 hits (2,998 to be exact. Pedro is the other with only allowing a ridiciulous 2,221 hits). He also was a big game pitcher. To me, he is a HOF'er, maybe not first ballot, but down the road.
June 11th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
His ERA+ also puts him ahead of some first ballot hall of fame pitchers. One of them is named Steve Carlton, the other is Nolan Ryan. Is that enough proof?
June 11th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Glavine > Mussina, though I don't think by a huge margin. Glavine has 1000 more innings which is gigantic, but Moose has more K's and half as many walks -- and spent his entire career pitching to Boston, New York, and (early 90s) Toronto. Mussina obviously lacks hardware, but he lost the Cy in 1999 to Pedro and was 3 outs from a ring in 2001 -- and he has, what 8 gold gloves? They've got similar post-season numbers.
That said, from where I sit Mussina's probably deserving of the Hall, so Glavine pretty clearly is.
June 11th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
It is sort of a sanity check...Glavine is getting fewer 'yes' votes than Griffey.
Schilling will be my next poll...should be a lot more interesting.
June 11th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
@12 - I also remember reading that Ford thought that Stengel would hold down his starts by skipping him in the rotation and using him in relief on orders from GM George Weiss, so that he wouldn't achieve 20 wins and Weiss could hold his salary demands down. Ford had his first 20-win season only in 1961, after both Weiss and Stengel had been fired. Also, Ford won all those WS games, and had a huge reputation as a big game pitcher.
June 11th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
I would love to debate schilling, hes a great subject
June 11th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
"Really? So you're telling me that Tim Hudson is as good a pitcher as Tom Seaver because they have the same ERA+?"
tim hudson has pitched for 12 years, Seaver pitched for 20. If you cut Seaver's career off after his 12th season, his ERA+ is 140, not 128. If Hudson pitches another 8 years, and his ERA+ doesn't drop, I think you could make a case that he's as good as Seaver, or at least in the ballpark.
career ERA+ is a good comparison for pitchers with similar length and arc careers, although I'd still agree it doesn't say everything.
BTW, Maddux seems like a better than 133 ERA+ pitcher because for 19-20 years, he was a 143 pitcher, but he played 6 years of average ball at the end of his career. In comparison to anybody who didn't also pitch 24 years, it's reasonable to look at what he did, chopped off at a more normal career length of 18-20 years. Of course, Clemens managed to pitch 24 yrs and hold up his 143 average right to the end, so that's a mark for RC in the all-time all-timer discussion. I don't fault Maddux for continuing to play, though. He was still average+ over his last 6 years, and only dipped below 100 ERA+ in his last 2, it's not like he was getting a lot of starts he didn't deserve because of his past career.
June 11th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
One addendum -- I am still pushing for the Vets to finally tab Count Mullane for the Hall as well, and will continue to do so until justuce is served.
June 11th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Glavine certainly wouldn't make the Hall of FIP, but he will make the Hall of Fame, and deserves to. There are nine starting pitchers from his era that I would vote for:
Clemens
Johnson
Maddux
Martinez
Schilling
Smoltz
Mussina
Glavine
Brown
Schilling is a very easy choice for me; I'm somewhat surprised that so many people see him as borderline or not deserving. Maybe we need a Schilling thread to debate his merits.
Now, Kevin Brown is the guy who really seems to fly under the radar in these discussions. I think he's hurt by the fact that he played for so many different teams during his prime. But he was the best pitcher in the National League for a solid five-year stretch (1996-2000), finishing in the top three in WAR all five years and twice finishing first. His career WAR total of 64.8 and ERA+ of 127 are HOF-caliber.
June 11th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Confession time -- this is the first I have even considered Brown; but I would at leats place him on my list of "Borderline HOF Candidates", along with Schilling and Mussina
June 11th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Brown's numbers are very similar to Schilling's. And I expect Schilling will be inducted, and Brown probably won't see a second ballot.
June 11th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
The only real lock for schilling is the precedent that all members of the 3000k club (of those currently eligible) have made the hall of fame.
June 11th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Up next:
Randy Johnson's 4 consecutive Cy Young awards, impressive?
yes, I think it is impressive
yes, but not as impressive as most think
no, but I'm also a stupid, poopy head
June 11th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
The HOF writers have done kind of a terrible job over the last 10-15 years identifying great starting pitchers for the HOF. They basically skew everything to career accomplishments and don't put much weight on peak performance which makes Bert Blyleven's omission rather strange. And they put too much value on Wins and W-L%.
Glavine was a great pitcher and lucky that he was on some great teams with great defenses and he pitched for a really long time. He shouldn't have any trouble getting in the HOF.
Leaving off Clemmens, R. Johnson, Maddux and Pedro because they're among the 25 top pitchers of all time, here's a top 10 list of career and peak, 5+ war seasons. These are Pitchers whose careers began since 1979, roughly Glavine's generation of pitchers:
Mike Mussina-74.8 career War:
7+War Seasons: 1
6+War Seasons: 2
5+War Seasons: 4
5+Peak value:41.2
Should be a first ballot HOF but will probably have trouble getting in the HOF. The strike of '94-95 probably cost him 2 twenty win seasons and 2 6+ WAR seasons, great peak as well as a great career, Really a very underrated pitcher.
Curt Schiling-69.7 career WAR:
7+WAR seasons: 1
6+WAR Seasons: 4
5+WAR Seasons: 1
5+Peak Value: 37.9
Should get in the HOF, Great Career Value, Great Peak and the writers tend to value post-season play.
Tom Glavine-67 career WAR:
7+WAR Seasons: 1
6+WAR Seasons: 0
5+WAR Seasons: 3
5+Peak Value: 23.6
Very durable pitcher who was lucky and well as very good, Not as great as he was made out to be, more career value than peak, lock HOF because he hit certain career pitcher marks.
Kevin Brown-64.8 Career WAR:
8+WAR Seasons: 1
7+WAR Seasons: 1
6+WAR Seasons: 2
5+WAR Seasons: 2
5+Peak Value: 40.0
He was the best pitcher of this group at their respective peaks. Was the best pitcher in baseball in '96 & '98 and didn't win the Cy Young, should be a HOF.
Smoltz-63.9 Career WAR:
6+WAR Seasons: 1
5+Peak Value: 6.1
Great career value but was never really one of the greats during his peak. Odd decision to turn him into a closer in '02. He probably will get into the HOF
David Cone: 57.5 Career WAR:
6+WAR Seasons: 4
5+WAR Peak Value: 25.6
Next to Mussina, probably the pitcher in this group most affected by the strike of 94-95, probably cost him 2 twenty win seasons, probably a 7WAR Season. His career kind of came to a odd abrupt stop. He should still be at least still on the HOF ballot, He probably should be in the HOF when you consider his post season work.
Bret Saberhagen: 54.7 Career WAR:
8+WAR Seasons: 1
7+WAR Seasons: 1
6+WAR Seasons: 1
5+WAR Seasons: 2
5+Peak Value: 32.5
At his peak he was one of the best pitchers in baseball. Too many injuries cost him. The strike of '94 cost him at least a 6WAR season maybe a 7. He should be in the HOF.
Dave Steib: 53 Career WAR:
7+WAR Seasons: 1
6+WAR Seasons: 3
5+WAR Seasons: 1
5+Peak Value: 33
A very underrated pitcher who was the best pitcher in the American league from 1982-1984. He should have won at least 1 Cy Young award maybe two. Lost a 5+WAr season because of the '81 strike also had a 4.9 WAR season. He probably should be in the HOF.
Orel Hershiser: 51.5 Career WAR:
7+WAR Seasons: 1
6+WAR Seasons: 2
5+WAR Seasons: 1
5+Peak Value 26.7
He was the best pitcher in the National League from 1987-1989 in kind of down period for N.L. pitchers, yet he probably should have won 3 Cy Young awards in a row. Terrific Peak and probably should be in the HOF, great '88 post season as well.
Kevin Appier: 50.4 Career WAR:
8+WAR Seasons: 1
7+WAR Seasons: 1
6+WAR Seasons: 1
5+WAR Seasons: 1
5+Peak Value: 27.5
Extremely underrated pitcher who should have won the Cy Young in 1993. He should still be on the ballot but I'm kind of boderline on him. He probably needed a little bit more career value.
June 11th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Before anyone calls me on it, I forgot about Bert Blylven as the exception to the 3000k being a lock for the hall.
June 11th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Jim Says:
June 11th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
His ERA+ also puts him ahead of some first ballot hall of fame pitchers. One of them is named Steve Carlton, the other is Nolan Ryan. Is that enough proof?
-------------
No.
ERA+ is not as useful statistic in comparing pitchers across different generations as it is when comparing contempories. We now know that pitchers from the hitting-depressed 60s and 70s score lower than the top pitchers in the hitting rich 90s, as one example. I'm not saying we throw the statistic out the window for that type of evaluation, but I don't equate a pitcher with an ERA+ 130 in 1968 as being the same as a pitcher with an ERA+ of 130 in 1998.
The other problem with ERA+ is it treats someone who tosses 100 innings in a season the same as someone who tosses 275 innings. It's actually not the fault of the statistic as much as how people use it, although I would like to see a more weighted statistic on the value of a pitcher that takes into account the number of innings he delivers. A starter who goes out and gives a team 7-9 innings a start is going to have more value to a pitcher who is giving give innings and then causing bull pen burn. It not only impacts that game, but the following games. So ERA+ is just one statistic to look at, but it should not be used as the only part of a discussion simply because it helps you make your case.
Schilling certainly could go deep into the game when healthy, so that's not an issue with him, yet related to the whole issue of innings, from a career perspective Ryan pitched approximately 5400 innings to Schilling's 3200. That means Ryan pitched nearly 70% more MLB innings than Schilling. Carlton pitched about 65% more MLB innings. Carlton's career ERA+ was 115. Schilling's was 128. Yet Carlton is the superior pitcher.
To finish, I'm not saying Schilling is not a HOFer. As someone stated above, it's an interesting debate.
June 11th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
MikeD, i was simply refuting the original blog entry that listed off pitchers who had a higher era+ and weren't in the hall
June 11th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Correction of the WAR values @27, at least for the top guys:
Mussina: 74.6 WAR
Schilling: 67.7 WAR
Glavine: 71.6 WAR
Brown: 64.0 WAR
Smoltz: 65.5 WAR
Why? We're in a discussion about Tom Glavine, who won the Silver Slugger three times.
June 11th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
"I would like to see a more weighted statistic on the value of a pitcher that takes into account the number of innings he delivers."
WAR
June 11th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
I'm also a bit surprised to find any sentiment against Glavine for the HOF. As other posters have mentioned, career ERA+ tends to be lower for pitchers like him with prolonged careers. But looking at his 12-year prime (1991 to 2002), his ERA+ is 134. And while yes, wins are traditionally overrated, you can't just ignore 5 20-win seasons, leading the league each time, plus 2 Cy Youngs, and one of the best clutch World Series pitching performances ever (1-hitter to clinch the Series in Game 6 in 1995). He also completely reinvented himself in the later years of his career, and continued to be successful, which not many guys would be able to do.
As far as the other pitchers from this generation, and where they stand, Clemens is a unique situation, because obviously taking the numbers at face value, he's one of the best ever, but there's certainly more to any discussion involving him than that. Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, and Pedro Martinez are all absolute first-ballot locks.
As for the next tier, I think John Smoltz is pretty much a lock, as well. He was an All-Star caliber starter for a decade, then turned himself into one of the best closers in baseball for three years, then to top it off, at age 38, he became an All-Star caliber starter again for three more years. He was also a great big-game pitcher - 15-4 with a 2.67 ERA in the postseason.
Next is Mike Mussina, who I actually believe is pretty comfortably in, as well. Never as spectacular as some of the top tier guys, but consistently excellent throughout his entire career, pitching in the tough AL East the entire time. Could've probably gotten to 300 wins if he had really wanted to (finished with 270 as it is, and retired at age 39 after winning 20 his final season).
Then comes Curt Schilling, who I think may just be on the right side of borderline. I'm not sure. He didn't quite have the consistency throughout his career as the other pitchers I've already mentioned (through age 29, he had never been an All-Star or gotten a Cy Young vote, and really only had two good years), but he turned it on once he turned 30. It's really a tale of two careers. I think his postseason numbers really help him - 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA, and the whole 'bloody sock' legend will only continue to grow.
As for Kevin Brown, I think he's just on the wrong side of borderline. Another guy who's kind of a tale of two careers. Through age 30, he had been a good pitcher, but nowhere near HOF caliber. Then between 1996 and 2003, he was consistently one of the best pitchers in the NL. But compared to the other second tier guys I've mentioned, he has the least wins, the worst career WHIP, and the least impressive postseason resume. I just don't think he quite did enough to get in.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
In my opinion 300 Wins for a Modern Day Pitcher = HOF.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
To keep in the spirit of this thread, I'll add some of the things that may influence HOF voters.
Glavine probably stayed around longer just on the strength of being a lefty-finesse pitcher. For whatever reasons, righties who attempt to transition into a junk/finesse pitcher towards the end of their careers, seem to have less success (El Duque). Lefties make their living in their twighlight, throwing half the speed they did 12-15 years before. A famous quote by Frank Tananna, "I threw in the 90's in the 70's, and in the 70's during the 90's." Also think Jamie Moyer, Jesse Orosco. How long would they have lasted throwing from the right side. Being a Met Fan, I saw over half of Glavine's "last years'. And I must say, nearly every Ump gave Glavine a few more inches outside than anyone of his contemporaries. He was a major objector to QuesTech. Without that outside pitch, usually the change, Glavine would have been lit up. When he had to come inside, the ball would generally get smoked. I think the reason for his relative high walk totals was when he would get behind hitters 3-1 or 3-0, he would prefer to (un)intentionally walk the hitter, rather than risk grooving an 83 MPH fastball.
Of his 300 win contemporaries, Maddux, Clemens and Johnson, he never approached their domination. Even Maddux, whom nobody could call overpowering, did have one 200 K season, several 190, and over 3,300 total, or about 150 a season. And the other three would often go after hitters, challenging them to hit their best pitch, whereas Glavine would prefer to get a hitter to swing at a bad pitch out of the strike zone.
That being said, of the 4 - 300 G winners of the 2ks, Glavine certainly did the most with the least.
June 11th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
One Third
June 11th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Responding to Jim, this can't be another sanity check -- I passed.
June 11th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
It's also interesting to note Don Sutton's ERA+ was 108 and tossed well over 5200 innings. Only six pitchers in major league history tossed more innings than Don Sutton.
June 11th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
One thing that is worth mentioning with the Mussina v. Glavine debate: Mussina pitched his career in the AL East, Glavine in the NL East. I know ERA+ takes care of some of that, but the bottom line is that we don't know what effect it really has on pitchers to pitch in the AL and face all those, DHs, especially in the AL East. Also, Glavine lived by getting a strike 6 inches off the plate. They weren't calling that in the AL in the 90s.
June 11th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Once you plug in Glavine's hitting, he ends up with one 8 WAR season, two other 6 WAR seasons, and two more 5 WAR seasons. Extending the 1995 shortened season, Glavine could have ended up with a fourth 6 WAR season.
So once you include his offense, you have the pitcher with the 25th most career value, and a mid-level HOF peak. Easy, easy HOFer - even if Mussina/Schilling were better, which they probably were.
June 11th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
"Easy, easy HOFer - even if Mussina/Schilling were better, which they probably were."
I don't disagree with this, but it kills me. Shows how bogus HOF voting is.
June 11th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
One more thing: comparing Glavine's K rate and BB rates to guys with over 2,000 IP introduces a huge bias. The guys with over 2,000 IP had to have decent K and BB rates to pitch that long. We are comparing Glavine only to those who excelled at those rates- which is not fair or accurate for anybody. Compared to league average, Glavine was below in K/9, but not ridiculously low, and his BB/9 was better than league average. His career K/BB ratio was at league for starting pitchers for his Brave's tenure and a little below league average for his Mets career. Of course when you: have a great BABIP (even after factoring in his defenses), all-time HR/9 rates, low HBP rates, low WP rates, great LOB% numbers, high GIDP numbers,low XB hit rates, hold runners well, defend, and hit - you don't need the number of Ks most pitchers need to be successful.
June 11th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Bloody sock=HOF
June 11th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
The 2013 Ballot is loaded.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2013.shtml
Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Sosa, Schilling, Biggio
All of them deserve "first ballot" based on the numbers alone, but half of them are looking at possible voter boycotts due to PED issues. Those PED guys won't get zero votes though, they'll clog up the ballots. And the BBWAA doesn't liking inducting too many players at once so there will be spillage onto the 2014 ballot which itself is stocked with Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Mussina and Kent.
Its going to be fun to watch.
June 11th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Yeah - in the AL for guys like Mussina, Schilling, and Clemens they were only calling the letter-high fastball, which nobody else in the era ever got.
June 12th, 2010 at 1:05 am
More on Glavine and WAR:
Here are his league leadership finishes in WAR (including offense)
1991 - 1
1992 - 12
1993 - 11
1995 - 2
1996 - 2
1997 - 4
1998 - 3
2000 - 7
Again, we see a good, yet unspectacular peak - better than many would expect. Either way, the "lack of peak" argument is pretty soft with the amount of career value he has to go along with it.
June 12th, 2010 at 2:04 am
This may be the first thread that started out with a vote and asked for a debate and got none. No one seems to think Glavine doesn't deserve the HOF. Punch his ticket.
June 12th, 2010 at 2:20 am
A couple of sharp-eyed readers noticed last week that the top 10 pitchers in E.R.A.-plus were all from the National League. The main reason is that three awful pitching staffs are dragging the National League’s average E.R.A. up. Arizona (5.42), Milwaukee (5.32), and Pittsburgh (5.30) would all have the worst E.R.A. in the American League by nearly a half run. Since 1973, these are the first, third and fourth worst non-Rockies E.R.A.’s in National League history.
------------------
I pulled the above from a NY Times blog. It seemed appropriate based on my "attack" on ERA+ in a couple previous notes in this thread. I'm a long-time supporter of modern stats in baseball, a convert very early in my baseball viewing, going back to buying every new issue of Bill James' Baseball Abstract in the early 80s. Yet I've found in recent years an over reliance on stats such as ERA+ (and WAR and others) by many fans. I stated earlier that using ERA+ to compare pitchers from different generations is pointless. Yet the above line from the NY Times also reminds me that ERA+ has flaws when it comes to comparing players of the same generation, but who are in differnent leagues.
June 14th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
I think we should put the following argument on the + side of Glavine HOF credentials:
"Was drafted in the NHL"