POLL: Roy Halladay and the Hall of Fame
Posted by Andy on October 12, 2010
With all that Roy Halladay has achieved this season, it's interesting to think about where he stands in terms of a possible Hall of Fame election.
Halladay spent his entire career before 2010 with the Toronto Blue Jays. He missed parts of 5 different seasons due to injury although he has enjoyed 5 essentially injury-free seasons in a row. He won the AL Cy Young award in 2003, has been a top-5 finisher each year from 2006 to 2009, and is the odds-on favorite to win the NL award this season.
Halladay is the active leader in W-L% despite never pitching for a playoff team before this season.
He's a 7-time All-Star and has pitched both a perfect game and a post-season no-hitter.
Click through to read more, discuss, and vote.
For Roy Hallday in the Hall of Fame:
- It's indisputable that Halladay has been one of the top pitchers in baseball in the last 5 seasons. He's been dominant and has both the counting stats and rate stats to back up the claim that he's had a very high peak.
- If you're into individual feats, he's got a bunch: a Cy Young award (likely 2 in a few weeks), a perfect game, a playoff no-hitter, 3 different 20-win seasons, tie or league lead in complete games 6 different times, 19 shutouts...
- Active career ranks: W-L% (1st), ERA (6th), WAR for pitchers (1st), Wins (4th), BB/9 (2nd), CGs (1st), SHO (1st), K/BB (7th), WPA (2nd).
- Halladay has the most wins in baseball since 2003--more than Sabathia, Santana, Oswalt, and everyone else.
Against Roy Halladay in the Hall of Fame:
- The biggest knock is that Halladay hasn't done it for long enough. He missed big chunks of what should have been his first 3 full seasons plus the equivalent of about one full season over 2004-5. He hasn't yet reached even Sandy Koufax's total inning pitched, although he should next April. Just about all of Halladay's counting stats are on the periphery in terms of how they match up with the 60 or so starting pitchers already in the Hall of Fame (and that total doesn't count all the recently-retired guys like Maddux and Johnson who will be in as well.)
- Halladay's neutralized numbers suggest he deserves even fewer wins--just 149.
- While it's tempting to assume certain final career numbers for Halladay based on what most good pitchers do after the age of 33, we all know that his performance is far from certain. Injuries come up all the time and his career could end at any time.
- Even if he doesn't have any significant injuries, his counting stats will be limited by all his missed time earlier in his career. If Halladay pitches through his Age 40 season, he would need to average 19 wins per season to reach 300 for his career. If he pitches through his Age 42 season, he would need to average he would need to average 14.5 wins. Neither is terribly likely. I'm not saying he needs to reach 300 wins to make the Hall of Fame, but the point is that he's likely to fall well short. The odds of him topping 270 wins aren't very high.
- Some of his great rate stats, such as W-L% and K/BB ratio, are almost certainly going to drop before his career ends. Halladay's got great numbers now that are likely at or close to the best they are going to look at any point in his career. As he adds to his counting stats, unfortunately he probably won't add enough to reach any magic numbers while simultaneously bringing down his rate stats. That's not a good combination.
Please add your comments to the post and vote in the poll below.
October 13th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Same exact Era, & much lower ERA + & other advanced stats mentioned just above, yet a WAR that is somewhat higher even considering the extra 500 + IP: Ferguson Jenkins. How does Palmer do somewhat better in the component stats-& the 4 above are career stats when he has less IP: though do lower in WAR, even accounting for IP? Their glove & bat seems comparable. It may be an instructive comparison: who is under or over rated & why/by which stats? Must have to do with defense/Palmer being a ground ball pitcher.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Mike,
It's all defense.
Palmer's defense credited with an incredible 144 runs saved behind him. Whether or not that number's accurate, I think it's fair to say that he benefited greatly from having guys like Robinson, Belanger, and Blair behind him for most of his career. Jenkins' defense comes out a little below average, at -27.
If you were to remove the defensive adjustment, Palmer would come out to 79.6, and Jenkins about 78.4. I don't believe the WPA stats adjust for defense, which is why the discrepancy.
Now, Jenkins gave up more HR, but his K rates and BB rates are both significantly better than Palmer's, and his K/BB rate is about twice as good. Looking at their peripherals, it wouldn't surprise me if the credit given to their defense is accurate, as I'd expect Jenkins to be the better pitcher going by the defense-independent components. We probably need to be a bit careful going by WAR for Palmer, though - did his defense cause him to be overrated, or did he adjust his pitching style to take advantage of a world-class defense to maximize his innings? He was certainly helped by some fantastic defensive teams, but we also don't want to penalize a pitcher too severely for using a strategy that works.
October 14th, 2010 at 12:34 am
@97, John Autin -- Okay, I see what you were saying. What was throwing me off originally was in how I perceived the tone in your message. It seemed to me we pretty much were agreeing on all the major points, yet when I read your posting it seemed we weren't. Makes more sense now.
---------------
@95, Thane wrote: "It's an interesting question why we had a decade of such concentrated brilliance that stands out from the periods immediately before and after."
Thane, I don't have a solid answer to your question, although I've wondered the same thing. It's interesting that as offense began spiking in the 90s, we also started seeing some of the most dominant seasons by pitchers in generations. I know it's not a coincidence and I suspect as hitters began to take a more aggressive approach, it actually allowed the truly elite pitchers to separate themselves from the merely very good and good. I think this might have been more difficult to do for pitchers during less offensive periods in the game. No proof on this. Just an idea.
------------
@94, WilsonC wrote: "...which makes me wonder if there might be a general tendency to underrate the early-peak, steady-career type of pitcher as opposed to those who have more highlights later in their career."
Yes, I think you nailed it right on the head. It's why the perception that Halladay's career is much better than Oswalt's right now. Halladay is still at peak, while Oswalt had a couple lesser years in '08 and '09. It's the baseball version of the Marilyn Monroe Syndrome: Die young, stay pretty. The image of Monroe is of her youth. She never got old. The baseball equivalent is Sandy Koufax. His brilliance is amplified by the fact he never had a decline phase. He left the game at his peak. He remains great in our eyes, including those who never saw him, but only know his stats. While Mike Mussina at his peak was never a Sandy Koufax, he did something similar. He left the game on a high note. That one act may enhance his chances at the HOF.
October 15th, 2010 at 12:05 am
Thanks John Austin. So it is a truly huge adjustment applying defense for a pitcher like Palmer-you mentioned WPA not having a defensive adjustment. But also, base out & wins saved: Palmer is #6 all time! That is an almost surpassingly high ranking-if it is taken to represent total quality of pitching-for a hurler who has under 4,000 IP, & whose component stats are very good, but not near top 10 all time. It seems to inflate his vale more than ERA +, which also gives him credit for defense, unadjusted.
Your point is well taken re: not penalizing him too severely for using a strategy that works. Yet I feel we should remove the majority of the credit. Because it is essentially "extra": while Palmer may have maximized the glove work, most pitchers in his position would increase their value over neutral defensive conditions similarly: compared to their own natural performance level, whatever that is. Not dissimilar to being in a hitter's park-a guy might be especially good at reaching a certain easy section of the fence, but if most people hit much better there, those particularly good home splits must be downgraded.
Though when we do so for Fenway park, Ted Williams is still #2 all time with a 191 OPS + (missing 4 1'2 peak years to war), & Jim Rice is a (pedestrian for a supposedly HOF quality corner outfielder whose only strength was hitting) a 128, & his most "monster" year was a 157.
October 15th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Mike,
It's definitely a tricky subject trying to separate defense from pitching. If you have a pitcher who generates a lot of ground balls and a defense that converts a lot more double plays than expected, how much credit should go to the superior defense for creating a lot of extra outs, and how much should go to the pitcher for generating a lot of extra balls in play that allows the defense to maximize its value? It's not always clear. It could be that Palmer's pitching style helped his defense maximize their value in a similar manner to the effect they had on his stats. It`s definitely right to give a lot of credit for Palmer`s run prevention to the defense, but I`m not sure how close the current numbers are to capturing that. If I`m evaluating Palmer, I`d look at the 64 WAR and 80 WAR figures as boundaries - 64 if you assume maximum defensive credit and 80 if you assume none. I`d expect his true value to be somewhere in between, and probably closer to the 64 than the 80 (since the defense almost certainly helped him a lot, regardless of the accuracy of the figures.) If looking for a more accurate rating, you could probably get clues by comparing his career ball-in-play stats with those of his team, to see whether it`s his defense making all the difference or whether he was adept in maximizing the defensive advantage more than the typical pitcher.
Regarding WPA, base-outs, wins saved, etc. there`s a few factors in play here. The first point, as mentioned, is they don`t adjust for defense, which naturally overrates him. The second point is that they rely on data that only goes back to 1950, so you need to keep in mind that Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Lefty Grove, and a lot of the massive innings greats aren`t included. Whitey Ford`s a benchmark here; if a pitcher started his career before Ford did, he`ll either not be included in the rankings for these stats, or won`t be properly rated if he only pitched part of his career post-1950 like Spahn. The third point is that situations dictate some of these stats. What I mean by this is that a walk followed by a double play isn`t necessarily the same in these stats as two strikeouts, because a double play is a major situational changer. I`m not sure whether this point impacts Palmer or if so, how, but it`s possible that his defense boosts his rating here due to a high number of double plays. I look at those stats as tools to help put a season in context, but of limited use as far as historical comparisons go.
October 19th, 2010 at 7:58 am
"We probably need to be a bit careful going by WAR for Palmer, though - did his defense cause him to be overrated, or did he adjust his pitching style to take advantage of a world-class defense to maximize his innings? He was certainly helped by some fantastic defensive teams, but we also don't want to penalize a pitcher too severely for using a strategy that works."
Looking strictly at the simple defense independent numbers (just HR/9, BB/9, K/9), Palmer doesn't even look close to being a hall of famer. Basically, you have to give him some credit for taking advantage of his great defense (by pitching for soft BIP instead of Ks) in order to justify his resume. B_R WAR puts him clearly in, so it's not removing all credit, even if it may be overadjusting a bit.
But also, as you mention, Palmer is a peak guy. His 7 year peak is >40 WAR, and he got 54 of his 63 WAR during his very clear 10 year peak of 1969-1978, outside of which he was mostly average (one 4 WAR year, and a couple replacement level years, the rest in the 1-2 range). He's a little like Schilling, except most of Schillings mediocre years were at the beginning of his career. WAR profile wise, Palmer's career is a lot like what Halladay's will look like if he has a major, but not career ending drop off starting in 2011-2012
October 19th, 2010 at 8:49 am
On Halladay, I voted that he needs some more to get in. But I really believe he's already borderline. I think he'd have a decent chance of making it if his career ended today, but I also think he could conceivably play himself out with a massive drop off this season and a few below replacement years. If he gets another year under his belt even close to the standard of the last few, he's in by me, and two more years like that, he should be a lock.
As far as who is in among active starting pitchers, I don't think there is a single mortal lock, but of course some of the current SPs will make it. Halladay seems to have the best chance, and is the only active SP that I think could plausibly get in on his stats right now. I wouldn't vote for him if he endds his career with the 54.5 WAR he's got right now, but it wouldn't be a crime for him to make it. I'd give him about a 98% chance at this point to end up in the hall.
CC, Santana, and Oswalt are probably the next most likely, and all have pretty similar resumes. Santana has the dominant peak of 2004-2006 and a couple more WAR, while CC is only 29. I'd like to see all three make it, but the odds are one of them will drop off before getting there. I'd put their chances at around 70-75% for CC and Santana, maybe 65% for Roy.
Tim hudson's got a similar career value to those guys now, but he's a few years older. I say he's got a pretty good shot, but is less certain -- maybe in the 50%. Buehrle is close here too, similar WAR to hudson and younger, but less peak and even less flashy numbers.
Looking further down the Active career WAR list, I see Javier Vasquez, who I think is destined for the hall of very good. Too many average years among his very good ones to be a serious candidate, and too old to be likely to add the 25ish WAR he would need.
Then there's Barry Zito, who was on the same track as some of these guys a few years ago, but looks like a huge longshot at this point. It's not clear he can even get back to his standard of 2001-2006, and he'd need to do that and sustain it for a few years to have a case. A few other older guys who outside of a moyer-like denoument to their career are not going to get close (Lowe, Wakefield, Garcia, Zambrono). And then we're beyond guys that are really projectible at under 30 WAR.
Surely some of the under 30 WAR guys have a much better chance than the 0-3% I project for the pitchers in my last paragraph, but their projections have huge error bars. Felix Hernandez, Lincecum, Lester, Verlander, Greinke, Hamels, Jimenez, Josh Johnson. All these guys have probably have at least a 15-20% shot if not better, but it's way to early to be projecting with any confidence, all of them need at least another great year or two to be *halfway* to a hall resume, even if so far they are performing at the level of the mid-career guys who project as probably in.
If I add up all my probabilities, I get a total of 520% among the pitchers considered. So if I had to set an over/under on the number of active SPs in 2010 that will end up in the hall of fame, I'd set it at 7 (figuring there's probably one+ guy of the last few year breakins that aren't even worth notice yet, and maybe a 50% chance that one of Pettitte or Moyer will do enough before they are done).
That doesn't seem like a crazy number at all compared to historical numbers.
I would agree with the question asked by BSK though -- if you don't think Halladay or any of the next five guys I mention are even likely, who the hell is?
That said, I would agree with those who say that *no* active starting pitcher is currently in for sure. Only Halladay is even a legit borderliner, and if his career ended today, postseason no-no or no, I'd put him borderline out.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Another thing to add -- unless it's one of the young guns, I don't think there is any active starting pitcher in the conversation for the inner circle.
Halladay maybe has a shot, but only with a lot more years like the last 5. He's never had a 2-4 year stretch of total dominance, so he'd have to have a much longer stretch of near dominance to be considered in the same category as the best of the just retired generation. CC is an even longer shot. He not only needs a really long peak, he's probably got to up his game a bit as well. Santana's got the great 3 year stretch, but he wasn't as far ahead of his peers as Pedro/Clemens/RJ/Maddux were for their peak stretches.
All three are real longshots to get inner circle play, and those are by far the best candidates of the mid-career generation. It looks probable that the 1996-2002 debut era will not produce a first class all time SP, while 86-92 produced 4.