Future HOFers

[yanksfan09]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would agree Halladay was better, but Guidry had some fabulous seasons and I don't think the difference is as dramatic as you say.

I am for the great talent over a shorter span than the compilers (not talking about Halladay), and Guidry would certainly qualify under that. However, I think I'm also a bit of a tough grader for the HOF at the same time and feel it has gotten watered down with a lot of the inductees... I would agree in giving Halladay the edge over Guidry, and that's coming from a Yankees fan. I think Guidry comes up a bit short in the same way Mattingly does. They were really great for a while but I still feel as though some thresholds need to still be met (Sub 200 wins for Guidry). I don't think the arbitrary stat thresholds are an exact science though and I need to look at everyone's career as a whole and compare them to their contemporaries to accurately assess a player.

I just loved how Halladay in the PED era and pitch count/innings limit era, led the league/ or was near top in innings and complete games all the time.

He also didn't play on some of the greatest Jays teams and still ended with an excellent winning percentage.

[arc2q]

More to the point, how does one accumulate 20,000 autographed cards?

This thread lost total credibility once the name Andruw Jones was thrown out. Is there a better example of a player who got paid and then gave up once he had a guaranteed big money contract?

I go by the Dale Murphy Rule. If a player is not more prominent and heralded in his own era than Murphy was in his, then his name shouldn't even be mentioned in HOF discussion. There are only a small handful of players active or recently retired who will make the Hall, and I'd definitely not promote any of the young crop of recent stars until they are 7-8 years in.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by arc2q

More to the point, how does one accumulate 20,000 autographed cards?

This thread lost total credibility once the name Andruw Jones was thrown out. Is there a better example of a player who got paid and then gave up once he had a guaranteed big money contract?

I go by the Dale Murphy Rule. If a player is not more prominent and heralded in his own era than Murphy was in his, then his name shouldn't even be mentioned in HOF discussion. There are only a small handful of players active or recently retired who will make the Hall, and I'd definitely not promote any of the young crop of recent stars until they are 7-8 years in.

Or Garvey. 6 200 hit seasons, 10 time all star, MVP, 4 gold gloves, 2600 hits. Not even close to making it. So yeah let's not hear about Andruw Jones shall we?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

I am sorry, but the numbers aren't remotely close.

Yes, they are. Actually, they are very, very close.

Your choosing to pick a few stats that favor Koufax don't invalidate at all the myriad of statistics I provided. On an inning by inning basis, they are remarkably similar, almost a dead heat, statistically. I respect your opinion, rats60, but I am going to show that it is not based on actual fact. The only real difference between Koufax and Kershaw is the number of starts Koufax made a year (a product of rotation size), and the number of innings pitched (a product of starts per year, and starting pitcher management in the 1960s). I'll provide statistics on how Clayton Kershaw pitches later in his starts, and that prevailing logic, not any issues with ability or conditioning, cause Kershaw to lag behind in the statistics you listed directly below.

Originally Posted by rats60

This is something we are just going to have to agree to disagree on. Koufax's last 3 full seasons
Games Started
40
41
41
Complete Games
20
27
27
Innings
311
336
323
Shutouts
11
8
5

Again, games started and innings pitched are a product of pitching in a four man rotation versus a five man rotation, and how starting pitchers were handled in the sixties. You start more games, you are going to throw more innings. You pitch more innings, you get more complete games. And when one pitcher throws more complete games than another (both possessing equal abilities), that pitcher is going to have more shutouts. While I absolutely give Koufax credit for finishing off the games himself, there is no evidence whatsoever that Kershaw couldn't do the exact same thing if asked to. The difference is thinking in today's game is what limits Kershaw. Sandy Koufax never had a pitch count. If you could jump in a Delorean, and go back to the 1960s, Walter Aston, if asked about Sandy Koufax's pitch count, would look at you weird, because the term "pitch count" didn't even enter into the baseball lexicon until the 1980s.

By the way, know how many times Clayton Kershaw has been taken out after pitching 7 or more innings, and not allowing a single run since 2011? I checked. While he only has ten shutouts (which is most in the Majors over the last five seasons, by the way. Three more than anybody else.), he's had thirty-five such starts. That means twenty-five times over the last five seasons, an average of five times each year, he's been taken out throwing a shutout with two or fewer innings to pitch.

Originally Posted by rats60

Koufax was able to put up his numbers pitching deap into games.Just because Kershaw doesn't have stamina, look at how he was shelled in the 7th inning his last two playoff games, is no reason to downgrade Koufax.

Yes, he was afforded the opportunity to compile more complete games and shutouts by pitching deep into games. That you are right about. I fail to see how that proves Koufax was better. Everybody pitched more innings back then. Between 1962 and 1966, there were 84 seasons where pitchers threw over 250 innings. Between 2011 and 2016, only one pitcher in all of baseball, Justin Verlander in 2011, exceeded that plateau (251 innings). 25 pitchers from 1962 to 1966 threw 11 or more shutouts. Koufax had 33, Juan Marichal 26, Jim Bunning and Dean Chance had 21.

Originally Posted by rats60

When a pitcher is given more rest, when a pitcher doesn't have to go through a lineup an extra time, when a pitcher doesn't pitch tired, his numbers should be much better.

That sounds real good in theory. Too bad the actual statistics do not back up your assertion.

First of all, you commented when a pitcher is given more rest, they should pitch better.

Hmm....

Clayton Kershaw has started 13 games on 4 days of rest, and 10 games on 5 days of rest in 2015. The stats?

On 4 days of rest: 7-4, 1.78 ERA, 96 IP, 129 Ks, 13 BB, 0.781 WHIP, 12.1 K/9 IP, 9.92 K:BB.
On 5 days of rest: 2-2, 3.22 ERA, 67 IP, 77 Ks, 17 BB, 1.164 WHIP, 10.3 K/9 IP, 4.53 K:BB

Both his shutouts came on starts he threw on 4 days of rest. He is clearly much better on shorter rest in 2015. So, eh, that's one hypothesis that's wrong. Oh, and it was wrong for 2014, as well. Kershaw had 13 starts on 4 days of rest last year, and 11 starts on 5 days rest. On 4 days rest, he was 10-1 with a 1.74 ERA, 11.2 K/9 IP, and 8.71 K:BB. On 5 days rest, he was 9-2 with a 1.81 ERA, 10.5 K/9 IP, and 6.20 K:BB. While the spread isn't as wide, he had better numbers overall, again, on four days of rest. For his career? On 4 days rest, he's got a 2.40 ERA (129 starts). On 5 days rest, he's got a 2.71 ERA (82 starts). So, it's clear....Kershaw pitches better on fewer days of rest.

What about how he does against hitters going deeper into games. You hypothesized that pitchers fatigue as they go later into games, basically, and so their numbers should drop off.

Again....nope.

Let's look at his career numbers here.

Clayton Kershaw, for his career:
When his pitch count is between 1 and 25: opponents have a career .199 batting average, and a slash line of .258 OBP/.301 SLG/.559 OPS (1,426 plate appearances)
When his pitch count is between 26 and 50: opponents have a career .216 batting average, and a slash line of .274 OBP/.315 SLG/.589 OPS (1,506 plate appearances)
When his pitch count is between 51 and 75: opponents have a career .216 batting average, and a slash line of .281 OBP/.316 SLG/.596 OPS (1,499 plate appearances)

Now we are working later into the game, when Clayton Kershaw (according to your theory) should be at a disadvantage, because he is tiring, and opposing hitters have seen him multiple times in that particular start. Kershaw's numbers should worsen. Opposing hitters should get on base more, and hit him harder, because as he tires, his command and velocity should suffer, right?

When his pitch count is between 76 and 100: opponents have a career .200 batting average, and a slash line of .266 OBP/.291 SLG/.557 OPS (1,362 plate appearances)
When his pitch count is 101 or higher: opponents have a career .199 batting average, and a slash line of .268 OBP/.314 SLG/.582 OPS (409 plate appearances).

In plain English, opposing hitters have the same average off of Kershaw in the late innings that they do in the first inning of his starts. It makes no difference what inning he is in. He dominates.

Want to look at it from the perspective of how many times a hitter has seen Kershaw in that game? Okie doke.

In Kershaw's career, in which he has started 237 games, pitching 1,563 innings, facing 6,202 batters...

In a batter's first time seeing Kershaw in a start: hitters have a .187 average, and a slash line of .247 OBP/.278 SLG/.526 OPS (2,109 plate appearances).
In a batter's second time seeing Kershaw: hitters have a .221 average, and a slash line of .284 OBP/.329 SLG/.613 OPS (2,075 plate appearances).
In a batter's third time seeing Kershaw: hitters have a .217 average, and a slash line of .281/.321/.602 OPS (1,728 plate appearances).
In a batter's fourth time seeing Kershaw: hitters have a .208 average, and a slash line of .254 OBP/.270 SLG/.524 OPS (278 plate appearances).

Now, I know what you're going to say. 278 plate appearances isn't anywhere near the 1,700-2,100 plate appearances he's getting the first three times through. True. But are his innings limited because he's ineffective late? No, clearly not. Batters have a lower OPS against Kershaw the fourth time they see him (.524) than they do the first time they see him (.526). If you still want to hold to the "low sample rate", well, look at the difference between opposing batter success the second and third time they see him. You would think that batters would do better against Kershaw the third time through the lineup, but Kershaw performs better-opponent batting average drops from .221 to .271 from the second to third time through the order, and and their OPS drops from .613 to .602. Not huge drops by any means, but the fact that he does better the farther he goes into a game, with substantial gains the fourth time through the lineup, should serve as proof that he's coming out of games because they are wanting to protect his arm, and lengthen his career's length.

The last five years, Kershaw has 152 starts, and has thrown 1,080 innings. He's throwing 7.11 innings per start. Koufax? Well, in his last five years, he threw 1,369 innings in 176 starts, and average of 7.78 innings per start (I went through his game logs for the five seasons, and subtracted the eight innings he pitched in relief.) Koufax averaged 2/3 of an inning pitched more per start more than Kershaw. He got 2 outs more a game than Clayton. Why? Because while Sandy Koufax pitched more complete games, he also got pulled very early more often than Kershaw.

In their last five years, the number of starts where the pitcher failed to make it to the third inning:
Sandy Koufax 9 (14.8%)
Clayton Kershaw 1 (11.8%)

The same metric, but failed to make it to the sixth inning:
Sandy Koufax 16 (9.1%)
Clayton Kershaw 3 (2.0%)

Koufax was a much better pitcher at his peak. It is reflected in the total picture, not cherry picking stats or ratios that favor the pitcher with the light load. It is reflected in the stats you just chose to dismiss like WAR.[/QUOTE]

Who's cherry picking stats? I think I was pretty thorough in my comparison, looking at win-loss record, win percentage, ERA, ERA +, innings pitched, strikeouts, walks, WHIP, K's/9 IP, BB's/9 IP, K:BB ratio, hits and home runs allowed/9 IP. It's common sense that if one player is on the mound 20% more than another, their WAR will be higher, even if their performance is nearly identical. Clayton Kershaw doesn't make the decision to pull himself out. That's the manager's job.

Koufax in his last season earned $125,000. Clayton Kershaw, in 2015, is being paid $32,571,000. Franchises are much more protective of their stars now because of the financial implications. I'm sorry. At his peak, Sandy Koufax was not a "much better pitcher" than Clayton Kershaw. If the statistics from their last five seasons are compared dispassionately, that claim is unsupportable. Now, if you wanted to say that Koufax was better in the post season, I would absolutely agree with that. But not during the regular 162 game season.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not only do today's starters have a lighter load (more rest between starts, PLUS rarely finishing), but they also are rarely pitching under the pressure of the 8th and 9th innings when most games are still on the line. You can't blame Kershaw for being a product of his era, but at the same time you can't take away from Koufax by saying things like his WAR is better only because he had more wins, as if somehow that were unimportant.

Where did I say that Koufax had a higher WAR only because he had more wins. I said that was one component of it. I also said this:

The difference in WAR? Koufax pitched at a time when complete games were far more common (100 for him, only 18 for Kershaw). That leads to a huge discrepancy in innings pitched:

Koufax 1,377
Kershaw 1,072.

The simple answer is that Koufax played more each season, much more. I give him all the credit for finishing those games, but the ball is being taken out of Kershaw's hand a lot of the time when it probably isn't necessary.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It is indeed difficult to compare pitchers from the 4 man rotation, 9 inning era to the 5 man rotation, 7 inning era. I also wonder if a sophisticated analysis would support the switch as an overall proposition.

[the 'stache]

Kershaw is just going off right now.

In his last ten starts:

7-0, 0.90 ERA, 80 IP, 104 K's, 49 hits, 7 walks, 0.700 WHIP, 11.7 K's/9 IP, 14.9 K's per walk. 3 complete games, 2 shutouts.

With his 14th (of 15) strikeout tonight, he became the second left handed pitcher in history to strike out 250 hitters in under 200 innings. He's going for his 4th Cy Young in 5 years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Kershaw is just going off right now.

In his last ten starts:

7-0, 0.90 ERA, 80 IP, 104 K's, 49 hits, 7 walks, 0.700 WHIP, 11.7 K's/9 IP, 14.9 K's per walk. 3 complete games, 2 shutouts.

With his 14th (of 15) strikeout tonight, he became the second left handed pitcher in history to strike out 250 hitters in under 200 innings. He's going for his 4th Cy Young in 5 years.

Meet me in St. Louis, Louis.

[Beatles Guy]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Kershaw is just going off right now.

In his last ten starts:

7-0, 0.90 ERA, 80 IP, 104 K's, 49 hits, 7 walks, 0.700 WHIP, 11.7 K's/9 IP, 14.9 K's per walk. 3 complete games, 2 shutouts.

With his 14th (of 15) strikeout tonight, he became the second left handed pitcher in history to strike out 250 hitters in under 200 innings. He's going for his 4th Cy Young in 5 years.

As a Cardinals fan, he doesn't scare me in the playoffs. I'd rather face him than Bumgarner. Heck, I'd rather face him than Greinke.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Or Garvey. 6 200 hit seasons, 10 time all star, MVP, 4 gold gloves, 2600 hits. Not even close to making it. So yeah let's not hear about Andruw Jones shall we?

Don't forget his playing in an NL record 1,207 straight games.

[HRBAKER]

More to the point, how does one accumulate 20,000 autographed cards?

It's not as hard as you think.

[Mrvintage]

How anyone that watches baseball questions Clayton Kershaw being a HOF player is beyond me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mrvintage

How anyone that watches baseball questions Clayton Kershaw being a HOF player is beyond me.

For the simple reason that it's too early in his career. Doc Gooden started off 119-53. Kershaw is 108-55.

[HRBAKER]

He certainly seems headed that way, but to Peter's point so did Gooden. Clayton doesn't seem to have the demons that Dwight did. If his career ended today - he would not get in, hence I don't regard him as a lock.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

He certainly seems headed that way, but to Peter's point so did Gooden. Clayton doesn't seem to have the demons that Dwight did. If his career ended today - he would not get in, hence I don't regard him as a lock.

And if he went 90-95 for the rest of his career averaging 9 wins a season I'm not sure he would get in either. He's quite obviously on track, but he has to keep going.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

He certainly seems headed that way, but to Peter's point so did Gooden. Clayton doesn't seem to have the demons that Dwight did. If his career ended today - he would not get in, hence I don't regard him as a lock.

As another example, Denny Mclain. 114-57 at age 25. And then....

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For the simple reason that it's too early in his career. Doc Gooden started off 119-53. Kershaw is 108-55.

Dwight Gooden had only one truly dominant season. He was outstanding as a rookie, don't get me wrong, but his ERA + was only a 137. He was 17-9 with a 2.60 ERA and 276 K's. He led the NL in K's, K/9 IP and WHIP. His second season was one for the ages, obviously. 24-4 with a 1.53 ERA, 268 K's. He led the NL in wins, ERA, K's, innings pitched, and complete games (16). He also had 8 shutouts en route to a 229 ERA +.

Clayton Kershaw has been the dominant pitcher in the NL, and baseball, for five season straight. And you could make the case it's really been six. In 2010, he was only 13-10, but had a 2.91 ERA and 202 K's as a 22 year old. His 133 ERA + was only 4 points off of Gooden's rookie season, which everybody went gaga over. When I show you his Hall of Fame metrics, Peter, he's already crossed some of those Hall thresholds, and he's only 27.

He has led the National League in:

Wins: twice, 2011 (21), and 2014 (21)
ERA: four times, 2011 (2.28), 2012 (2.53), 2013 (1.83), and 2014 (1.77).
Strikeouts: two times, 2011 (248), 2013 (232). He leads the NL with 222 in 117 IP this year.
WHIP: four times, 2011 (0.977), 2012 (1.023), 2013 (0.915), 2014 (0.857).
Hits per 9 IP: three times, 2009 (6.3), 2011 (6.7), 2012 (6.7).

He's won three Cy Young Awards, an MVP, and a Gold Glove. Going back to 2010, 183 starts, he's 95-42 with a 2.26 ERA with 1,382 K's in 1,276 IP.

And his control is improving, if you can believe that. He struck out 10.8 per 9 IP (best in the NL) last year, while walking only 32 batters, a league-best 7.71 K's per walk. This year he has 222 K's against 32 walks, a 6.91 K per walk ratio.

To put his greatness in perspective, since 1901, of all Major League pitchers with at least 1,500 innings pitched in their first eight seasons (there are 250 of them), only four--Walter Johnson, Mordecai Brown, and Lefty Grove--had a better ERA + than Kershaw's 153. Of those 250 pitchers, only Tom Seaver, Bert Blyleven and Johnson struck out more batters than Kershaw (and they had 2,167, 2,143 and 2,442 innings pitched compared to Kershaw's 1,555!) His strikeouts per 9 IP average of 9.6 is the third highest in baseball history behind Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez (just ahead of Nolan Ryan). And, it's rising. He's striking out 11.3/9 IP this year.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For the simple reason that it's too early in his career. Doc Gooden started off 119-53. Kershaw is 108-55.

I absolutely agree it's too early in his career to call him a Hall of Famer. We don't know what goes on in his private life, but I don't see him going the direction of Gooden or McClain. If he stays healthy, he'll have a few more dominant seasons comparable to what he's had the last five...really six, if you look at some of the metrics. Figure that he's going to have 150 wins, and about 2,200 strikeouts by age 30. Considering how great he's been, it's downright criminal he's not won more. 10 wins this year? 14 in 2012? 16 in 2013 (with a 1.83 ERA across 33 starts)?

By the way, here are his Hall of Fame metrics. Pretty eye popping.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I absolutely agree it's too early in his career to call him a Hall of Famer. We don't know what goes on in his private life, but I don't see him going the direction of Gooden or McClain. If he stays healthy, he'll have a few more dominant seasons comparable to what he's had the last five...really six, if you look at some of the metrics. Figure that he's going to have 150 wins, and about 2,200 strikeouts by age 30. Considering how great he's been, it's downright criminal he's not won more. 10 wins this year? 14 in 2012? 16 in 2013 (with a 1.83 ERA across 33 starts)?

By the way, here are his Hall of Fame metrics. Pretty eye popping.

I absolutely agree, I think it's highly likely he continues on course and he certainly seems to be stable personally. My only point has been that sh*t happens and that things can fall apart for guys who look like locks.

[the 'stache]

Kershaw's 45.2 WAR through his first eight season is the 15th highest by any pitcher going back to 1901. Figure he has 7 or 8 more starts this season based on games remaining, and the Dodger rotation. He has a 5.5 WAR through 23 starts, so, if his production is constant, figure another 1.8-2.0 WAR this season. That puts him right behind Christy Mathewson's 47.7 WAR through his first eight seasons for thirteenth-best ever. Now, it's hard to compare different eras, and I'm certainly not equating Kershaw to Mathewson--because I want to see how Kershaw's career finishes before I even think of putting him anywhere near arguably the best pitcher to ever play the game (Matty is on my short list of five-Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Greg Maddux being three of the other four for sure. Then I look at a group including Roger Clemens, Bob Gibson, Bob Feller, Lefty Grove, Sandy Koufax, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Warren Spahn, and Grover Cleveland Alexander)....as you alluded to, Peter, I also need to see Kershaw bring some of that dominance to the post season, because, quick glance, all of those other names I mentioned won at least one World Series in their careers (if it was played). If Walter Johnson could win one on that horrible Senators team, then Kershaw has no excuses. If he can't win at least one ring on a team that spends $250 million a year on payroll, and has another ace in Zack Greinke, my opinion of him will dip.

BUT, I can compare their careers to this point, and I feel pretty safe in saying we're witnessing one of the all-time greats right now. I don't see Kershaw having a Dwight Gooden or Denny McClain downfall. I hope that he doesn't have an essentially career-ending injury, like a J.R. Richard, or Herb Score. What happens going forward we'll find out in time. But Kershaw has been absolutely dominant.

And this little beauty rests in my safe deposit box, going up in value: