Jacob DeGrom has almost no shot at the HOF, discuss...

[Snapolit1]

If he gets passed his current ailments I think he might have serious longevity. A big "if" I admit.

Don't forget, he was a shortstop for most of his life. His arm should -- should -- have a lot less wear and tear on it than a kid who has been pitching his arm off since he was 10. Assuming what happened last year is an anomaly, I wouldn't be so fast to predict his ultimate wins/losses.

Also mind blowing to hear the stats about in his last twenty starts his era was 1.78 (or whatever it was) and he had 3 wins or something absurd. So all those starts where he gave up 1 or 2 runs and didn't get a decision aren't important?

[Snapolit1]

DeGrom has often suffered this plight. Since 2018, the year of his first Cy Young Award, deGrom has made 78 starts and pitched 503 innings. Seventy-eight percent (61) of those starts were quality starts, meaning he lasted six or more innings and surrendered three or fewer earned runs. He’s struck out 649 batters, walked 110 and allowed just 115 earned runs (2.06 ERA) over that span. Yet the Mets are 36-42 in those matchups. No, that’s not a typo.

The team is below .500 when one of the best aces in baseball history takes the mound and pitches well. For context, the rest of baseball won 78 percent of games (1,646-455) from 2018 to 2021 when their pitcher delivers a quality start.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

DeGrom has often suffered this plight. Since 2018, the year of his first Cy Young Award, deGrom has made 78 starts and pitched 503 innings. Seventy-eight percent (61) of those starts were quality starts, meaning he lasted six or more innings and surrendered three or fewer earned runs. He’s struck out 649 batters, walked 110 and allowed just 115 earned runs (2.06 ERA) over that span. Yet the Mets are 36-42 in those matchups. No, that’s not a typo.

The team is below .500 when one of the best aces in baseball history takes the mound and pitches well. For context, the rest of baseball won 78 percent of games (1,646-455) from 2018 to 2021 when their pitcher delivers a quality start.

Numbers like that with a sub 500 record to me means maybe a couple things.
That his team is not good offensively.
Or their relief pitching is not at all good.
Or that he's consistently matched up against other teams aces and comes away lacking.

That last one in some ways makes WAR pointless as it's typically figured.
If it was done based on comparing not to the league overall, but to other pitchers in a similar position - like only including first or first and second starters- it would probably be much lower.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

Numbers like that with a sub 500 record to me means maybe a couple things.
That his team is not good offensively.
Or their relief pitching is not at all good.
Or that he's consistently matched up against other teams aces and comes away lacking.

That last one in some ways makes WAR pointless as it's typically figured.
If it was done based on comparing not to the league overall, but to other pitchers in a similar position - like only including first or first and second starters- it would probably be much lower.

Which to me would indicate a lot of it comes down to luck and simply being in the right place at the right time or situation.

I wonder, in regards to starting pitchers, has anyone ever tried to come up with a statistical measure to take into consideration the position players and relief pitchers on their teams from year to year to see if there is any way to possibly filter at least some of those variable factors out of the equation so as to more objectively be able to measure a starting pitcher's true worth/value, and how he more realistically rates against other pitcher's from his own time?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

I wonder, in regards to starting pitchers, has anyone ever tried to come up with a statistical measure to take into consideration the position players and relief pitchers on their teams from year to year to see if there is any way to possibly filter at least some of those variable factors out of the equation so as to more objectively be able to measure a starting pitcher's true worth/value, and how he more realistically rates against other pitcher's from his own time?

WAR adjusts for strength of opposition, league, team defense, and park factors, so it can be used to compare pitchers both within and across eras.

It tries to take things the pitcher can't control out of the equation, like who's pitching on the other side or how many runs the pitcher's team scores.

A pitcher who loses 2-1 did more to help their team win than one that wins 7-6 (assuming the same IP)...which is why pitching wins is an increasingly poor measure of performance.

The reason the Mets squandered so much of deGrom's prime is their offense...if your pitcher is giving up 2.5 earned runs per 9 IP, and you're not winning the majority of those games, that means you're scoring below 2.5 runs per game on the regular. That's lousy offense no matter who's pitching!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

WAR adjusts for strength of opposition, league, team defense, and park factors, so it can be used to compare pitchers both within and across eras.

It tries to take things the pitcher can't control out of the equation, like who's pitching on the other side or how many runs the pitcher's team scores.

A pitcher who loses 2-1 did more to help their team win than one that wins 7-6 (assuming the same IP)...which is why pitching wins is an increasingly poor measure of performance.

The reason the Mets squandered so much of deGrom's prime is their offense...if your pitcher is giving up 2.5 earned runs per 9 IP, and you're not winning the majority of those games, that means you're scoring below 2.5 runs per game on the regular. That's lousy offense no matter who's pitching!

So the answer is NO then, there really isn't an effective statistical measure that takes into account the offense behind a starting pitcher.

Statistics don't look at the offense you have behind you at all then it seems like. I would think that is a much greater factor behind a pitcher's success than defense. Most all MLB players are exceptional athletes to start with, and likely wouldn't ever be on a major league roster if their fielding pct. wasn't over .900 to start with. Plus you don't have opposing teams making pitcher and other player changes because of a particular player's defensive abilities. Doesn't surprise me if there really isn't a viable measure trying to take into account a starting pitcher's offense behind him. In fact, I would think that from a statistical standpoint for evaluating starting pitchers, you should be factoring in not only the offense behind you, but the offenses you are facing, and the starting pitchers you are facing as well.

As you said, statistics like WAR can at best only TRY to take out factors outside a pitcher's control, but really don't seem to succeed very well. And when trying to extend the meaning of such statistics to even attempt a meaningful comparison of pitchers from different eras.....now you're talking a pipe dream as the context and all the different variables between eras make it virtually (and probably literally) impossible to effectively account for all the factors that could ever be involved in such comparisons. And worst of all, there's no way to ever truly prove which pitcher across different eras was better, so all everyone ever ends up doing is arguing.

I understand that because of the variables and things out of a pitcher's control that it is argued that wins aren't that important of a statistic in regards to pitching, but when the whole, sole reason you play the game is to win, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that being able to win is not factored in a bit more. Especially for pitchers who somehow always seem to be able to help their teams win a lot. It is the beauty and the curse of statistics, they can help try to explain many things, but they can never fully explain anything either when it comes to comparing ballplayers, especially pitchers. Makes for lively debates, that is for sure.

[Mike D.]

I guess I don’t understand why a pitcher’s teams offenses effects his pitching ability? They have no control over that. The way to remove that from the stats is easy…ignore W/L record.

FIP only counts those things a pitcher can control (walks, strikeouts, home runs) and tries to ignore those it can’t (non-HR batted balls), but you are right that it’s hard to completely remove every variable from baseball. No stat is perfect.

Baseball is a funny game. If there’s a runner on third with 1 out and the hitter flies out to CF, he has succeeded. Same situation, except with two outs, and he’s failed.

[Mike D.]

deGrom needs two more seasons just to get to the 10 to be eligible. If they're "peak deGrom" seasons (8-10 WAR per) then he probably gets in based on that.

If they're less dominate seasons, it'll probably take 3-4 for him to have a chance. That'll involve pitching into his late 30's...so, we'll see.

Interestingly enough...once you get past the 4 Sure Thing Active HOF Pitchers, things get...tricky.

Next on the active WAR list is Chris Sale (46.5), who's got a shot but has his own health concerns. Then it's some solid guys who are not HOF level and too old to realistically get there - Wainwright (39, 44.5) and Lester (37, 44.2). Then it's deGrom.

After that, the only active SP's with over 35 WAR are fading Price (35, 40.3) and Bumgarner (31, 38.2).

So, if not Sale and deGrom, there may be a while before there's another Hall of Fame starting pitcher, unless Strasburg or Cole REALLY have long and productive 30's.

[Carter08]

I’ve been thinking if he gets 1 more cy young he might be in and if he gets 2 more he sort of has to be in. Hopefully he puts the debate to rest and has a nice run of many dominant and healthy seasons.

[Peter_Spaeth]

IMO his bigger concern is can he go three consecutive games without getting yet another injury.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

IMO his bigger concern is can he go three consecutive games without getting yet another injury.

Well, up into last Summer he never had an injury issue I can recall since 2014. He's not exactly Steven Matz, who gets hurt every time someone breathes too hard on his arm.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Well, up into last Summer he never had an injury issue I can recall since 2014. He's not exactly Steven Matz, who gets hurt every time someone breathes too hard on his arm.

I think he missed some starts in 2016 but yeah he was solid which makes you wonder about last year when it seemed to be one thing after another before he was shut down altogether.