Majordad, I think the key distinction here is that Blyleven racked up 4,970 innings, which is the 13th highest total of all time and the 7th highest since WWI. Fingers only pitched 1701 innings, roughly 34% as much.

In other words, Blyleven pitched 3,269 innings more than Fingers, at roughly the same ERA+. This difference would be enough for 89th on the all-time IP career list.

Blyleven is 13th all-time in innings pitched, 5th all-time in strikeouts, and 9th all-time in shutouts.

He finished in the top 10 in ERA 10 times, in adjusted ERA+ 11 times (including 4 seasons in the top 2), in innings pitched 11 times, in strikeouts 15 times (including 13 seasons in the top 5), in K/BB ratio 16 times (leading the league 3 times), in complete games 12 times, in shutouts 10 times (including 7 top-three finishes).

Let's compare Blyleven's and Fingers's best seasons by WARP

Blyleven 12.2 (1973)
Blyleven 9.9 (1985)
Blyleven 9.7 (1974)
Fingers 9.1 (1981)
Blyleven 9.0 (1984)
Blyleven 8.8 (1976)
Blyleven 8.4 (1971)
Blyleven 8.4 (1975)
Blyleven 8.0 (1977)
Blyleven 7.8 (1972)
Blyleven 7.8 (1989)
Blyleven 7.7 (1981)
Fingers 7.7 (1976)
Blyleven 7.6 (1986)
Blyleven 7.2 (1987)

Fingers is better than Blyleven? Give me a break. True, he lacks in hardware (except for two World Series titles -- aided by his 5-1, 2.47 postseason record over 47 innings), but he should have coasted to the AL Cy Young in '73 (he finished seventh), and had an argument in '84 and '85 too. He was killed by the voters' infatuation over W-L record, and couldn't look beyond it to see how dominant he was. Doesn't mean we should make the same mistake.

1998

R. Fingers
D. Parker
J. Rice
P. Rose

Blyleven is bordeline for me. I'm just not sure about him. Carter will get my vote eventually.

Fingers has to get in before I can consider Sutter.

I'm not quite getting all of the Keith Hernandez love. He was a very good player, and I know his sabr #'s are good, but I just don't consider him a HOFer. if he is, then Mattingly is a slam dunk I imagine?

Only for people who vote based on something other than how good a player was. Hernandez was a better hitter (129 vs. 127 career OPS+), a better fielder (163 vs. 122 career FRAA), and had a longer career (8553 vs. 7721 PA). Mattingly was good, but Hernandez was clearly better.

(Edited to correct Hernandez's FRAA from 251 to 163. Basic point of post is still valid.)

Perhaps, but the OPS+ is a virtual wash...and mattingly's power stats are better in a shorter period of time, so less complier-ish.

I'm not voting for either, I am just curious to see how the vote shakes out when Donny Baseball comes up here...

Gary Carter
Keith Hernandez
Thurman Munson
Graig Nettles
Jim Rice
Ken Singleton
Reggie Smith

I talked myself into voting for both Rice and Singleton doing the Away Rate Projection on them. The thing with Rice was the singles ... the 47 singles he lost when he should have gained reminded me of how hard he hit that ball. I think he stands up well even with park considerations. Singleton passed all my litmus tests as well OPS+, BRC, Away Rates, WS, etc. I still love Reggie Smith.

I vote for Carter on the first ballot, but not Blyleven. I still want to look closer at him. I don't want to be part of the "injustice" backlash and want to look at him objectively before I hop on his bandwagon.

I haven't done this in a while, but I've loved the thread. Great stuff.

G. Carter
P. Rose
B. Blyleven
J. Rice
K. Singleton

I added Singleton after reading the thread. I considered Rice a pretty lock HOF, but not Singleton until I read the thread and did the research.

Hernandez was a tough call to make. It's hard to leave that glove out, but when I think about him I think very good, not great.

I'm curious about this line of thinking.

As someone who's never participated in this thread but is big fan of it, I'd like to discuss the theory of the "first ballot Hall of Famer". I understand if it takes X amount of years for enough voters to be swayed to grant a particular player admission into the Hall (be it the real one or the SoSH version), but I don't understand the mindset of, "He's worthy of the Hall, just not on the first ballot, so I'm not going to vote for him."

That's the kind of twisted logic that makes the current voting proces for the real Hall a sham. Even Hank Aaron wasn't a unanimous election.

So when this thread was created, I thought it was going to right the real Hall's wrongs. And it has to a large degree. The debates themselves have proven invaluable, regardless of whether a player is ultimately elected or not (Oliva, Grich).

But occasionally I see someone voting for Mike Caldwell or Bob Stanley, or see a comment like, "I'll vote for him later, but not now," and it seems there's little difference between the real Hall and the SoSH Hall in those cases.

Is there a disconnect here, or am I just a whiny interloper? Perhaps both.

Bert Blyleven
Gary Carter
Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Keith Hernandez
Fred Lynn
Tony Perez
Jim Rice
Pete Rose
Reggie Smith

That's a totally fair point. Personally, I don't draw a distinction between "first-ballot HOFer" and "back-ballot HOFer." But, given that we have only one week in between ballots here -- unlike the voters for the "real" hall, who have months to analyze their ballots -- I find that I often have too little time to focus intensely on all the newly eligible players on a given ballot. So, I find myself holding off on some players whom I eventually vote for -- guys like Singleton, Cey, etc. -- so I can give them more full attention down the road.

Also, having guys linger on the ballot assists in the debate on this board. Some guys need no real discussion; they're so clearly in or clearly out that everyone, regardless of the standards they use, is pretty much in lockstep. But there's a huge category of arguable HOFers, and I think it's helpful to have a bunch of them considered together (Rice v. Lynn v. Singleton v. Smith v. Evans, etc.).

So, maybe I do distinguish between "first ballot" and "later ballot" HOFers, but not in the way that you mean; I really mean "guys I'm 100% sure about" vs. "guys who I want to know more about, want to compare to other guys, etc." And I suspect most of us do something like that.

I do agree that the way some writers do it -- "he's a hall of famer, but not a FIRST BALLOT HALL-OF-FAMER" -- is silly. If you think a guy is a hall-of-famer, vote for him.

Al, valid points. I'll try to explain myself.

Maybe this isnt the way it's supposed to be, but when I cast a vote, in my own mind I delineate between players who I think are slam dunks, strong contenders who I think probably deserve to be in but I am not sure of yet, borderline guys who I probably wont vote in but I could be swayed on, and no shot in hell guys. First ballot I reserve for the slam dunk guys. That's just the way I've typically done it.

I am not NOT voting for Carter because I dont think anyone should get in first time. Not at all. I've cast a number of votes for 1st timers. Simply that I am not 100% sure yet. I'm probably 80% sure, but I choose to wait a ballot or two to consider before castint the vote.

Everyone here makes decisions based on their own subjective scoring system. and I disagree with you that this is the same problem shared by the real HOF. The problem with the real HOF is not voters considering a player for a ballot or two before deciding to cast a vote for them. Among the writers, the true problem lies in the unwillingness to listen to other viewpoints and change their votes. They make up their minds in year 1 how they will vote for a player and with only very few exceptions will consider changing their minds.

In our little experiment the biggest wrong that has been righted is that the voters here, for the most part, have been willing to listen to other viewpoints and have been convincable when the argument was there to be made.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here, but I will say I havent ever said for a single player "this is a slam dunk guy but I can't vote him in because its his first ballot". That I agree is stupid.



Agreed. But if you think a guy "might" be a HOFer or even "probably" is a HOFer, I see nothing wrong with being more patient in coming to a final determination.

Rip, I've been wondering the same thing all along. What annoys me the most are when some voters purposely omit a player, even though they have open slots on their ballot, and then post that it's simply because they don't think he deserves to be a first-ballot inductee -- as if there's some extra-special litmus test beyond the vote itself. What the hell message is such an action sending, and to whom? Are our collective vote totals leaving some sort of year-to-year legacy that imparts a measure of judgement?

Bullshit.

As far as I'm concerned, the moment you believe an eligible player merits inclusion, he should get your vote, and he should CONTINUE to get your vote until his eligibility lapses. The only plausible cases for not doing so are:

* Having a full ballot (more than 10 players) that a voter deems worthy of induction in a particular year. You have to make some cuts.

* Changing your mind after further review of the player's credentials.

I have no issue with a voter who leaves a borderline player off the ballot, but is later convinced the player merits induction.

I agree that if a guy's a Hall of Famer, he's a Hall of Famer.

1998 Ballot

Gary Carter - tremendous catcher. A guy who, other than run, did everything well. One thing I find interesting is that Carter is obviously best known as one of the leaders of the mid-80s Mets, but he was starting to decline as soon as they really got attention. 1985 was vintage Carter, but he was already starting to decline in 1986 and by 1988 it was obvious his best days were gone, and the Mets were looking for new blood (Mackey Sasser, until he couldn't throw a ball). It's easy to see why - the Expos were a pitching-rich team in their contending days, and Carter was often their best hitter, or their 2nd best, so he pretty much had to be in the lineup every day for them to win. He had several years while young of catching more than 145 games a year. That can send a guy into early decline.

Bert Blyleven - lots of things said about him. Suffice to say, put him on consistently winning teams with good luck and he probably has 320 wins.

Keith Hernandez - the leader of the mid 80s Mets. I think fielding at first base is underrated. I can't prove it with numbers, but I think too often we just think any old schmuck can field first base, but good fielding is terribly valuable there. It definitely helped the Mets - Wally Backman was much better going to his right than to his left, and consequently Hernandez's great range helped them. He'd play well off the line (under the reasoning that if it's down the line, then it's been smoked and that's the pitcher's responsibility), meaning Backman did not have to cover nearly as much room on the left. This also closed up a hole between the first and second basemen. This also meant that Backman could play much more up the middle, meaning fewer balls went up the middle. That's really smart baseball.

Oh, and an underrated hitter. Even at 1st base, a guy who hits .300 with lots of walks and lots of doubles is a fine hitter.

Reggie Smith

Dwight Evans

Sorry guys, I have to take a cycle off...next one will be up Wednesday.

1998 Ballot
Gary Carter
Ron Cey
Rollie Fingers
Keith Hernandez
Dan Quisenberry
Reggie Smith
Bruce Sutter
Kent Tekulve

Mattingly had about five years of being awesome, and another five years of being pretty ordinary. His peak is better than Hernandez's, so he should get some debate, but Hernandez had the better career, since he had really one bad season from being a rookie until he was losing it and retired.

Thanks for hanging with me guys...

One note, the ballots are due on next Sunday night at 8pm. I moved to the weekend in order to have more time to get the next ballot up in a timley manor.

Also, since the end of this exerczie is in sight, I wanted to do a thing like Simmons suggested and make the HOF tiers. Anyone have any good ideas on how to vote on this?

1999 Ballot:
Bert Blyleven
George Brett
Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Carlton Fisk
Keith Hernandez
Dale Murphy
Ken Singleton
Reggie Smith
Robin Yount

1999 Ballot

A huge, huge class this season ...

George Brett
Carlton Fisk
Keith Hernandez
Dale Murphy
Craig Nettles
Willie Randolph
Jim Rice
Ken Singleton
Reggie Smith
Robin Yount

I wanted to add Randolph from last year's class because I think he was overlooked. With Grich added, I think we need to look hard at both Randolph and Whitaker from this generation.

This means I had to leave someone off, and I left Ryan off - just because. I know he deserves it, and am confident you folks will elect him without me, but I didn't want to desert the players I have been supporting so far. As it was, I had to drop Munson during his last year of eligibility.

1999 BALLOT
Bert Blyleven
George Brett
Dwight Evans
Carlton Fisk
Keith Hernandez
Graig Nettles
Pete Rose
Nolan Ryan
Reggie Smith
Robin Yount

* Well, this ballot is certainly stacked. With Brett, Ryan, Fisk & Yount, a few other newbs who are at least deserving of future discussion just might go without any votes whatsoever this round:

- Frank Tanana: I still think it's amazing that he (A) managed to win 240 games in his injury-riddled career, and (B ) won 154 of them after April of '79, when his duct-taped arm finally caved from the abuse at the hands of Angels managers the prior two seasons. We've given consideration to others whose careers (or lives) were derailed by injury and misfortune.

- Dale Murphy: He'll likely fall short due to the way his production declined so precipitously after he he turned 32 just before the '88 season. But his 6-year run from 82 through 87 was stellar. Just a thought -- if not fot the strike in '81 he'd have gotten those 400 HRs that some writers & voters view as minimum prerequisites for consideration.

- John Candelaria: Go ahead. Laugh. He was one of the game's best control pitchers. When he retired he ranked 25th all-time in K:BB. Among guys I saw pitch, the only ones who were ranked above him were Marichal, Jenkins, Saberhagen and Eckersley. Like Tanana, injuries plagued him. Candelaria also pitched for some royally wretched teams. I still remember his performance in the '75 ALCS as a 21-year-old rookie vs The Big Red Machine - an 8-inning no-decision allowing just 3 hits and 2 walks with 14 K's. With the Pirates facing elimination, he whiffed 7 of the first 9 batters he faced, and his only mistakes all game were a pair of gopher balls to Concepcion and Rose.

* Had to drop the relievers (Quiz, Sutter, Fingers) for now. But they'll be back...

* I'd completely forgotten what a great MVP season George Bell put up in 1987, beating out Boggs, McGwire & Molitor.

That Blue Jays team - with Jesse Barfield, Willie Upshaw, Lloyd Moseby, and a very young Crime Dog in the lineup, Jimmy Key anchoring an underrated rotation with Dave Stieb, Jim Clancy and the late John Ceruti, and Tom Henke throwing lights-out in the closer role - was one of the best ever NOT to make the post-season. Hard to believe it also marked the debut year for Boomer.

* Am I the only one who chuckled after seeing Chico Walker's name on the ballot?

1999 ballot
Bert Blyleven
George Brett
Ron Cey
Carlton Fisk
Keith Hernandez
Pete Rose
Nolan Ryan
Ken Singleton
Reggie Smith
Robin Yount

Tough ballot.

I didn't think I'd need to vote for Blyleven twice.

He'll likely get in anyway, but I ain't voting for Nolan Ryan. He was spectacular but not that effective: ERA+ of 112, walked way too many guys. I'll grant that he deserves props for the length of his career (5386 innings).

Blyleven was better: ERA+ of 118 over almost as many innings (4970).

1999 ballot
Bert Blyleven
Geroge Brett
Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Pudge Fisk
Keith Hernandez
Thurman Munson
Pete Rose
Ken Singleton
Reggie Smith

I'll get to the picks later this week, but in addition to the tier system, i'd like us to consider a "veterans committee" type thing where we go back and take 2nd looks...perhaps decade by decade or something...

Yeah ... Perhaps a three-tier system would be ideal - the top tier for the absolute best ... incontrovertible guys who nearly everyone can name: Cobb, Wagner, Matthewson, Ruth, Gehrig, Grove, Williams, Mays, Aaron ... maybe 30 guys tops. Second-tier are ones for whom some argument about their belonging to tier One can be made, but who are firmly HOFers - maybe guys like Lajoie, Carlton, Niekro, Reggie Jackson, Ryan, Feller etc belong here. The third tier would be the guys who are borderline ... one side of the line guys like Dahlen, Johnson, Elliot, etc. Any amendments from a "Veterans Committee" would be additions to that last group, I guess. Could there be deletions? Did we screw up? I dunno.

1999

Bert Blyleven
George Brett
Ron Cey
Dwight Evans
Carlton Fisk
Pedro Guerrero
Keith Hernandez
Nolan Ryan
Reggie Smith
Robin Yount



Ditto that for me.

1999 Ballot
George Brett
Rollie Fingers
Carlton Fisk
Dale Murphy
Nolan Ryan
Pete Rose
Bruce Sutter
Robin Yount



Blyleven pitched more innings because he was a starter and Fingers wasn’t. That and the fact that Blyleven’s career spanned 22 seasons. The fact that he pitched a lot of innings means that he had steady work. In using this argument, Nolan Ryan ought to be a lock for you. He pitched 416 innings more than Blyleven, and is credited with 37 more wins.

I’m not a fan of adjusted statistics. When considering a player for the hall of fame, accomplishments and statistics should speak for themselves. If you have to adjust those statistics, what does that do the entrance level for induction?

If you want to compare two pitchers in different roles, then wins, saves and innings pitched wont work. If we take DeltaForce’s comparison and use an unadjusted statistic like ERA, we see the following:

Fingers 1.04 (1981)
Fingers 1.92 (1973)
Fingers 1.96 (1984)
Fingers 2.47 (1976)
Fingers 2.51 (1972)
Fingers 2.52 (1978)/Blyleven 2.52 (1973)
Fingers 2.60 (1982)
Fingers 2.65 (1974)
Blyleven 2.66 (1974)
Blyleven 2.72 (1977)
Blyleven 2.73 (1972, 1989)
Fingers 2.80 (1980)
Blyleven 2.81(1971)

Fifteen best seasons, just like the WARP analysis, using ERA as the measure of quality. Fingers comes out on top. So give me a break.



But he didn’t. Does should’ve/would’ve/could’ve really carry any weight, or is this revisionist history? Is it relevant that Fingers finished third in 1975, and 8th in 1976 and 1978? I hadn't brought it up previously, but if almost CYs are a part of your argument, then please consider it.



See above.

Fingers ought to be inducted. I don't think Blyleven makes the cut.

So are you arguing for Ryan or for Fingers here?

Ryan had 37 more wins, but so what? He also lost 42 more that Blyleven did. In any event, won-loss record is less indicative of a pitcher's quality than ERA is.

The context in which the stats were accumulated has to be considered. It's not rocket science. Surely you agree that hitting 30 home runs if your home park is the Astrodome is a greater accomplishment than hitting 30 if your home park is Coors?

Relievers' ERAs are usually about .5 lower than starters' ERAs. This is either because (1) all the best pitchers are converted to relievers or (2) because the inherited runner who scores on them counts against someone else's ERA. Which do you believe?

Okay, let's compare ERA. (Putting aside Tudor's absolutely correct point that a reliever's ERA is scewed because the runs he allows are often charged to the pitcher he relieves). How about number of seasons in which the pitcher finished in his league's top 10:

Blyleven - 10 seasons
Fingers - 0 seasons.

There's no point in debating this. All else being equal, a lifetime 119 ERA+ over 1700 innings is not as valuable as a 118 ERA+ over 4900 innings. If we can't agree on this, there's nothing to debate, whether you "like" adjusted statistics or not.

Tudor

I'm trying to respond to points made in a rational manner. You made a point that Blyleven pitched a lot more innings than Fingers. I'm saying that is a weak comparison, given the roles of each player. It's what each pitcher does with those innings that's important.

I find it disingenuous that you would recommend voting for Blyleven, in part based upon the number of innings pitched, yet not use the same measure to recommend a comparable starter like Nolan Ryan.

It's also disingenuous to state that won-loss record is less indicative of a pitcher's quality than ERA is, and maintain that Blyleven should be inducted and not Ryan. Ryan's career ERA is 3.19, in a career spanning 27 seasons. Blyleven's career ERA is higher at 3.31, over 22 seasons. It would be reasonable to expect Ryan's skills to deteriorate with age, but when the body of work is compared, Blyleven's accomplishments are less than Ryan's.

I agree that the context in which the stats were accumulated has to be considered. I don't think that they are the first line for comparison. I'm not advocating taking a bottle of white out and eliminating all of the derived statistics. I do think that unadjusted statistics should be a primary criteria, and that adjusted statistics should be used as supporting criteria.

Finally, I don't think that the best pitchers are necessarily converted to closers. I also didn't make the rules regarding earned runs. I'm just trying to compare players on some kind of comparable basis.

But you didn't do that. You took apples (starter's ERA) and compared them to oranges (relievers ERA).

A metric like WARP is better (though I don't like it all that much) because it also covers the thing that ERA left out...how often he pitched.

In Blyleven v. Fingers, you had them pitch at about the same quaility, only Blyleven did it over 3000 more innings. Yet because their roles were different, this is a point in the favor of the lessor pitcher? When Lenny Harris and John Vander Wal are eligible, are you going to vote for them because they were better in their role as a pinch hitter than someone like Alan Trammell (not really) was at being an everyday player?

Like it or not, a reliever is just a pinch pitcher. They have a greater impact than a pinch hitter, but there is no real way to argue that Blyleven had a lessor career than Rollie Fingers.

Your Nolan Ryan point was good, and my intention is to vote for him next ballot (when Fisk, Brett ect clear). Ryan isn't really relevent to voting for Fingers over Blyleven.

DeltaForce

It's interesting that in six of those 10 seasons where Blyleven was in the top 10 in ERA, Fingers actually had a lower ERA! (Compare 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1981 and 1984). So how did Blyleven get in the top 10 and not Fingers?

I keep being told that the real benefit of this thread is the discussion. There is no point in deabting this...if you're not going to include both players stats in the comparison!

He didn't throw enough innings to qualify for the title.

1999 Ballot
George Brett
Burt Blyleven
Ron Cey
Carlton Fisk
Keith Hernandez
Thurman Munson
Jim Rice
Nolan Ryan
Reggi Smith
Robin Yount

67YAZ has bingo. It goes back to the roles of starters and releivers. I could point out that Fingers has more saves than Blyleven, but that also is a moot point.

It sn't so much whether Fingers ius better than Blyleven. They have different roles. Fingers should get in as a closer. Blyleven was a very good starter, but in my opinion not worthy of the Hall of Fame

Fair enough.

Because we're being rational here, I won't take offense at "disingenuous." However, Blyleven's ERA was better, in context, than Ryan's. Ryan's home parks were all pitchers' parks where low ERAs were the norm. He spent 9 seasons in the Astrodome, and his other home parks (Shea, Anaheim, and Arlington) also all favored pitchers, albeit to a lesser extent. He never had to deal with playing for a team with a hitters' home park like the old Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington, where Blyleven spent 6 1/2 seasons, or Three Rivers, where he spent 4 seasons, or the Metrodome, where he spent 3 1/2 seasons.

To ignore park effects is like saying that Denver (elevation 5,280 feet) sits atop a higher peak than the top of Mt. Katahdin (elevation 5,267 feet.)

I kind of think thats Tudor's point too though. Fingers' role diminished his value.

If you are going to vote for guys like Fingers as closers rather than pitchers, than when do we start voting for Ron Washington, and Gates Brown?

URI,

If I can't compare starters and releivers ERA because they are apples and oranges, then by the same token starters and releivers would have to be considered separately for the Hall. I can live with either standard. What I don't like to see is a voter not considering a pitcher who is not a starting pitcher. While many players with a small number of innings get used less because of a lack of talent, relief pitchers, and especially closers, work fewer innings because they are good at a specialty. That doesn't equate to being less valuable.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Specialization, by definition, limits value. Take a modern day example:
Trot Nixon, despite being one of the best hitters in baseball vs. righties, is not one of the best hitters in baseball.

Why? Because he can't hit lefties. It only makes up about 30% of his offensive value, but when you need to carry a lessor player in order to make use of him, that hurts his value.

Same with Fingers. He couldn't/didn't start, so his value is muted. There are some relievers that transcend that, like Hoyt Wilhelm, but you haven't convinced me that Fingers belongs in that group.

If you want to reward specialists for their roles in relation to other specialists, thats fine with me. But then be prepared to answer why you didn't vote for Gates Brown, and Don Mincher, one of the best pinch hitters in baseball history, and one of the best platoon hitters in history.

If you can explain that, I'll give more weight to your Fingers arguments. Until then, it seems like you are picking a favorite, and going back to find reasons to justify it.

Here's a simple, straightforward way to compare starters like Blyleven and Ryan. ERA+ provides us the capability to compare pitchers over different eras and different home ballparks. In this case, Blyleven's ERA+ of 118 beats Ryan's 112. (Note: Blyleven's 118 ERA+ would place him 38th (tied with 4 others) among the 63 HOF pitchers. Ryan's 112 ERA+ ranks 51st among HOF pitchers.)

Because ERA+ is the ratio of a (park-adjusted) league average pitcher's ERA and this pitcher's ERA, it can be used to compute (in essence) a winning percentage using the Pythagorean formula. So Blyleven's 118 ERA+ translates to a winning percentage of .581 and Ryan's 112 ERA+ translates to a winning percentage of .556. Advantage: Blyleven.

Now, how do we account for Ryan's longer career and greater innings? First, let's translate IP into complete games by dividing by 9. That gives Ryan 598 complete games to Blyleven's 552. Now simply multiply the winning percentage above by the complete games pitched to get a W-L record. This is surprisingly accurate for many HOFers:

So using this method, Blyleven would have a 321-231 record, whereas Ryan would have a 333-266 record. That gives Ryan a dozen more wins but also 35 more losses. All things considered, it's a bit of a toss-up. And if we use this method to compare total wins vs all HOF pitchers, Ryan would rank 11th and Blyleven would rank 15th (just above Don Sutton and his computed 316-271 record). To me, that says that both guys should be a slam dunk. (And to think that I was on the fence about Blyleven...)

Okay, so if I'm understanding you:

- we can't compare closers' ERAs to starters' ERAs because of the different roles
- because of the different roles, a guy who throws 5000 innings at a given ERA is no better than a guy who throws 1700 innings at the same ERA; you have to compare the starters to the starters and the relievers to the relievers;
- you're basing your vote for Fingers on his very good "relievers" ERA (presumably compared to other relievers).

And yet, is Fingers' "relievers ERA" really that good? Here's the list of the top 25 in career saves.

1. Lee Smith 478 R
2. Trevor Hoffman (37) 436 R
3. John Franco* (44) 424 L
4. Dennis Eckersley+ 390 R
5. Mariano Rivera (35) 379 R
6. Jeff Reardon 367 R
7. Randy Myers* 347 L
8. Rollie Fingers+ 341 R
9. John Wetteland 330 R
10. Roberto Hernandez (40) 324 R
Troy Percival (35) 324 R
12. Jose Mesa (39) 319 R
13. Rick Aguilera 318 R
14. Robb Nen 314 R
15. Tom Henke 311 R
16. Rich Gossage 310 R
17. Jeff Montgomery 304 R
18. Doug Jones 303 R
19. Bruce Sutter 300 R
20. Rod Beck 286 R
21. Billy Wagner* (33) 284 L
22. Armando Benitez (32) 263 R
23. Todd Worrell 256 R
24. Dave Righetti* 252 L
25. Dan Quisenberry 244 R

How many have a career ERA+ better than Fingers? Twenty of them.

The four pitchers with a worse career ERA+ than Fingers are: Eckersley, Jose Mesa, Rick Aguilera, and Dave Righetti. (And the reason those guys are so low at least in part due to their poor ERA+ as starters; if you include only their ERA+ as relievers, I'm not sure Fingers isn't dead last on this list.)

To clarify, I'm not arguing that Doug Jones or Rod Beck or Todd Worrell or Randy Myers are better than Rollie Fingers. I'm arguing that this whole "relievers' ERA" thing is silly.

Whoa, whoa, whoa Bob. This is absolutely not a responsible use of ERA. ERA in itself is a bogus stat, ERA+ more bogus yet, and this is pure fairy tale. You might as well be predicting W-L from the BB/K ratio.

I must say that I find it funny that you say ERA is a bogus stat, but that I'm not using it responsibly.

So let me get this straight. In a thread where a large percentage of people are talking about pitchers' ERAs and ERA+ (not to mention innings pitched), my quick-and-dirty computation/comparison using those stats has no merit? For future reference, could you please tell us which statistics/sabermetric measures are acceptable for use in this Hall of Fame discussion so that I don't commit another such egregious error?

Yeah, this is a pretty radical assertion VAL and I'd love to see your argument to support it.

Well ... because the concept of an earned run is flawed. We've long ago stopped using Fielding Percentage as a meaningful statistic because we recognize that errors are only a small part of defense, but still the definition of an earned run is based solely on errors. There has to be a better way of separating a pitcher from
their defense than the concept of earned runs. I do that to some extent using my pitching metrics (batting runs allowed, residual runs allowed, defensive runs allowed), but even with BRA and DRA, its extremely difficult to separate a pitcher from his defense. This is because there is a certain percentage of hits that are defense-attributable, but also a certain number of outs that are defensive attributable as well.

Second of all, we get the "plus" through a normalization process that is flawed in itself. I think the current normalization process (using league averages and park factors) needs to be updated.

Third, no statistic in baseball is more arbitrary than a Win, probably including the other pitching stats "Hold" and "Save". Wins are important on a team basis, but not on an individual basis. Win shares is more useful than actual wins, but still the concept of wins attributable to one or more players is fairly arbitrary.


At any rate, rating pitching is extremely difficult and requires a totally holistic viewpoint. Ryan is often slammed for his rather low ERA+, but he was an extreme fly ball pitcher and those type players don't give up as many errors as other types. Ryan was extremely good at limiting contact, but walked too many batters and did give up some hard contact. Blyleven was a different type of pitcher - he always gave up low ERA totals, but that is the source of him looking better in retrospect than he really did in the context of his time. He was seldom considered the best pitcher on his staff, for instance. I think its important to look at everything and not just cherry pick the area that a pitcher looks best in.

I do apologize, Bob, for the shrill response to your pythagorean won-loss analysis. Its definitely interesting, and certainly has a place in pitching analysis.

On the contrary, I think ERA+ is a very good starting point for a pitcher. It is true that it is difficult to separate the defense from a pitcher, but a pitcher is certainly the major factor in a defense, so its not like you are trying to extract a small thing from a big thing. Its a really good start.

Nolan Ryan actually gave up a lot of unearned runs, largely because he threw a lot of wild pitches and was a terrible fielder. Using RA rather than ERA is likely a step in the right direction.

VAL and I will likely never agree on how one should apply park factors to access value to a player. Suffice it to say that I agree with how ERA+ does it (and James, Palmer, BP, etc.), while VAL is interested in how each individual performs in their home park.

Yeah, well my response was a bit snarky as well. Forget about it. I do realize that my quick-and-dirty calculation is a bit on the lightweight side, but I was trying to counter some of the earlier squabbling about Blyleven and Ryan, and this method allowed a way to combine the various stats that were being discussed.

Need votes to live!

Bump

I'm planning on voting today or tomorrow....

Started reading up on Mr. Reggie Smith in my Bill James New Historical Abstract....If I was 40/60 against, I'm probably 50/50 at this moment...Some reasonably compelling arguments, but I still have some doubts...Need to give it some more thought.

1999:

George Brett
Rollie Fingers
Carlton Fisk
Dave Parker
Dan Quisenberry
Jim Rice
Nolan Ryan
Bruce Sutter
Robin Yount

1999 Ballot:

Bert Blyleven
George Brett
Carlton Fisk
Keith Hernandez
Fred Lynn
Jim Rice
Nolan Ryan
Pete Rose
Reggie Smith
Robin Yount


Perhaps the best quality ballot I have ever filled out. My God. I left Dwight Evans off for one year, probably back next year.

1999 Ballot

G. Brett
B. Blyleven
R. Fingers
C. Fisk
D. Parker
J. Rice
P. Rose
N. Ryan
R. Smith
R. Yount

Wow. What a ballot. I am usually in the 5-6 vote range. First time I've ever hit 10.

- 49% of me still isnt on the Reggie Smith bandwagon. Good commentary here and some additional reading I've done in the James Historical abstract has nudged me. Hard ballot to get him onto though!

- all the noise upthread about "righting the wrongs" and Pete Rose is still stuck in neutral? tisk tisk...

- If there was someone else I really thought deserved the spot, Blyleven would be first off this list...

- I was always a Dickie Thon fan...if this was another year, I would consider giving him a vote...can't this year though

Interesting ballot right now. We have 11 voters (we've been averaging 13) so far, and basically Fisk, Brett, and Yount are locks. Reggie Smith can handle being left off one more ballot and still get it.

However, Bert Blyleven, Keith Hernandez, and Nolan Ryan are all one vote away from being in the 75% bracket. That means they need to be on every ballot between now and #15 to be elected. And if they all are elected, we just put in a 7 man class, which without looking would be our biggest (no worries about that here).

So the next people that vote should weigh their vote very carefully...if you leave Blyleven, Hernandez or Ryan off the ballot, you've basically pushed them off until next year.