HOF Pace Tracker

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by pezzicle

thats pretty semantic-y and I think you could use that same reasoning to say "left field isn't a position. outfielder is a position. Left Field is a role that some outfielders are utilized for."

like what is inherently different about a LF to a CF? or a RF? they generally have similar skills sets defensively but they aren't that significant. RF has a better arm, CF has better range, etc.

You fill out 9 positions (now 10) on the lineup card. Those positions exist the entire game. It’s literally as simple as that.

[pezzicle]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

That argument doesn't line up at all with baseball, the game, or its history. Left field has always been a different position than centerfield. When you fill out a lineup card, under position, do you put a 7 for LF and an 8 for CF, or do you put the same number? Now do it with pitcher. They are position 1 regardless of whether they are starting the game, or come in as a substitution for the starting pitcher. The better analogy would be a left fielder subbing for another left fielder mid game. They are playing the same position, regardless of who started the game and who was the sub.

so because there isn't a new box for the player the closer is still a pitcher and should be compared to every other pitcher in the sport for HoF purposes?

I don't really buy that at all tbh.

cause thats more my point. People here are arguing that closer is a role and therefore is still a pitcher and therefore closers shouldn't make the hall because they are "just worse pitchers". I just think thats a really weird stance given the state of the game currently. Closers are their own breed of pitcher a lot of the time.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by pezzicle

so because there isn't a new box for the player the closer is still a pitcher and should be compared to every other pitcher in the sport for HoF purposes?

I don't really buy that at all tbh.

cause thats more my point. People here are arguing that closer is a role and therefore is still a pitcher and therefore closers shouldn't make the hall because they are "just worse pitchers". I just think thats a really weird stance given the state of the game currently. Closers are their own breed of pitcher a lot of the time.

I don't remember anyone suggesting they should be compared to every other pitcher in the sport for HoF purposes. But it doesn't change the fact that those who can't start, relieve. Relivers are lesser pitchers as they pitch a lot less. They are already in the Hall of Fame so there's really no point in worrying about it. The only question is which of them will be getting in, in the future.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by pezzicle

so because there isn't a new box for the player the closer is still a pitcher and should be compared to every other pitcher in the sport for HoF purposes?

I don't really buy that at all tbh.

cause thats more my point. People here are arguing that closer is a role and therefore is still a pitcher and therefore closers shouldn't make the hall because they are "just worse pitchers". I just think thats a really weird stance given the state of the game currently. Closers are their own breed of pitcher a lot of the time.

It's the Hall of Fame - those guys have all made the Hall of fame because they met the requirements for induction. And the "Fame" part of it gets underscored here because while it's easy to say they didn't provide much value, for a variety of reasons - their contributions were definitely amplified while they played.

I don't take issue with any of them being in, I just don't know how to evaluate them going forward.

1- the closer role isn't as sacred as it was in recent decades, so the fame thing isn't there. Baseball has decided that closers aren't as important to success as they were thought of in their heyday.

2 - with starters going less and less, great relief pitchers are actually more valuable now!

So it's a strange combo to evaluate.

[tyrith]

Originally Posted by Silent George

It's the Hall of Fame - those guys have all made the Hall of fame because they met the requirements for induction. And the "Fame" part of it gets underscored here because while it's easy to say they didn't provide much value, for a variety of reasons - their contributions were definitely amplified while they played.

I don't take issue with any of them being in, I just don't know how to evaluate them going forward.

1- the closer role isn't as sacred as it was in recent decades, so the fame thing isn't there. Baseball has decided that closers aren't as important to success as they were thought of in their heyday.

2 - with starters going less and less, great relief pitchers are actually more valuable now!

So it's a strange combo to evaluate.

#2 isn't really true, though, because the SPs pitcher fewer innings isn't leading to specific relievers pitching more. Look at the saves leaderboards from, say, the late 1990s to 2022 - there are actually a lot fewer closer types getting north of 70 IP than there used to be. What's happening is that there are a lot more 13 pitcher staffs than there used to be (when some teams even carried 11!) and there's more demands on the 3rd-6th relievers to be reasonably good. It's not leading to more Hall of Fame type pitchers any more than NFL teams rotating RBs is going to lead to more HOF RBs.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by tyrith

#2 isn't really true, though, because the SPs pitcher fewer innings isn't leading to specific relievers pitching more. Look at the saves leaderboards from, say, the late 1990s to 2022 - there are actually a lot fewer closer types getting north of 70 IP than there used to be. What's happening is that there are a lot more 13 pitcher staffs than there used to be (when some teams even carried 11!) and there's more demands on the 3rd-6th relievers to be reasonably good. It's not leading to more Hall of Fame type pitchers any more than NFL teams rotating RBs is going to lead to more HOF RBs.

He didn’t say they were pitching more. He said they were becoming more valuable. I’d definitely advocate limiting the number of of pitchers on a roster and limiting the shuttling back and forth to the minors.

[tyrith]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

He didn’t say they were pitching more. He said they were becoming more valuable. I’d definitely advocate limiting the number of of pitchers on a roster and limiting the shuttling back and forth to the minors.

But they're not more valuable, because they aren't pitching more. The starters pitching fewer innings doesn't make the specific 70 innings that a closer pitches more valuable than they were; it means there's more innings in the middle of the game that need to be pitched by MRs, and some of those players are certainly more valuable than they were in the 90s. It's just not in a way where any of them will ever make the HOF.

I think there's going to be a lot of resistance to doing anything to increase pitcher workloads; the injuries these days are already bad enough.

[pezzicle]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

I don't remember anyone suggesting they should be compared to every other pitcher in the sport for HoF purposes.

Not explicitly, no, but statements like this: "Kimbrel has 23.2 career WAR.
Kenley Jansen has 20.9 career WAR. Neither of them belong within a hundred miles of the HOF.....When you only throw 50-60 innings a year, you just don't have much impact on your team's results. Period." certainly seem to allude to something of the sort.

Granted, that was one specific poster who was saying that and I had bounced off your post so apologies for roping you into what they were saying when you clearly weren't

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by Stifle

If he wins 3 MVP’s and then has a injury where he meets zero qualifications ? I believe outside of PED users, every 3 time winner is in ?

Hope I am wrong on this statement and he recovers to pitch again or at least not have it affect his swing.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by tyrith

But they're not more valuable, because they aren't pitching more. The starters pitching fewer innings doesn't make the specific 70 innings that a closer pitches more valuable than they were; it means there's more innings in the middle of the game that need to be pitched by MRs, and some of those players are certainly more valuable than they were in the 90s. It's just not in a way where any of them will ever make the HOF.

I think there's going to be a lot of resistance to doing anything to increase pitcher workloads; the injuries these days are already bad enough.

To explicitly define what I was saying -

1 - A closer's ratio of value to a starter continues to rise, as starters pitch fewer and fewer innings.

That's what matters in a Hall of Fame closer debate. If we're going to say that closers shouldn't make the hall because they aren't good enough, that's going to cause a situation where eventually no one can make the hall, because starters are barely even qualifying for the league ERA. So if even the best starters are pitching less - and oh boy are they - then the relative value of the closer is rising, and thus making them more HOF viable for future generations. Even if, as with all things pitching and HOF, our brains haven't caught up to it.

And yet...

2 - A <GOOD> closer's actual value continues to rise as overall pitching is watered down with the massive influx of how many pitchers it takes to complete 162 games. In other words, each AA callup is dropping that replacement value a little more.

---Which is what I meant. However, I ALSO believe we're going to see closers start pitching actual higher leverage innings, even if not more innings (but probably that too) - but I mean that a closer is going to be far more likely to go into a 1 run game in the 8th inning, than be held for a 3 run game in the 9th inning. Of course, this would make them more valuable. Not all situations are equal.

Because the current evolution of the game is designed to pressure managers to go with starters longer, but the real result is that it's going to make you have to go with your bullpen longer, which in turn will change how you deploy them.

Relievers are averaging 1.13 innings pitched per outing this year. Which may not seem like a lot, but it's the most since the year 2000.

Starters continue to drop. The most valuable and important innings are going to go to the most valuable and important pitchers. So you can expect closers to take on a greater workload. And that may not be reflected in total innings for various reasons (including they are now the position most likely to be called upon to get one or two outs to close a game, and thus the G/IP ratio suffers more - but when it comes to WPA teams are, and will continue to move away from the traditional 3 outs and your done.

Perhaps 2008 was the height of this. K-Rod saved a record 62 games, and not one of them was more than an inning. That's still the current mindset of a lot of managers, but I expect that to fade with younger closers, or newer managers.

Alexis Diaz is the current saves leader in baseball, and he's had 3 saves of more than an inning - and 3 other games as well. Older closers like Jansen are Kimbrel are strictly one inning guys.

So yeah,
1. Relative to starters, closers are a lot more valuable than in the past.
2. Relative to the sheer number of crappy pitchers in the game the best relievers - presumably closers - are a lot more valuable.
3. and yeah, I suspect the movement to have them pitch more and higher leverage innings is beginning.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by Stifle

Hope I am wrong on this statement and he recovers to pitch again or at least not have it affect his swing.

honestly, the Ohtani situation is too sad to even contemplate right now.

[MogulSkier39]

I assume there must be, but is there a stat for the number of inherited runners left stranded on base without scoring?

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by Silent George

honestly, the Ohtani situation is too sad to even contemplate right now.

The Angels seem to be snake bit to have 2 superstars who seem nothing less than fantastic men have injuries stunting or worse their careers.

I would say 2 superstars and a player in the previous 3 seasons before becoming a Angel averaged - .308 BA, 106 RBI’s as well as winning a WS MVP. A. Rendon has barely played as a Angel. That’s the top 3 players who were ALL STARS.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by MogulSkier39

I assume there must be, but is there a stat for the number of inherited runners left stranded on base without scoring?

Yes. Most relievers allow 25-35% of Inherited Runners to score.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by Silent George

Perhaps 2008 was the height of this. K-Rod saved a record 62 games, and not one of them was more than an inning. That's still the current mindset of a lot of managers, but I expect that to fade with younger closers, or newer managers.

Alexis Diaz is the current saves leader in baseball, and he's had 3 saves of more than an inning - and 3 other games as well. Older closers like Jansen are Kimbrel are strictly one inning guys.

So yeah,
1. Relative to starters, closers are a lot more valuable than in the past.
2. Relative to the sheer number of crappy pitchers in the game the best relievers - presumably closers - are a lot more valuable.
3. and yeah, I suspect the movement to have them pitch more and higher leverage innings is beginning.

This debate has been going on as long as I've had the internet. It always seems that the movement to have closers pitch more and higher leverage innings is beginning but it always fizzles out for one reason....workload.

Josh Hader is the perfect example of what happens. A young kid comes up, cuts his teeth as a long closer, then once established he instantly becomes a one inning guy that racks up saves.

[tyrith]

Originally Posted by Silent George

To explicitly define what I was saying -

1 - A closer's ratio of value to a starter continues to rise, as starters pitch fewer and fewer innings.

That's what matters in a Hall of Fame closer debate. If we're going to say that closers shouldn't make the hall because they aren't good enough, that's going to cause a situation where eventually no one can make the hall, because starters are barely even qualifying for the league ERA. So if even the best starters are pitching less - and oh boy are they - then the relative value of the closer is rising, and thus making them more HOF viable for future generations. Even if, as with all things pitching and HOF, our brains haven't caught up to it.

And yet...

2 - A <GOOD> closer's actual value continues to rise as overall pitching is watered down with the massive influx of how many pitchers it takes to complete 162 games. In other words, each AA callup is dropping that replacement value a little more.

---Which is what I meant. However, I ALSO believe we're going to see closers start pitching actual higher leverage innings, even if not more innings (but probably that too) - but I mean that a closer is going to be far more likely to go into a 1 run game in the 8th inning, than be held for a 3 run game in the 9th inning. Of course, this would make them more valuable. Not all situations are equal.

Because the current evolution of the game is designed to pressure managers to go with starters longer, but the real result is that it's going to make you have to go with your bullpen longer, which in turn will change how you deploy them.

Relievers are averaging 1.13 innings pitched per outing this year. Which may not seem like a lot, but it's the most since the year 2000.

Starters continue to drop. The most valuable and important innings are going to go to the most valuable and important pitchers. So you can expect closers to take on a greater workload. And that may not be reflected in total innings for various reasons (including they are now the position most likely to be called upon to get one or two outs to close a game, and thus the G/IP ratio suffers more - but when it comes to WPA teams are, and will continue to move away from the traditional 3 outs and your done.

Perhaps 2008 was the height of this. K-Rod saved a record 62 games, and not one of them was more than an inning. That's still the current mindset of a lot of managers, but I expect that to fade with younger closers, or newer managers.

Alexis Diaz is the current saves leader in baseball, and he's had 3 saves of more than an inning - and 3 other games as well. Older closers like Jansen are Kimbrel are strictly one inning guys.

So yeah,
1. Relative to starters, closers are a lot more valuable than in the past.
2. Relative to the sheer number of crappy pitchers in the game the best relievers - presumably closers - are a lot more valuable.
3. and yeah, I suspect the movement to have them pitch more and higher leverage innings is beginning.

We'll just have to see how it goes with the closer deployment moving forward. I'm dubious that the trend will ever go towards the of those guys being more than 1 inning flamethrowers, but it's possible that we get one or two guys that are more like old Mariano Rivera deployment. Since the HOF is inherently a collection of outlier players, getting a couple like that would dramatically impact the reliever for the HOF discussion.

Honestly, to me the present trend with starters just highlights to me how much easier it is to be a 70 IP/yr reliever versus a 180 IP+ starter, because we haven't seen the same downward trends with relievers that we have with starters in the modern, high veolcity, high injury frequency era. I wonder how WAR is going to deal with that long term - being a Gerrit Cole is clearly more valuable to a team than it ever has been. But that's more of a roster construction issue than a direct on the field thing.

[tyrith]

Posting this separately for emphasis...

But oh hey, look which guy is up to 5th in fWAR and 9th in bWAR, and well north of 40 WAR in both systems at age 29, that Jayson Stark didn't feel like was worth mentioning as a HOF candidate...

The joke of a franchise the Mets have become has really destroyed Lindor's media hype engine, but he just keeps bashing his way along. And unlike so many of his competitors, he's been almost completely healthy for his career. If he can replicate his age 28-29 seasons for age 30-31, he's going to be pretty close to a lock.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by tyrith

Posting this separately for emphasis...

But oh hey, look which guy is up to 5th in fWAR and 9th in bWAR, and well north of 40 WAR in both systems at age 29, that Jayson Stark didn't feel like was worth mentioning as a HOF candidate...

The joke of a franchise the Mets have become has really destroyed Lindor's media hype engine, but he just keeps bashing his way along. And unlike so many of his competitors, he's been almost completely healthy for his career. If he can replicate his age 28-29 seasons for age 30-31, he's going to be pretty close to a lock.

he's become the unfair face of their failures, instead of really the one thing that has gone right.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by Silent George

he's become the unfair face of their failures, instead of really the one thing that has gone right.

It only takes one ring or even a deep playoff run and the narrative changes completely.

[pezzicle]

Originally Posted by Silent George

he's become the unfair face of their failures, instead of really the one thing that has gone right.

the mess doing mess things

[pezzicle]

been meaning to ask this and maybe its already been posted in the 40+ pages but

you'd said that 33% is like 52 WAR

what is 50%? what is 66%?

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by pezzicle

Not explicitly, no, but statements like this: "Kimbrel has 23.2 career WAR.
Kenley Jansen has 20.9 career WAR. Neither of them belong within a hundred miles of the HOF.....When you only throw 50-60 innings a year, you just don't have much impact on your team's results. Period." certainly seem to allude to something of the sort.

I'm the poster who made that post, and I stand by what I said.

Relief pitchers simply don't pitch enough innings to have a meaningful impact on team outcomes, as evidenced by their low WAR totals.

And to me, being a HOFer means that you had a hugely positive impact on the performance of your team. And closers simply don't. Entering the game with the bases empty and getting three outs without allowing a run simply isn't that difficult to do.

If you want to induct impactful relievers, induct the guys who were the best at entering the game mid-inning and stranding runners in scoring position. That's a much tougher job than what closers are asked to do.

[pezzicle]

Originally Posted by mfw13

I'm the poster who made that post, and I stand by what I said.

Relief pitchers simply don't pitch enough innings to have a meaningful impact on team outcomes, as evidenced by their low WAR totals.

That isn't what WAR calculates though at all. That would be WPA. And R-JAWS does incorporate WPA

[TBTC Baseball]

Originally Posted by Silent George

Nico Hoerner 0.8 // 2.8 // 9.4
Batting .299 with 4 homers and an .857 OPS since the All-Star break, which has to make him the worst Cub in that stretch.

Nico is on track for a Lou Whitaker-lite/like career.

[ironfireman]

Originally Posted by TBTC Baseball

Nico is on track for a Lou Whitaker-lite/like career.

Nico should be a fav for the the gold glove this year and has 40+ SBs and a decent bat but he'll barely reach 400 games played by the start of age 27 season due to college and injuries. So unless he plays until he's his mid 40s...

ALSO Where the hell is Silent George?!!