03 Jul 11
Originally posted by quackquackI think Halladay is in if he retired today. Sabbathia is close. Obviously, Mariano is in (though I guess you meant starters).
Since there are no active pitchers with 200 career win, which active starting pitchers (if their career ended today) would you put in the Hall of Fame.
Lester, Lincecum, Lee and Verlander are all on their way, but they all have a long way to go.
03 Jul 11
Originally posted by sh76What do you think about Santana because I don't think he's that different from Halladay and ahead of Sabathia and miles ahead of the other four you mentioned?
I think Halladay is in if he retired today. Sabbathia is close. Obviously, Mariano is in (though I guess you meant starters).
Lester, Lincecum, Lee and Verlander are all on their way, but they all have a long way to go.
I also think that if I guy like Lincecum ends his career with slightly less than two hundred wins (like Santana might) he could be one of the great pitchers of his ERA but not have the totals of the great pitchers of the 1970s.
03 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackSantana is an interesting one. He dominated the game perhaps more than any of those others, but he only has 133 career wins and it's certainly unclear if he can stay healthy enough to have the kind of career he's capable of. If he returns to form for another 5-7 years, sure, he'll be a HOFer. But that's a big question mark at this point.
What do you think about Santana because I don't think he's that different from Halladay and ahead of Sabathia and miles ahead of the other four you mentioned?
I also think that if I guy like Lincecum ends his career with slightly less than two hundred wins (like Santana might) he could be one of the great pitchers of his ERA but not have the totals of the great pitchers of the 1970s.
In his prime he might have been a little better than Sabbathia in his prime, but Sabbathia has 35 more wins and a history of durability. I don't think there's any question that Sabbathia is a better bet to make the HOF than Santana.
As for Lester, Lincecum and the others, sure, they have to stay healthy. If they do, they'll have careers like Halladay and Sabbathia and make the HOF. Santana has not proven that he can stay healthy enough to have a HOF career. If he retires today, well, starting pitchers don't make the HOF with 133 wins.
03 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Starters don't make it with under 200 wins either. Dwight Gooden has better career numbers than Sabathia and similar ones to Halladay, but he hardly got any HOF votes. Both will have to put together at least three or four more solid years before they stand a good chance of being voted in.
Santana is an interesting one. He dominated the game perhaps more than any of those others, but he only has 133 career wins and it's certainly unclear if he can stay healthy enough to have the kind of career he's capable of. If he returns to form for another 5-7 years, sure, he'll be a HOFer. But that's a big question mark at this point.
In his prime he migh F career. If he retires today, well, starting pitchers don't make the HOF with 133 wins.
EDIT: Gooden was 194-112 with a 3.51 ERA and 2293 Ks, yet he only got 3.3% of the votes for the Hall in 2006 and was eliminated from future votes (you need at least 5% to stay on the ballot).
Sandy Koufax is an exception to the 200 win rule, but he was clearly the dominant pitcher of his era with incredible numbers in those years far above anything Halladay or Sabathia have achieved.
03 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI tend to agree with you. Would you say then that no active starter pitcher if they retired today would make the Hall of Fame?
Starters don't make it with under 200 wins either. Dwight Gooden has better career numbers than Sabathia and similar ones to Halladay, but he hardly got any HOF votes. Both will have to put together at least three or four more solid years before they stand a good chance of being voted in.
EDIT: Gooden was 194-112 with a 3.51 ERA and 2293 Ks, yet he on ...[text shortened]... a with incredible numbers in those years far above anything Halladay or Sabathia have achieved.
03 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't you think that Gooden's association with toot candy and Strawberry greatly diminished his chances?
Starters don't make it with under 200 wins either. Dwight Gooden has better career numbers than Sabathia and similar ones to Halladay, but he hardly got any HOF votes. Both will have to put together at least three or four more solid years before they stand a good chance of being voted in.
EDIT: Gooden was 194-112 with a 3.51 ERA and 2293 Ks, yet he on ...[text shortened]... a with incredible numbers in those years far above anything Halladay or Sabathia have achieved.
I think Halladay will get in because the bulk of his labor was for a mediocre team,
but his numbers were great in spite of that. He was also an iron man.
I also concur that Santana, nor Sabbathia merit HOF at this point.
Of all the "young guns" I believe Lincecum has the most upside potential,
but he has a long way to go. Two CY's early won't hurt his chances, but
he needs to win a bunch more and stay healthy.
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitProbably, but still only 17 votes for him is a bit shocking considering his overall stats.
Don't you think that Gooden's association with toot candy and Strawberry greatly diminished his chances?
I think Halladay will get in because the bulk of his labor was for a mediocre team,
but his numbers were great in spite of that. He was also an iron man.
I also concur that Santana, nor Sabbathia merit HOF at this point.
Of all the "young g ...[text shortened]... Two CY's early won't hurt his chances, but
he needs to win a bunch more and stay healthy.
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderGooden's 3.51 ERA was not in the same class as Sabbathia's 3.54.
Starters don't make it with under 200 wins either. Dwight Gooden has better career numbers than Sabathia and similar ones to Halladay, but he hardly got any HOF votes. Both will have to put together at least three or four more solid years before they stand a good chance of being voted in.
EDIT: Gooden was 194-112 with a 3.51 ERA and 2293 Ks, yet he on ...[text shortened]... a with incredible numbers in those years far above anything Halladay or Sabathia have achieved.
Whereas Gooden pitched mostly in the NL in a good pitcher's era, Sabbathia has pitched mostly in the AL in an excellent hitters era. Gooden's career ERA+ is 111, which means 11% better than league average. Sabbathia's is 124. The two careers are not comparable.
Now, I tend to agree that if Sabbathia retires today he won't make it, but he's pretty close. When he hits 200 wins, if he keeps the same percentage stats, he'll be a lock.
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitGooden is not a possibility. He's kind of like Mattingly. Great early career, HOF track and then suddenly he became a mediocre pitcher for the rest of his career in the early 90s.
Don't you think that Gooden's association with toot candy and Strawberry greatly diminished his chances?
I think Halladay will get in because the bulk of his labor was for a mediocre team,
but his numbers were great in spite of that. He was also an iron man.
I also concur that Santana, nor Sabbathia merit HOF at this point.
Of all the "young g ...[text shortened]... Two CY's early won't hurt his chances, but
he needs to win a bunch more and stay healthy.
Look at his baseball reference page in the HOF metrics category; he's well short on all significant measures.
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by sh76Be serious; that difference isn't terribly significant. Gooden's best years dwarf Sabathia's and he has 26 more wins. Tim Hudson is about as deserving of the Hall of Fame as CC.
Gooden's 3.51 ERA was not in the same class as Sabbathia's 3.54.
Whereas Gooden pitched mostly in the NL in a good pitcher's era, Sabbathia has pitched mostly in the AL in an excellent hitters era. Gooden's career ERA+ is 111, which means 11% better than league average. Sabbathia's is 124. The two careers are not comparable.
Now, I tend to agree that if ...[text shortened]... ty close. When he hits 200 wins, if he keeps the same percentage stats, he'll be a lock.
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by sh76He's higher than Sabathia in three of the 4 ratings: Gray Ink, HOF monitor and HOF standards. And he's rated the #59th best pitcher overall by the ELO Fan Rater; Sabathia is #76th.
Gooden is not a possibility. He's kind of like Mattingly. Great early career, HOF track and then suddenly he became a mediocre pitcher for the rest of his career in the early 90s.
Look at his baseball reference page in the HOF metrics category; he's well short on all significant measures.
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThe difference between 11% better than league average and 24% better than league average is not terribly significant??
Be serious; that difference isn't terribly significant. Gooden's best years dwarf Sabathia's and he has 26 more wins. Tim Hudson is about as deserving of the Hall of Fame as CC.