Article: Johan Santana’s Cooperstown Case: The Puckett Clause

[ALessKosherScott]

 

Puckett received quite a few sympathy votes, no doubt, although he probably didn't have more than one or two good years left in him. He had a good year at 35, but what are the chances that a chubby guy who had played his whole career on the fuzzy concrete still would have been going strong at 37-38? Not really good.

 

Anyway, his WAR/JAWS and WAR7 peak put him on the level of Fred Lynn and Bernie Williams, but he had the sympathy vote on his side, and he was the face of two World Series champs. (Poor Bernie, just one of the Very Good players on the Yankees dynasty.)

 

Johan's WAR7 peak puts him right between Dave Stieb and Don Drysdale, not far below Koufax, and just a bit ahead of Luis Tiant, Mike Mussina, Tom Glavine, David Cone, and Justin Verlander. So there is a case that he was about as good as Koufax and Drysdale, although his WAR7 is only tied with Stieb for 62nd all-time, far short of elite level. Was he on the level of Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, and Greg Maddux? WAR7 says no.

 

And since Johan doesn't have the legendary World Series performances on his resume, I suppose that he'll go down like Dave Stieb--who also was done in by an injury in his early 30's.

 

Stieb falls into your Saberhagen trap of not really accumulating a lot of black ink either. Mussina is kind of the Don Sutton of the early part of the 21st century. Plenty of gray ink. Not a lot of black ink. Even Glavine doesn't earn as much black ink as Santana.

 

The black ink debate is important because it shows Santana's statistical dominance over a brief career. In the black ink test, Santana sits 37th all-time, tied with Curt Schilling. Of the guys ahead of him, all are in the Hall of Fame minus Kershaw, Verlander and Halladay, whom all should be in when they're eligible and Clemens, whom the press is holding a grudge against.

 

WAR/7 is kind of a weird way to measure a guy like Santana and even Mauer, when he comes around. If you use the Keltner test, both of them are easy Hall of Famers. 

 

 

 

 

[jmlease1]

 

Some of that is true but it's also a little out of context. Morris had more seasons in the top 10 of k/9 than Johan and more seasons in the top 10 in strikeouts as well. When he retired, he was 19th all time in strikeouts. The massive change in the game the last twenty years has changed our perception of strike outs. (Blyleven's k/9 was less than Scott Baker's). And he certainly has a pretty strong claim to the Cy Young in 83 when Hoyt's 24 wins got him the award. While Morris didn't lead in ERA part of the reason is probably due do too many innings, which can water down rate stats. If he threw 50 less innings each year, would his ERA have improved? Probably.

 

But again, they are both borderline candidates but for completely different reasons. Santana, at his best, was inner circle HOF. Very few pitchers could touch that. Morris had longevity. His career is comparable to HOFers like Carl Hubbell and Jim Palmer while Santana relies more on Koufax. They don't compare to each other very well. I'd love to see both in the HOF. Because I prefer longevity and his post season success, I'd probably put Morris in first but you can certainly argue that short high peaks should be HOF worthy as well. (And I think guys like Santana and Nomar Garciaparra should be strongly considered).

 

Diagree with your analysis here; it's far too generous to Morris. Palmer and Hubbell (who are actually pretty decent comps for each other despite pitching in very different eras) were both substantially better pitchers than Morris.

 

Palmer didn't deserve as many Cy's as he got, but he definitely should have gotten at least one, arguably two. But both pitchers were significantly better at run prevention than Morris. ERA+: Palmer 125, Hubbell 130, Morris 105. bWAR: Palmer 68.1, Hubbell 67.8, Morris 43.8. Both Palmer and Hubbell had Morris' greatest strength (ability to eat up a lot of innings) but coupled it with greater ability to prevent runs. Palmer and Morris both had the benefit of fine defenders playing behind them (Palmer especially had some of the best defenses of all time working behind him) but even taking that into account, Palmer is still a significantly better pitcher.

 

I brought Morris into the discussion because a) someone suggested that Santana shouldn't be in if Morris wasn't, and there's been a fair amount of commentary about Morris getting in off the small committee vote that is looking at players from his era. (BTW, I really don't think Morris was robbed in '83; Hoyt shouldn't have won as he wasn't even the best pitcher on his own team. But Dave Steib is the guy who really should have won it. Morris is in a pack with Dotson and MacGregor and a few others. Steib is probably the most underrated pitcher from that time frame, and had a four year run where he was almost certainly the best pitcher in the AL and should have won 2 Cy's; he was tremendous from '82-'85)

 

I do agree that the Koufax case has some similarities for Santana; Koufax was better and had to quit at the height of his powers because of injury, and also had the post-season success to go with it. But Sandy is considered a no-doubter HoF guy. No one really argues it. If that's where your starting point is on Santana, that's pretty strong for your case. 

[gunnarthor]

 

Diagree with your analysis here; it's far too generous to Morris. Palmer and Hubbell (who are actually pretty decent comps for each other despite pitching in very different eras) were both substantially better pitchers than Morris.

 

Palmer didn't deserve as many Cy's as he got, but he definitely should have gotten at least one, arguably two. But both pitchers were significantly better at run prevention than Morris. ERA+: Palmer 125, Hubbell 130, Morris 105. bWAR: Palmer 68.1, Hubbell 67.8, Morris 43.8. Both Palmer and Hubbell had Morris' greatest strength (ability to eat up a lot of innings) but coupled it with greater ability to prevent runs. Palmer and Morris both had the benefit of fine defenders playing behind them (Palmer especially had some of the best defenses of all time working behind him) but even taking that into account, Palmer is still a significantly better pitcher.

 

I brought Morris into the discussion because a) someone suggested that Santana shouldn't be in if Morris wasn't, and there's been a fair amount of commentary about Morris getting in off the small committee vote that is looking at players from his era. (BTW, I really don't think Morris was robbed in '83; Hoyt shouldn't have won as he wasn't even the best pitcher on his own team. But Dave Steib is the guy who really should have won it. Morris is in a pack with Dotson and MacGregor and a few others. Steib is probably the most underrated pitcher from that time frame, and had a four year run where he was almost certainly the best pitcher in the AL and should have won 2 Cy's; he was tremendous from '82-'85)

 

 

Steib is the most overrated underrated player going right now.  In his career he threw 2900 or so innings and 44 WAR. From 80-91, Morris threw 2900 innnings and 44 WAR. In 5 more seasons he tacked on another 11 WAR. 

 

While you noted their bWAR you didn't note their fWAR Morris (55.8) Palmer (56.6) and Hubbel (56.5).  I suspect the difference between those has to do with the defense - Palmer's babip for his career is .249. Of pitchers with 3000ip or more, only Catfish Hunter is better and third best is sitting at .258. Hubbel (.267) and Morris (.270) aren't close to that. Brooks Robinson was really, really good.

 

Again, if you like WAR, he's comparable to Palmer and Hubbel.

[Loosey]

As much as I would like to see Santana get in eventually, I think him and Puckett are different stories.

 

Santana's shoulder slowly gave out on him until it got to the point he couldn't pitch anymore.  That is his body wearing out.  Similar to if he was great for 5 years and then just couldn't pitch well anymore because he was aging and/or wear and tear over the years wore him down.  Happens to lots of great players.  Their bodies can't holdup to the rigors of a long MLB career.

 

Puckett on the other hand was hit in the face by a fastball.  He went from All-Star player to practically blind in one eye basically over night.  His body was probably good to go for another 3-4 years, but fastballs to the face can change that. 

 

So Santana is a guy that could have become an all-time great if he stayed healthy long enough.  Puckett was on the verge of becoming one already and tragically had his career end abruptly at the tail-end when he basically just needed to be ok for few years to reach HOF miles stones (3000 hits, etc).

 

Basically what I am trying to say is I put body giving out in similar category as skills diminishing.  While getting smoked in the face is put in a different grouping all together.

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Loosey

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

As much as I would like to see Santana get in eventually, I think him and Puckett are different stories.

 

Santana's shoulder slowly gave out on him until it got to the point he couldn't pitch anymore.  That is his body wearing out.  Similar to if he was great for 5 years and then just couldn't pitch well anymore because he was aging and/or wear and tear over the years wore him down.  Happens to lots of great players.  Their bodies can't holdup to the rigors of a long MLB career.

 

Puckett on the other hand was hit in the face by a fastball.  He went from All-Star player to practically blind in one eye basically over night.  His body was probably good to go for another 3-4 years, but fastballs to the face can change that. 

 

So Santana is a guy that could have become an all-time great if he stayed healthy long enough.  Puckett was on the verge of becoming one already and tragically had his career end abruptly at the tail-end when he basically just needed to be ok for few years to reach HOF miles stones (3000 hits, etc).

 

Basically what I am trying to say is I put body giving out in similar category as skills diminishing.  While getting smoked in the face is put in a different grouping all together.

Yeah, this. You can make an argument that Mauer falls under the Puckett clause but it's hard to make that case for Johan. He just broke down, as pitchers often do.

 

On that note, it's hard to believe Joe is still 400 PAs shy of Puckett's career number, has been mediocre-to-bad for 4+ seasons, and still has 3 more career fWAR than Kirby.

[laloesch]

 

Puckett's career ended because of glaucoma, not because he was hit by a pitch in the face. The glaucoma had nothing to do with the HBP. 

 

yes.  The pitch actually did very little damage to his eye, but the glaucoma which had gone un-diagnosed for so long came back to bite him big time.  Once the damage is done it's irreversible.  That's why it's imperative that you get your eyes check often because it can be prevented.

Edited November 29, 2017 by laloesch

[ALessKosherScott]

 

Yeah, this. You can make an argument that Mauer falls under the Puckett clause but it's hard to make that case for Johan. He just broke down, as pitchers often do.

 

On that note, it's hard to believe Joe is still 400 PAs shy of Puckett's career number, has been mediocre-to-bad for 4+ seasons, and still has 3 more career fWAR than Kirby.

 

I think with Santana though there are numerous different pitcher clauses you could rename it to. The Koufax Clause? The Dean Clause? The Rube Waddell Clause? The Amos Rusie Clause? There are about six similar pitchers to Santana in history who were the best pitcher in baseball for a couple of years before arm troubles and all of them are Hall of Famers.

 

And the problem with WAR/7, JAWS and other monitors is we've tried to turn an emotional decision into a rational one. Tom Glavine is a Hall of Famer, and anyone who was as good as he was for as long as he was. But rhetorically, if you had a time machine and had to win one baseball game, which pitcher are you traveling back in time to get-- 1991-1996 Glavine or 2003-2008 Santana? 

[gunnarthor]

 

I think with Santana though there are numerous different pitcher clauses you could rename it to. The Koufax Clause? The Dean Clause? The Rube Waddell Clause? The Amos Rusie Clause? There are about six similar pitchers to Santana in history who were the best pitcher in baseball for a couple of years before arm troubles and all of them are Hall of Famers.

 

And the problem with WAR/7, JAWS and other monitors is we've tried to turn an emotional decision into a rational one. Tom Glavine is a Hall of Famer, and anyone who was as good as he was for as long as he was. But rhetorically, if you had a time machine and had to win one baseball game, which pitcher are you traveling back in time to get-- 1991-1996 Glavine or 2003-2008 Santana? 

Can I go back to October 27, 1991?

[jmlease1]

 

Steib is the most overrated underrated player going right now.  In his career he threw 2900 or so innings and 44 WAR. From 80-91, Morris threw 2900 innnings and 44 WAR. In 5 more seasons he tacked on another 11 WAR. 

 

While you noted their bWAR you didn't note their fWAR Morris (55.8) Palmer (56.6) and Hubbel (56.5).  I suspect the difference between those has to do with the defense - Palmer's babip for his career is .249. Of pitchers with 3000ip or more, only Catfish Hunter is better and third best is sitting at .258. Hubbel (.267) and Morris (.270) aren't close to that. Brooks Robinson was really, really good.

 

Again, if you like WAR, he's comparable to Palmer and Hubbel.

 

I used bWAR in part because I think their modelling makes more sense for evaluating a pitcher's season (Rany explains it better than me: https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2017/11/29/16712482/future-of-war-aaron-judge-jose-altuve-bill-james-debate ) The defense does explain some of it, but Morris also pitched behind excellent defenders, trammel & whitaker most notably, for basically his entire career...and according to fWAR some years he got bailed out by his defense and some years he didn't. considering how we're still trying to evaluate defensive value, I don't love the way fWAR uses FIP to calculate WAR, especially when you consider cases like Nolan Ryan as Rany presented in the link above.

 

I'm not saying Stieb is a HoF pitcher, but you're sort of making my case for me: Stieb and Morris are interesting comps for each other in the 80's and ain't no one talking about Dave Stieb for the Hall, yet people act like it's this great injustice that Jack isn't in. (fWAR has them as basically the exact same pitcher in the time frame you highlight; bWAR would tell you to take Stieb every time and that was basically Stieb's career.) I can't say I love the argument that Jack should be in the Hall and not Dave because Jack stayed healthier for a few years longer and some people are pretty sure Dave pitched in front of better defenses.

 

 

[ALessKosherScott]

 

Can I go back to October 27, 1991?

 

Sure. But I'm grabbing Santana from August 19, 2007 and beating you.

Edited November 30, 2017 by ALessKosherScott

[jimmer]

I used bWAR in part because I think their modelling makes more sense for evaluating a pitcher's season (Rany explains it better than me: https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2017/11/29/16712482/future-of-war-aaron-judge-jose-altuve-bill-james-debate ) The defense does explain some of it, but Morris also pitched behind excellent defenders, trammel & whitaker most notably, for basically his entire career...and according to fWAR some years he got bailed out by his defense and some years he didn't. considering how we're still trying to evaluate defensive value, I don't love the way fWAR uses FIP to calculate WAR, especially when you consider cases like Nolan Ryan as Rany presented in the link above.

 

I'm not saying Stieb is a HoF pitcher, but you're sort of making my case for me: Stieb and Morris are interesting comps for each other in the 80's and ain't no one talking about Dave Stieb for the Hall, yet people act like it's this great injustice that Jack isn't in. (fWAR has them as basically the exact same pitcher in the time frame you highlight; bWAR would tell you to take Stieb every time and that was basically Stieb's career.) I can't say I love the argument that Jack should be in the Hall and not Dave because Jack stayed healthier for a few years longer and some people are pretty sure Dave pitched in front of better defenses.

I am exactly opposite. I much prefer the FIP based WAR (which is fWAR) then bWAR cause I dont think we should take into account the defense behind the pitcher. Edited November 30, 2017 by jimmer

[gunnarthor]

 

I used bWAR in part because I think their modelling makes more sense for evaluating a pitcher's season (Rany explains it better than me: https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2017/11/29/16712482/future-of-war-aaron-judge-jose-altuve-bill-james-debate ) The defense does explain some of it, but Morris also pitched behind excellent defenders, trammel & whitaker most notably, for basically his entire career...and according to fWAR some years he got bailed out by his defense and some years he didn't. considering how we're still trying to evaluate defensive value, I don't love the way fWAR uses FIP to calculate WAR, especially when you consider cases like Nolan Ryan as Rany presented in the link above.

 

I'm not saying Stieb is a HoF pitcher, but you're sort of making my case for me: Stieb and Morris are interesting comps for each other in the 80's and ain't no one talking about Dave Stieb for the Hall, yet people act like it's this great injustice that Jack isn't in. (fWAR has them as basically the exact same pitcher in the time frame you highlight; bWAR would tell you to take Stieb every time and that was basically Stieb's career.) I can't say I love the argument that Jack should be in the Hall and not Dave because Jack stayed healthier for a few years longer and some people are pretty sure Dave pitched in front of better defenses.

I don't think Morris is a slam dunk guy. I think he's borderline but he is comparable to HOFers, his numbers when he retired were pretty good and he has his own unique story (as Poz would put it) that I would push him in. Stieb isn't anywhere close to that. I think Santana is a borderline candidate as well with a totally different story. They just don't seem comparable to me.

[alexlegge]

Let's say, just for fun, that Johan wasn't injured at the end of 2010, and instead ended up playing 11 more years, staying relatively healthy but pitching substantially worse overall. Let's say he doubled his career innings, averaging the following stats over that stretch: 9-8 record, ERA of 4.00 and an ERA+ of 110 (approximate midpoint of Patrick Corbin's and Chris Archer's ERA+ from this year, since they both had ERAs just barely over 4).

 

Then, overall, Santana's career numbers would look like this:

238-166 (.589), 3.60 ERA, 123 ERA+

 

Even if he never won a World Series, those numbers look Hall-of-Fame worthy to me.

 

By comparison, Mike Mussina's career numbers are:

270-153 (.638), 3.68 ERA, 123 ERA+

 

Also: Don Drysdale's career ERA+ was 121, John Smoltz's was 125. You get the idea.

 

...

 

And now compared to Jack Morris:

254-186 (.577), 3.90 ERA, 105 ERA+

 

 

3 points to be made of all of this:

 

1) Johan's candidacy is in a different league than Morris. Morris is really only relying on slightly above-average pitching, win totals, and 2 great postseasons (leaving aside the crappy postseasons he had). As a Twins fan, I'd find emotional satisfaction in Morris getting elected, but he's well below the admittedly-subjective 'standards' for the hall. Let's also not forget that most of Morris' wins came before the steroid era. Santana, by comparison, could have had 11 more years of mediocrity and his career numbers would still far exceed those of Morris.

 

2) If Johan doesn't get elected (which he won't) and perhaps even falls off the ballot (a distinct possibility), then he will basically have been penalized for not having 11 years of middle-of-the-rotation caliber pitching. Is that really what we want the Hall of Fame to be about?? In my personal opinion, a player that has a 4-5 year stretch of awesomeness (like Johan) is just as solid of a candidate as someone who was steadily above average for a long time (like Mussina), and both of those players are very worthy selections.

 

3) The saddest part, I believe, is that Johan's candidacy is being reduced due to market sizes. He was arguably better than peak Sandy Koufax from 2003-2007 with the Twins, but there was slightly less national attention paid to that because it happened in Minnesota. Then he went to the biggest media market in the US and had 1 great season. Hence, the lasting image from the NYC market perspective is more focused on the guy whose Mets career sadly faded due to injuries than the guy who was a monster for 5 years in Minnesota. Unfortunately, that's the perspective of most HoF voters too

[Mr. Brooks]

Let's say, just for fun, that Johan wasn't injured at the end of 2010, and instead ended up playing 11 more years, staying relatively healthy but pitching substantially worse overall. Let's say he doubled his career innings, averaging the following stats over that stretch: 9-8 record, ERA of 4.00 and an ERA+ of 110 (approximate midpoint of Patrick Corbin's and Chris Archer's ERA+ from this year, since they both had ERAs just barely over 4).

 

Then, overall, Santana's career numbers would look like this:

238-166 (.589), 3.60 ERA, 123 ERA+

 

Even if he never won a World Series, those numbers look Hall-of-Fame worthy to me.

 

By comparison, Mike Mussina's career numbers are:

270-153 (.638), 3.68 ERA, 123 ERA+

 

Also: Don Drysdale's career ERA+ was 121, John Smoltz's was 125. You get the idea.

 

...

 

And now compared to Jack Morris:

254-186 (.577), 3.90 ERA, 105 ERA+

 

 

3 points to be made of all of this:

 

1) Johan's candidacy is in a different league than Morris. Morris is really only relying on slightly above-average pitching, win totals, and 2 great postseasons (leaving aside the crappy postseasons he had). As a Twins fan, I'd find emotional satisfaction in Morris getting elected, but he's well below the admittedly-subjective 'standards' for the hall. Let's also not forget that most of Morris' wins came before the steroid era. Santana, by comparison, could have had 11 more years of mediocrity and his career numbers would still far exceed those of Morris.

 

2) If Johan doesn't get elected (which he won't) and perhaps even falls off the ballot (a distinct possibility), then he will basically have been penalized for not having 11 years of middle-of-the-rotation caliber pitching. Is that really what we want the Hall of Fame to be about?? In my personal opinion, a player that has a 4-5 year stretch of awesomeness (like Johan) is just as solid of a candidate as someone who was steadily above average for a long time (like Mussina), and both of those players are very worthy selections.

 

3) The saddest part, I believe, is that Johan's candidacy is being reduced due to market sizes. He was arguably better than peak Sandy Koufax from 2003-2007 with the Twins, but there was slightly less national attention paid to that because it happened in Minnesota. Then he went to the biggest media market in the US and had 1 great season. Hence, the lasting image from the NYC market perspective is more focused on the guy whose Mets career sadly faded due to injuries than the guy who was a monster for 5 years in Minnesota. Unfortunately, that's the perspective of most HoF voters too

What's the argument that peak Johan was better than peak Koufax?

[alexlegge]

Just that some of his regular season numbers are better than Koufax after adjustments for ballpark & league-wide offense during the era. It's a popular comparison. I personally wouldn't make that argument, but it's waaaay closer than most people think, especially based only on regular season performance. So yeah, *arguably* better in the sense that you could make a reasonable argument if you had to

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I am exactly opposite. I much prefer the FIP based WAR (which is fWAR) then bWAR cause I dont think we should take into account the defense behind the pitcher.

This assumes an infallibility of FIP that I'm not willing to accept.

 

At some point, maybe 700-1000 IP, measurable on-field performance needs to be a major factor. Did this pitcher allow runs or not?

 

As we all know, there are some pitchers who change teams, leagues, and defenses yet still over/underperform their FIP. That leads me to believe FIP is missing something that leads some pitchers to be better or worse than their expected numbers over 1000 or more innings.

 

So we either have to accept that either FIP or ERA isn't an accurate indication of some pitchers' ability. And I haven't really seen the argument that ERA is the truly flawed stat over large sample sizes. But I'd be interested in seeing it made and how it draws its conclusions.

[jmlease1]

 

I don't think Morris is a slam dunk guy. I think he's borderline but he is comparable to HOFers, his numbers when he retired were pretty good and he has his own unique story (as Poz would put it) that I would push him in. Stieb isn't anywhere close to that. I think Santana is a borderline candidate as well with a totally different story. They just don't seem comparable to me.

 

Personally, I prefer a guy who pitched at the absolute peak but got cut a little short on the years over the guy who never really dominated the same way but had the full length and health of a typical HoF guy. Johan was a comet and while that's always going to make you a little borderline, I think he deserves it. Johan wasn't just a "maybe" guy for best pitcher in baseball; for five years straight if you didn't bring him up in that conversation you were an idiot. That says a lot.

 

Stieb doesn't have the story, and played basically his entire career in canada, but the most significant difference between him and Morris is Jack stayed healthier for a few years longer. (which basically accounts for their difference in fWAR; bWAR is another tale) The other difference is Jack played in more post-seasons; Jack was great in 2 of them, bad in two of them. Stieb was good in 1, bad in 1. I'm not advocating for Stieb for the Hall, but Morris and Stieb overlapped almost their entire careers and ended up as not unreasonable comps for each other. I just don't think 2-3 additional seasons of ok pitching is enough to get you into the Hall.

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

Just that some of his regular season numbers are better than Koufax after adjustments for ballpark & league-wide offense during the era. It's a popular comparison. I personally wouldn't make that argument, but it's waaaay closer than most people think, especially based only on regular season performance. So yeah, *arguably* better in the sense that you could make a reasonable argument if you had to

Ok, I was going off memory. But, I looked, and you're right, their ERA+ during their peaks are closer than I thought.

[nicksaviking]

 

As much as I would like to see Santana get in eventually, I think him and Puckett are different stories.

 

Santana's shoulder slowly gave out on him until it got to the point he couldn't pitch anymore.  That is his body wearing out.  Similar to if he was great for 5 years and then just couldn't pitch well anymore because he was aging and/or wear and tear over the years wore him down.  Happens to lots of great players.  Their bodies can't holdup to the rigors of a long MLB career.

 

Puckett on the other hand was hit in the face by a fastball.  He went from All-Star player to practically blind in one eye basically over night.  His body was probably good to go for another 3-4 years, but fastballs to the face can change that. 

 

So Santana is a guy that could have become an all-time great if he stayed healthy long enough.  Puckett was on the verge of becoming one already and tragically had his career end abruptly at the tail-end when he basically just needed to be ok for few years to reach HOF miles stones (3000 hits, etc).

 

Basically what I am trying to say is I put body giving out in similar category as skills diminishing.  While getting smoked in the face is put in a different grouping all together.

 

I don't know that Santana's shoulder slowly gave out though. He missed 2011 but in 2012 he had an excellent 2.38 ERA and he was back to striking out over a batter an inning until the Mets let him throw 134 pitches to get that No Hitter on June 1st. That was 25% more pitches than he'd thrown any other time since his initial surgery. It was all downhill after that game.

 

Forty-five ER in his final 49 innings, an 8.27 ERA. Fourty-nine innings seems like a pretty abrupt end to me and it's hard to believe the 134 pitch outing wasn't the primary culprit considering he was back to elite form prior to that start; he looked like he had a lot left in the tank.

[jimmer]

 

This assumes an infallibility of FIP that I'm not willing to accept.

 

 

It doesn't assume an infallibility in FIP at all, it assumes FIP tells a BETTER story about how a pitcher pitched than ERA or RAA does. Not a PERFECT story, just a better story.  DRS and UZR aren't infallible either, but they are better than errors and fielding %.  WAR isn't perfect either, but I like it better than, say, looking at BA, HR, RBI, Stolen bases and errors/fielding % stats.

 

I'm not going to hold on to old stats until the mythical PERFECT stats replace them.  

 

Now, what I have noticed is that for a lot of starters with long careers, the FIP and ERA stats come very close to each other.  That's why I don't mind looking at, say, ERA (well, really ERA+) when comparing pitchers who have finished their career. That and because it keeps the FIP haters at bay :-)

 

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by jimmer

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Now, what I have noticed is that for a lot of starters with long careers, the FIP and ERA stats come very close to each other.  That's why I don't mind looking at, say, ERA (well, really ERA+) when comparing pitchers who have finished their career. That and because it keeps the FIP haters at bay :-)

Absolutely. I'm not really bashing FIP, as I think it's very useful.

 

But there are pitchers who seem to defy FIP predictions to varying degrees. Like Santana to a small extent. His FIP/ERA split is .22 runs. Now, that's not a lot and well within a margin of error IMO but the guy has 2400 career IP. If my math is correct, FIP and ERA disagree on ~60 runs over the course of his career. That ain't nothin'.

 

And then you have guys like Nolasco, whose FIP is about .6 runs lower than his ERA. The guy has just shy of 1900 career IP. He has played for multiple teams in multiple leagues so that discrepancy simply should not exist to that degree. Again, if my math is correct, FIP and ERA disagree over a whopping ~115 runs in his case.

 

And that's my point about FIP. I think it's a pretty good indicator of future performance (and often a good indicator of past performance) but there are guys out there that are doing something FIP cannot measure.

[jimmer]

 

Absolutely. I'm not really bashing FIP, as I think it's very useful.

 

But there are pitchers who seem to defy FIP predictions to varying degrees. Like Santana to a small extent. His FIP/ERA split is .22 runs. Now, that's not a lot and well within a margin of error IMO but the guy has 2400 career IP.

 

And then you have guys like Nolasco, whose FIP is about .6 runs lower than his ERA. The guy has just shy of 1900 career IP. He has played for multiple teams in multiple leagues so that discrepancy simply should not exist to that degree.

 

And that's my point about FIP. I think it's a pretty good indicator of future performance (and often a good indicator of past performance) but there are guys out there that are doing something FIP cannot measure.

But again, that belief assumes ERA is the true indicator of performance, right?  We get phrases like 'pitchers out-perform' or pitcher 'under-perform' their FIP.  ERA is too dependent on things out of the pitcher's control to be the indicator of performance.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

But again, that belief assumes ERA is the true indicator of performance, right?  We get phrases like 'pitchers out-perform' or pitcher 'under-perform' their FIP.  ERA is too dependent on things out of the pitcher's control to be the indicator of performance.

True, but it measures actual runs allowed and all pitchers play under the same rules regarding ERA. The run scores or it doesn't. You get the out or you don't. Factors can influence those things over the short term (defense, bullpen) but in the long run, it should balance out in time.

 

Now, in the olden days when a pitcher would play most or all of his career for the same team and (mostly) in front of the same defense, I can see more wiggle room to debate the validity of ERA.

 

But when a modern player plays for four teams in both leagues in front of an ever-changing defense every season, the measurement that tracks actual runs allowed has more validity in my eyes.*

 

*in no way am I defending the use of aberrant ERA numbers year-over-year, I'm speaking only in terms of player career

[jimmer]

 

True, but it measures actual runs allowed and all pitchers play under the same rules regarding ERA.

 

 

Do they play with the same defense behind them? :-)

 

I enjoy debating you, BTW, you are respectful at all times even when you disagree and are truly open to many trains of thought.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Do they play with the same defense behind them? :-)

 

I enjoy debating you, BTW, you are respectful at all times even when you disagree and are truly open to many trains of thought.

Thanks, you as well.

 

The defense thing was an edit. Over time, those things will balance in the modern game. Given how we're talking almost exclusively about pitchers with 1000+ IP, it's likely they not only changed teams but that the defenses behind them rotated several players as well.

 

It's not as if Nolasco's 2006 season with the Marlins had much in common with his Twins stint in front of bad OF defenses or his Angels time with Trout roaming center.

[Doomtints]

 

I am exactly opposite. I much prefer the FIP based WAR (which is fWAR) then bWAR cause I dont think we should take into account the defense behind the pitcher.

 

bWAR isn't *really* including defense, It takes the average defense for the team and checks to see if the pitcher had better or worse defense behind him than what is usual for that team. It's not granular defense in that pitchers are penalized/awarded for defense, it's an attempt to level the playing field for pitchers.

[Hawkeye12]

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=F2E5D8FC5199DFAF!8063&ithint=file,xlsx&app=Excel&authkey=!AAAsz3uDsmqy_Vw

 

Of the 12 public ballots already released, Johan and Johnny Damon are the only two guys still shutout.  Clemens and Vlad are 12/12.   Bonds is 10/12 but lost a vote from someone that voted for him last year, which is kind of odd.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Hawkeye12

[ashbury]

FIP is mis-named. It's not fielding-independent, otherwise the formula would contain an element that distinguishes, e.g., whether you have someone like Byron Buxton playing CF behind you.

 

It's a number constructed from plate appearances decided by not putting the ball in the reach of fielders - HR, SO, BB+HPB. That would lead to a less catchy name; I don't have a better name to propose - "What Might Have Happened If The Ball Had Never Been Put In Play".

 

Pointing to the convergence of FIP and ERA in the long-run is circular logic - FIP is constructed as a linear regression (of the above-named factors) to actual earned runs, and contains a seasonally-adjusted additive factor to line them up more or less exactly for a given season.

 

It seems to have some small predictive power for future ERA, versus just ERA itself. But as a method to determine pitchers' actual seasonal results with defense factored out, it's pretty far from the mark. I wouldn't use it for a HoF argument.

[Brock Beauchamp]

FIP is mis-named. It's not fielding-independent, otherwise the formula would contain an element that distinguishes, e.g., whether you have someone like Byron Buxton playing CF behind you.

 

It's a number constructed from plate appearances decided by not putting the ball in the reach of fielders - HR, SO, BB+HPB. That would lead to a less catchy name; I don't have a better name to propose - "What Might Have Happened If The Ball Had Never Been Put In Play".

 

Pointing to the convergence of FIP and ERA in the long-run is circular logic - FIP is constructed as a linear regression (of the above-named factors) to actual earned runs, and contains a seasonally-adjusted additive factor to line them up more or less exactly for a given season.

 

It seems to have some small predictive power for future ERA, versus just ERA itself. But as a method to determine pitchers' actual seasonal results with defense factored out, it's pretty far from the mark. I wouldn't use it for a HoF argument.

Great post.

[jkcarew]

Is there an argument for Santana in the Hall?  Yes.  But it's silly to compare him to Kirby Puckett (or Sandy Koufax).  Postseason and championships matter...and they should.  Especially when you are the undisputed star/leader of the championship team...more than once.  As the very first poster mentions, the much more realistic (non-pitcher) comparison would be Tony Oliva.

 

Would I put Santana in?  No.