2019 Hall of Fame Ballot

[nynasty]

problem with ERA+ and all other sabermetric stats is that they are not production stats... they are formulaic stats... they are really irrelevant stats for career...

especially since they are calculated with certain weights being significantly more...

? ?

ERA+ is a fantastic stat for showing how a pitcher performed relative to his peers, in his era. I can't think of many better indicators of how good a pitcher was in his time.

 

[nynasty]

3500 innings and a 120+ ERA+ is a pretty exclusive club; it contains HOF’ers, Roger Clemens, and Mike Mussina. What I don’t get is why there was such a push for Jack Morris during his final years on the ballot when Mussina has him beat across the board...new stats, old stats you name it.

I wouldn't have voted for Morris, but he was considered one of the "money" pitchers of his time. Deserved or not, it was the case.

A 105 ERA+ doesn't exactly scream hall of famer, but then I notice old Catfish Hunter, enshrined for 30 plus years now, rocking a 104 ERA+.

Where's the cutoff?

 

[navamind]

ERA+ is a production stat lmao. it just adjusts for ballpark's and era. It's just putting ERA into context.

 

[Yanks23242]

problem with ERA+ and all other sabermetric stats is that they are not production stats... they are formulaic stats... they are really irrelevant stats for career...

especially since they are calculated with certain weights being significantly more...

What? It’s putting ERA, which has its own flaws, into the proper context. Mussina pitched in the 2nd highest offensive era in history, in the AL East, with a DH. Comparing him to guys who pitched in the 60s-80s based on raw ERA doesn’t make sense.

 

[Yanks23242]

I wouldn't have voted for Morris, but he was considered one of the "money" pitchers of his time. Deserved or not, it was the case.

A 105 ERA+ doesn't exactly scream hall of famer, but then I notice old Catfish Hunter, enshrined for 30 plus years now, rocking a 104 ERA+.

Where's the cutoff?

You hope voters learn from their mistakes...which they did with Morris, but then he makes it via the same committee that some how deemed his far superior teammate, Lou Whitaker, unworthy.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

What? It’s putting ERA, which has its own flaws, into the proper context. Mussina pitched in the 2nd highest offensive era in history, in the AL East, with a DH. Comparing him to guys who pitched in the 60s-80s based on raw ERA doesn’t make sense.

I agree that it does a decent job at comparing players of different eras... Still not great...

My biggest problem with it again is that it weighs somethings way higher than I would... especially when comparing players of the same era...

1. it weighs ball park factor way too much
2. it weighs strike outs way too much(as all sabermetric pitching stats do- since they care way too much about using EQUAL team defenses)
3. seems to be negatively effected by innings pitched
4. it acts as an all purpose encompassing stat, all encompassing stats will always be bad because everyone measures what they want differently...


IMO, the 6 most important pitching stats in order are

1. WHIP
2. ERA
3. QS%( I know people hate QS- and I know its flaws, but no other stat measures consistency and this stat measures it great- even if it wasn't intended to do so)
4. IP
5. SO
6. W/L Record

IMO, that is all you need to look at... each measures something differently and when put all together it does a much better evaluation than ERA+...

But I guess, if you just want to look at one stat, to get a feeling of who is better then ERA+ is the best we have at the moment... but it really is too flawed for me...


and I like to see how many times a player is BEST, top 5, and top 10 in each of those 6 stats...

 

[Yanks23242]

I agree that it does a decent job at comparing players of different eras... Still not great...

My biggest problem with it again is that it weighs somethings way higher than I would... especially when comparing players of the same era...

1. it weighs ball park factor way too much
2. it weighs strike outs way too much(as all sabermetric pitching stats do- since they care way too much about using EQUAL team defenses)
3. seems to be negatively effected by innings pitched
4. it acts as an all purpose encompassing stat, all encompassing stats will always be bad because everyone measures what they want differently...


IMO, the 6 most important pitching stats in order are

1. WHIP
2. ERA
3. QS%( I know people hate QS- and I know its flaws, but no other stat measures consistency and this stat measures it great- even if it wasn't intended to do so)
4. IP
5. SO
6. W/L Record

IMO, that is all you need to look at... each measures something differently and when put all together it does a much better evaluation than ERA+...

But I guess, if you just want to look at one stat, to get a feeling of who is better then ERA+ is the best we have at the moment... but it really is too flawed for me...

ERA+ is too flawed, but in your opinion the most important stat is WHIP, which treats a home run and a single exactly the same. That’s some strange logic.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

ERA+ is too flawed, but in your opinion the most important stat is WHIP, which treats a home run and a single exactly the same. That’s some strange logic.

how is that strange logic... thing about analysis is you use multiple data to find a conclusion... Each stat tells you something different...

and I am unsure if WHIP is more important than ERA... either way they are 1a and 1b

 

[calsnowskier]

I agree that it does a decent job at comparing players of different eras... Still not great...

My biggest problem with it again is that it weighs somethings way higher than I would... especially when comparing players of the same era...

1. it weighs ball park factor way too much
2. it weighs strike outs way too much(as all sabermetric pitching stats do- since they care way too much about using EQUAL team defenses)
3. seems to be negatively effected by innings pitched
4. it acts as an all purpose encompassing stat, all encompassing stats will always be bad because everyone measures what they want differently...


IMO, the 6 most important pitching stats in order are

1. WHIP
2. ERA
3. QS%( I know people hate QS- and I know its flaws, but no other stat measures consistency and this stat measures it great- even if it wasn't intended to do so)
4. IP
5. SO
6. W/L Record

IMO, that is all you need to look at... each measures something differently and when put all together it does a much better evaluation than ERA+...

But I guess, if you just want to look at one stat, to get a feeling of who is better then ERA+ is the best we have at the moment... but it really is too flawed for me...


and I like to see how many times a player is BEST, top 5, and top 10 in each of those 6 stats...

I like PQS over QS, but I agree that the QS is very underrated stat.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I like PQS over QS, but I agree that the QS is very underrated stat.

yea, we have had our discussions about this in the past... I personally wont go PQS because it is not as simple and clean as QS...

I just wish baseball(and especially baseball-references and fangraphs) would recognize the gem of a stat they have... both sites have almost took it out of their database all together

 

[Yanks23242]

how is that strange logic... thing about analysis is you use multiple data to find a conclusion... Each stat tells you something different...

and I am unsure if WHIP is more important than ERA... either way they are 1a and 1b

Because any stat that treats a homerun the same as a single can’t be used as the most important stat in determining a pitcher’s effectiveness.

 

[calsnowskier]

yea, we have had our discussions about this in the past... I personally wont go PQS because it is not as simple and clean as QS...

I just wish baseball(and especially baseball-references and fangraphs) would recognize the gem of a stat they have... both sites have almost took it out of their database all together

My problem with it is that it isn’t tracked by anyone. Anytime I want to review it, I have to generate it myself. And that is time consuming since you need to study each game individually.

 

[calsnowskier]

Because any stat that treats a homerun the same as a single can’t be used as the most important stat in determining a pitcher’s effectiveness.

There is no such thing as a single catch-all stat.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Because any stat that treats a homerun the same as a single can’t be used as the most important stat in determining a pitcher’s effectiveness.

if you want to be lazy and look at only one stat, I think the gray ink test might be the best...

 

[Yanks23242]

There is no such thing as a single catch-all stat.

No, but one that treats homers and singles the same can be dismissed. It’s the batting average of pitching stats.

 

[calsnowskier]

No, but one that treats homers and singles the same can be dismissed. It’s the batting average of pitching stats.

If you get any more complicated than WHIP, though, you start to introduce opinion into the calc. WHIP is a simple piece of the mosaic. You want it to be more than it is trying to be.

Again, there is no such thing as a single catch-all stat. WHIP included.

 

[Yanks23242]

If you get any more complicated than WHIP, though, you start to introduce opinion into the calc. WHIP is a simple piece of the mosaic. You want it to be more than it is trying to be.

Again, there is no such thing as a single catch-all stat. WHIP included.

I’m not the one who said it was the most important pitching statistic.

 

[calsnowskier]

I’m not the one who said it was the most important pitching statistic.

I happen to agree that it is the most important. But I like it understanding that it doesn’t tell a complete story.

Although, for a SP, PQS just might be the best stat, even though it too is not perfect and includes quite a bit of opinion in its calculation.

 

[Yanks23242]

I happen to agree that it is the most important. But I like it understanding that it doesn’t tell a complete story.

Although, for a SP, PQS just might be the best stat, even though it too is not perfect and includes quite a bit of opinion in its calculation.

What’s PQS?

 

[calsnowskier]

What’s PQS?

Obscure pitching stat. Pure Quality Start.

Basically it rates each start on a scale of 0-5 based on IP, HRs, Ks, BBs and hits. You supposed to look at the collection of scores and produce % rather than an average.

A 0 or 1 is a disaster start while a 4 or 5 is a dominant start.