Max Scherzer and the Hall of Fame

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I think it's pretty clearly Scherzer, at least on who SHOULD win it.

Ok.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Max is interesting... He has only had 5 good/great seasons... But what helps him is that he is pitching in an era with very little greatness... Only Kershaw has better numbers...

The difference between him and other pitchers who have found dominance in a short window is that he hasn't had much competition by his peers... and that might alone boost him up to HOF status... 5 years after he retires, who would make it over him??

 

[navamind]

Gio Gonzalez actually isn't too far from Scherzer/Kershaw in ERA+, though his peripherals aren't in the same stratosphere as those two. His FIP (3.87) and xFIP (4.21) aren't all that impressive and even his strikeout rate is one of the lowest of his career. Ray's had a great year, but he has only 144 innings.

Good luck with Jansen finishing 2nd though. Even in Kimbrel's ridiculous 2012 year, he only finished 5th. The field of starting pitchers wasn't that impressive either (IMO). Britton had a 0.54 ERA last year and only finished 4th. And again, the top SPs were great, but not historically good. Wade Davis finished 6th in 2015, Fernando Rodney finished 6th in 2012 (despite having a 0.60 ERA). It's been a while since a reliever finished 2nd (or even 3rd) in the CYA voting, and that was Mo in 2005. And CYA voters are thinking a lot differently now than they were back then. Especially with the seasons that Scherzer/Kershaw/Gonzalez/Greinke are having, I just don't see how he finishes 2nd (maybe even top 5).

 

[navamind]

Max is interesting... He has only had 5 good/great seasons... But what helps him is that he is pitching in an era with very little greatness... Only Kershaw has better numbers...

The difference between him and other pitchers who have found dominance in a short window is that he hasn't had much competition by his peers... and that might alone boost him up to HOF status... 5 years after he retires, who would make it over him??

I'd say he was good in 2010 and 2012. Keep in mind he had some awful defense behind him for years in Detroit as well, that probably hurt his ERA.

There's probably some truth to the lack of competition part, but Scherzer's having his best year yet. A 191 ERA+ and sub-0.90 WHIP are insane and this could be one of the best seasons by a pitcher over the last few decades. Or, basically, an average Kershaw season.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I'd say he was good in 2010 and 2012. Keep in mind he had some awful defense behind him for years in Detroit as well, that probably hurt his ERA.

results are all that matters though... and we are talking HOF, 2010 and 2012 don't really HELP his case... they were just decent seasons...

 

[navamind]

results are all that matters though... and we are talking HOF, 2010 and 2012 don't really HELP his case... they were just decent seasons...

they're still providing plenty of value. Also, he was 8th in the AL in WAR in 2012, I'd say he had a damn good year.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

they're still providing plenty of value. Also, he was 8th in the AL in WAR in 2012, I'd say he had a damn good year.

again, it is irrelevant though... In a discussion about whether he belongs into the HOF, are you bringing that season up?? if a player does not have the longevity, he needs the dominance, is that one of the dominant seasons?? no... it was a decent season, and if he gets longevity, then we can talk about that season... but without longevity, I can care less how many decent seasons a pitcher has...

 

[Calm]

his ERA over that span is well below the league average. he won a cy and finished in the top 5 , 4 times. he has 234 wins and 2,831 k's. his WAR for his career is 60.2

from ages 23-32 (scherzers career to date) CC's WAR was 44.6
scherzer as he stands today is 44.2

again, same time frame. ages 23-32.

My comments are regarding CC alone, separate from the Scherzer debate.

He was good, one of the better pitchers in the game, but I just don't know that I see the stretch of "dominance" that you do.

 

[Rock Strongo]

My comments are regarding CC alone, separate from the Scherzer debate.

He was good, one of the better pitchers in the game, but I just don't know that I see the stretch of "dominance" that you do.

LOL

ages 23-32 CC had a higher WAR

i guess we can agree to disagree. Can you name me a lefty who was better than CC over the course of his career in the AL?

i can probably think of 1-2 in all of MLB.

 

[Calm]

LOL

ages 23-32 CC had a higher WAR

i guess we can agree to disagree. Can you name me a lefty who was better than CC over the course of his career in the AL?

i can probably think of 1-2 in all of MLB.

Than who? I just said I'm not comparing him to Scherzer. I've not even commented on Scherzer once.

If you want to narrow the scope to "lefty in the AL over the course of his career", sure, he looks favorable. If we're talking HOF level dominance, I choose to look at him compared to all pitchers in MLB during that time.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Than who? I just said I'm not comparing him to Scherzer. I've not even commented on Scherzer once.

If you want to narrow the scope to "lefty in the AL over the course of his career", sure, he looks favorable. If we're talking HOF level dominance, I choose to look at him compared to all pitchers in MLB during that time.

can you name a lefty in the AL during his career that was better?

 

[soxfan1468927]

can you name a lefty in the AL during his career that was better?

That doesn't really matter though, it's not like being a lefty adds any value.

 

[Rock Strongo]

That doesn't really matter though, it's not like being a lefty adds any value.

huh?

 

[soxfan1468927]

huh?

What do I need to clarify?

 

[Rock Strongo]

What do I need to clarify?

being a lefty absolutely adds value.

its why guys like tony fossas could hang around forever.

 

[soxfan1468927]

being a lefty absolutely adds value.

its why guys like tony fossas could hang around forever.

It helps him pitch, but doesn't add value to his results. The results are the results. Just like being a switch-hitter can help you, but doesn't add value.

Going 7 innings with 2 earned runs and 10 strikeouts isn't more valuable if it comes from a lefty as opposed to a righty.

 

[Rock Strongo]

It helps him pitch, but doesn't add value to his results. The results are the results. Just like being a switch-hitter can help you, but doesn't add value.

Going 7 innings with 2 earned runs and 10 strikeouts isn't more valuable if it comes from a lefty as opposed to a righty.

it depends on how the lineup is...lefty vs righty.

 

[soxfan1468927]

it depends on how the lineup is...lefty vs righty.

It remains the same. It doesn't add value to the results.

 

[Rock Strongo]

It remains the same. It doesn't add value to the results.

sure it does. if a lefty is going against a lineup that would naturally, statistically, be a bad matchup based on the batting hand...and had that performance...i would call that significant.

 

[soxfan1468927]

sure it does. if a lefty is going against a lineup that would naturally, statistically, be a bad matchup based on the batting hand...and had that performance...i would call that significant.

How does it add value to the results? Why is 7 IP/2 ER more valuable coming from a lefty than a righty?