Andy Pettitte

[chrismarullo]

Pettitte recently said he would consider retirement after this season if he struggles with injuries again. If his career ended right now, would you vote him in?

[RuthMayBond]

Let's see
5 Black Ink
95 Gray Ink
32 HOF Standards
172 wins
2098 IP
2x in WHIP top10

Talk about opening the floodgates

[Edgartohof]

Well, first I look at what he did against his competition. He is a far cry from the Big Four of out time (Clemens/Maddux/Johnson/Martinez), but I could see him somewere in the next set, with Brown/Schilling/etc...

He has always been injury prone, and never was really dominating, only posting a 150+ ERA+ twice, and only once has had a legitimate great year (last year with his 2.39 ERA - 174 ERA+ - 1.030 WHIP). Sure he has good wins/seasons, but that has as much to do that he has spent most of his career (all but the last 2) with the ever dominating Yankee's, and he hasn't even lasted long enough to reach 175, let alone 200. Also, because he played for the Yankee's, he had his fair share of World Series appearances, and while he did have some good moments (0.00 ERA in '98 World Series - 7 2/3 innnings), he had some not so good (5.91 in '96 and 12.27 in '99).

[chrismarullo]

He does own the modern record for post season wins at least. Or at least he did, I think Smoltz might have passed him up. Other than that, I'm going have to say no until he has another few good seasons.

[STLCards2]

Besides Pettitte's winning % and postseason success ( in which the Yankees offensive powerhouse teams have contributed greatlt) he has done nothing in only 2000 IP to warrant HOF induction. Keep in mind, Pettitte has yet to start his decline phase and his ERA+ is only 120. Pettitte will not reach the Hall of Fame unless he can fight through the injuries and win a lot more games.

[the pyromaniac]

He does own the modern record for post season wins at least. Or at least he did, I think Smoltz might have passed him up. Other than that, I'm going have to say no until he has another few good seasons.

Last I saw, Smoltz had passed him, I think. He's not an HOF'er in my book without pitching 5-10 more years and getting to 250 wins.

[KCGHOST]

Pettitte is a good pitcher but much of his success can be attributed to the teams he played on. No HoF.

[digglahhh]

He does own the modern record for post season wins at least. Or at least he did, I think Smoltz might have passed him up. Other than that, I'm going have to say no until he has another few good seasons.

I think he need more than a few good seasons.

Mark Buerhle seems to be somewhat similar to Pettitte in my opinion, with what looks to be better durability (higher season workloads). At this point, it would appear that Buerhle's carreer trajectory will put him closer to the Hall than Pettitte.

Andy is young enough that, if he can stay healthy, he has a shot at winning in the high 200s. That would be his best argument, other than say three or four more years like last one.

[julusnc]

If Jack Morris will never get a foot in the door at Cooperstown then Andy Pettitte has no shot at all.

[holyroman]

Pettitte recently said he would consider retirement after this season if he struggles with injuries again. If his career ended right now, would you vote him in?
i 'd like to see this quote if anyone can find it. I think he was misquoted personally. I think he was talking about roger and was mis-construed, unless i'm thinking about a different quote from him, thanks

[jpenrod]

He does own the modern record for post season wins at least. Or at least he did, I think Smoltz might have passed him up. Other than that, I'm going have to say no until he has another few good seasons.

Last I saw, Smoltz had passed him, I think. He's not an HOF'er in my book without pitching 5-10 more years and getting to 250 wins.

Let's get the facts straight, Pettitte tied John Smoltz for most post-season wins last year in game one of the NLDS, Smoltz then reclaimed sole possession of the "record" less than 24 hours later in Game 2 of the NLDS. At no other time did Pettite ever lead Smoltz.

All of that being said, I do not see Pettitte as a HOFer if he were to retire today.

[DoubleX]

Well, first I look at what he did against his competition. He is a far cry from the Big Four of out time (Clemens/Maddux/Johnson/Martinez), but I could see him somewere in the next set, with Brown/Schilling/etc...

He has always been injury prone, and never was really dominating, only posting a 150+ ERA+ twice, and only once has had a legitimate great year (last year with his 2.39 ERA - 174 ERA+ - 1.030 WHIP). Sure he has good wins/seasons, but that has as much to do that he has spent most of his career (all but the last 2) with the ever dominating Yankee's, and he hasn't even lasted long enough to reach 175, let alone 200. Also, because he played for the Yankee's, he had his fair share of World Series appearances, and while he did have some good moments (0.00 ERA in '98 World Series - 7 2/3 innnings), he had some not so good (5.91 in '96 and 12.27 in '99).

To be fair to Andy, you have to look at that '96 Series in two parts. He was the Game 1 starter and he got shelled and was taken out in the first inning. I think nerves got the best of him. Here he was, at 24, in his first full-season as a Yankee, and pitching Game 1 of the World Series at Yankee Stadium, pitching against the defending champions, against the eventual NL Cy Young Winner that year (Smoltz) and a team that had been to four of the last five World Series. Plus, given the Yankees WS drought at the time, being back in the World Series was a huge deal in New York, and I think that hype got the best of him.

However, in Game 5, Andy pitched a gem (as did John Smoltz for the Braves who gave up just 1 unearned run in 8 IP). With the Series tied 2-2 in Atlanta, Andy pitched 8.1 IP and gave up just 5 hits and no runs. Wetteland came in for the last two outs and the Yankees won 1-0. I remember watching that game and in the top of the 9th, Torre actually sent Andy out to bat. You would think with two of the best relievers in the game (Wetteland and Rivera), the game being so close, and Andy being so young and inexperienced in these type of situations, you pitch hit for him, but he came out to hit and start the 9th. Pretty amazing and not the kind of thing you see that often anymore in late and close games, especially on the World Series stage and with such a young pitcher.

Andy was the team's ace that year, especially since Cone was sidelined most of the year. Pretty impressive, considering it was only Andy's second season and his first full season in the rotation. He should have won the Cy Young that year.

Not that this makes him a Hall of Famer, just pointing out that the '96 World Series should certainly not be held against Andy.

[chrismarullo]

i 'd like to see this quote if anyone can find it. I think he was misquoted personally. I think he was talking about roger and was mis-construed, unless i'm thinking about a different quote from him, thanks


I work in the Houston media. He said he would consider retirement if he continued to have arm problems. I'll look for an audio clip.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I doubt Pettitte would be a HOFer if he retired today, especially in light of recent events.

Pettitte, however, is pitching well. He MAY bring his career record close to 300 wins, depending how long he's able to hang in there. Despite his age, and despite the negative publicity for PEDs, he's not dead in the water for the HOF.

If Pettitte were to win 260 games and keep his winning percentage near what it is now, he'd have an excellent shot at the HOF. We'll see what we'll see, I guess, but Pettitte, surprisingly, is on a HOF path, although the path is going to get rougher, and he may not be able to hang. But if he were to average, say 15-6, 15-7 over the next 4 years, he'd become a serious candidate for the HOF.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Hall of very good. He's was a good pitcher, at times a very good pitcher, but not a Hall of Famer.

[Edgartohof]

Andy was the team's ace that year, especially since Cone was sidelined most of the year. Pretty impressive, considering it was only Andy's second season and his first full season in the rotation. He should have won the Cy Young that year.

So he deserved to win more than the guy who pitched 50 more Innings, had a better ERA, better ERA+, a lower WHIP, more SO, and had 20 wins himself?

Pettite DID have 21 Wins that year and you can't take that away from him, but everyone knows that's not the best way to rank a pitcher. Considering Hentgen had a worse hitting team than Pettite's Yanks, I'd say his 20 wins is more impressive than Pettite's 21.

Pettite wasn't in the top 10 for: IP, SO, WHIP, CG (Hentgen had 10 that year by the way!).

[cardsfanatic]

Nah, he's not even close. I always liked Pettitte. I felt he was underrated for most of his career by non-Yankee fans and overrated by most Yankee fans. He was a very good starter... but it's not the Hall of Very Good (which most people want it to be... seems every halfway decent player should be in the HOF to most people.) It's the Hall of Fame and Pettitte, while good, wasn't good enough for entry.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Nah, he's not even close. I always liked Pettitte. I felt he was underrated for most of his career by non-Yankee fans and overrated by most Yankee fans. He was a very good starter... but it's not the Hall of Very Good (which most people want it to be... seems every halfway decent player should be in the HOF to most people.) It's the Hall of Fame and Pettitte, while good, wasn't good enough for entry.

While this is true now, it's not necessarily going to be the case.

When Gaylord Perry was Andy Pettitte's age, he had one fewer career win than Pettitte does now, and nowhere near the winning pct. Pettitte is a guy who MIGHT win 300. I'm not betting on it, but who was betting on Gaylord Perry the day he won his 200th game?

If Perry hadn't had a big season at age 40, would he be memorable? Or would he be just another Fergie Jenkins? Or, even worse, just another Bert Blyleven?

Pettitte is good enough to where he MIGHT do what Perry did in his late career. It's not likely he will, but it's NEVER likely. The HOF is for those who do the UNLIKELY, and Pettitte still has a chance to do the unlikely.

[dgarza]

When Gaylord Perry was Andy Pettitte's age, he had one fewer career win than Pettitte does now, and nowhere near the winning pct. Pettitte is a guy who MIGHT win 300. I'm not betting on it, but who was betting on Gaylord Perry the day he won his 200th game?
True. Pettitte would have to maintain as Perry did. Right now, Pettitte is short of the Hall, but not so short that he's totally out of the picture.

If Perry hadn't had a big season at age 40, would he be memorable? Or would he be just another Fergie Jenkins? Or, even worse, just another Bert Blyleven?
All these guys are pretty similar to me as it is. Perry is another Jenkins.

Pettitte is good enough to where he MIGHT do what Perry did in his late career. It's not likely he will, but it's NEVER likely. The HOF is for those who do the UNLIKELY, and Pettitte still has a chance to do the unlikely.
Yeah, I think Pettitte still has it in him. He's never had a losing year.

[brett]

Does Pettitte stand out from the rest of this group? (wins, %, IP and ERA+)

Pettite 201/.640/2527.7/118
Saberhagen: 167/.588/2562.7/126
Guidry: 170/.651/2392.0/119
Key: 186/.614/2591.7/122
Gooden: 194/.634/2800.7/111
Hershizer: 204/.576/3130.3/112
Steib: 176/.562/2895.3/122
Cone: 194/.606/2898.7/120
Viola: 176/.540/2836.3/112
Ferrell: 193/.601/2623.0/116

Answer: possibly. I don't think he is better than that group as a whole, but he is basically in the same general class, and he is one of two with 200 wins. I'm not talking about value here, just hall of fame voting issues.

He is pretty clearly behind Brown, Smoltz, Schilling, Mussina who are all past 3000 innings with better than 120 ERA+'s.

[lollar]

Andy Pettitte is the most over-rated pitcher of his generation - bar none.

Very nice starter. Doesn't frequently miss starts, gives you innings and a chance to win. That's all I look for in a good starter. But he's nowhere near HOF material. He's also VERY overrated in postseason play. He is 14-9 with a 3.96 ERA in 35 starts (equivalent of a full season). Not bad. Not great. Sounds like a typical Pettitte-type season actually. By no means does that make him an all-time great playoff performer.

To me he is the same pitcher as a Mark Buehrle, Charles Nagy, Derek Lowe, Darryl Kile or Shane Reynolds. Very nice pitcher. A nice number 2 or 3 starter. Nowhere near an ace. Nowhere near a HOF. IMO

[blslivewire]

I think it's a moot point now considering current "revelations."

[lollar]

Those "revelations" mean nothing to me. He took them while rehabbing from injury (which is when most guys took them IMO). And if he only took them for a short time one year they didn't affect his career before that, which has been virtually the same as it has been since.

A guy tried steroids once in a long career a handful of years ago and everyone thinks he's an awful person. Others make a career of doctoring baseballs, which is a significantly bigger advantage than any performance enhancer, and they put him in the Hall of Fame. Whatever

[Los Bravos]

Was Andy hooked up to that lie detector the Professor made out of coconuts when he said all of that?

Personally, when a guy flat lies about something (as he did when he issued a blanket denial a couple of years ago) any subsequent revision of that is suspect.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Andy Pettitte is the most over-rated pitcher of his generation - bar none.

Very nice starter. Doesn't frequently miss starts, gives you innings and a chance to win. That's all I look for in a good starter. But he's nowhere near HOF material. He's also VERY overrated in postseason play. He is 14-9 with a 3.96 ERA in 35 starts (equivalent of a full season). Not bad. Not great. Sounds like a typical Pettitte-type season actually. By no means does that make him an all-time great playoff performer.

To me he is the same pitcher as a Mark Buehrle, Charles Nagy, Derek Lowe, Darryl Kile or Shane Reynolds. Very nice pitcher. A nice number 2 or 3 starter. Nowhere near an ace. Nowhere near a HOF. IMO

Pettitte is MUCH better than the guys you mentioned because he has done what he does CONSISTENTLY, for a longer period, and has hit higher peaks.

[brett]

He is 14-9 with a 3.96 ERA in 35 starts (equivalent of a full season). Not bad. Not great.

14-9 and 3.96 is pretty darn good against playoff competition.

Anyway, I have never really been a huge Pettite fan, but I think he is probably underrated. I can't consider him a potential hall of famer with 2500 innings and a 118 ERA+ and 201 wins, but his combination of IP, ERA+ and wins is rare. He's probably not a better pitcher than Cone, Saberhagen, Guidry or Steib, and on any other team, his win totals would put him in their company as well, but the 200 wins gives him a leg up when it comes to HOF voters.

Mussina, Smoltz, Schilling and Kevin Brown all have to get in first, or Pettitte has to surpass them, and they are all solidly past 3000 IP and a 120 ERA+.

Schilling and Smoltz have no peer not in the hall of fame in BOTH innings and ERA+ (no single pitcher who tops him in BOTH). (Only Blylevin can say that among non-hofers with more than 1100 innings.


Schilling 3261/127 (216)
Brown 3256.3/126 (211)
Smoltz 3367/126 (207)
Mussina 3362.3/122 (250)

And Blylevin matches Pettitte's career ERA+ with way more IP

Blylevin 4870/118 (287)

Pettite 2537.7/118 (201)

Meanwhile there are a lot of guys with 2500-3100 innings and ERA+ scores of 111-122, many of whom were the best or near best pitcher in the game at some point.

I've never been big on Morris for the HOF, but because he played through a changing offensive environment, his career ERA+ gets improperly weighed by the run environment, and he had his lowest ERA+ scores in his highest run environment.

His properly weighted ERA+ is actually 108 and was as high up around 115 after around 2300 innings. Still, he never entered the same territory as the other guys listed here and topped it all off with 4 poor seasons.

For the voters, Pettitte needs to rack up the wins. 230+ and he starts getting a lot of support. It is odd to see all of those seasonal ERA scores of 4.00+ though.

For me, he basically can't get himself into exclusive ERA+ and IP territory unless he has a couple of his BEST seasons yet to come. I would want to see 3000 IP with a 120 ERA+ or 3500 IP with 110-115 for consideration.

[fenrir]

pettitte's chances for the hall of fame were gone the second he admitted to using HGH.

[blslivewire]

Those "revelations" mean nothing to me. He took them while rehabbing from injury (which is when most guys took them IMO). And if he only took them for a short time one year they didn't affect his career before that, which has been virtually the same as it has been since.

A guy tried steroids once in a long career a handful of years ago and everyone thinks he's an awful person. Others make a career of doctoring baseballs, which is a significantly bigger advantage than any performance enhancer, and they put him in the Hall of Fame. Whatever


OK...but he was just on the bubble at best for the HOF. So being linked to PEDs twice really doesn't help things.

[Colorado Express]

He's been nothing more than a good pitcher on a great team. Not worthy of the HOF in my opinion.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He's been nothing more than a good pitcher on a great team. Not worthy of the HOF in my opinion.

Perhaps, but there are a number of pitchers who are in the HOF on that basis, and that basis alone.

[Colorado Express]

Perhaps, but there are a number of pitchers who are in the HOF on that basis, and that basis alone.

I won't disagree with that, but it doesn't mean that Pettitte should be in. Why continue with a bad precedence.

[Bravesfan1984]

Pettite has a long way to go to become a Hall of Famer. He could do it but at his age I doubt it. Even if he gets to 250 wins he would be at best borderline. With 250 wins he would be in the same area as Jim Katt, Mike Mussina, Tommy John and I do not think he is better then any of them.

[White Knight]

Pettite has a long way to go to become a Hall of Famer. He could do it but at his age I doubt it. Even if he gets to 250 wins he would be at best borderline. With 250 wins he would be in the same area as Jim Katt, Mike Mussina, Tommy John and I do not think he is better then any of them.

I'd say he needs 280+ wins. Withoout the HGH, he would sneak by with 250.

[Aqua]

The biggest problem I have with Pettitte is that his peak wasn't high enough.

His peak ERA+ years, for instance are 177 and 155, which are nice, but they were eight years apart, and are the only times he even got over 140. He's had five seasons of under 110 (and is on pace for another one this year), and for a guy with only 14 full seasons, that's not a good sign at all.

He's been fairly durable, which I like, and he's got a nice postseason resume. But the best spin I can put on his career is that he's Don Sutton with less longevity, which isn't at all an endorsement.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The biggest problem I have with Pettitte is that his peak wasn't high enough.

His peak ERA+ years, for instance are 177 and 155, which are nice, but they were eight years apart, and are the only times he even got over 140. He's had five seasons of under 110 (and is on pace for another one this year), and for a guy with only 14 full seasons, that's not a good sign at all.

He's been fairly durable, which I like, and he's got a nice postseason resume. But the best spin I can put on his career is that he's Don Sutton with less longevity, which isn't at all an endorsement.

Going into age 37, Sutton's W-L was 241-184; Pettitte's was 215-127. I grant you that Pettitte PROBABLY played on SOMEWHAT better teams, but Sutton hardly played on cellar dwellers. In addition, Sutton played in a number of superb pitcher-friendly parks. Dodger Stadium. The Astrodome. Anaheim Stadium. Even County Stadium in Milwaukee was a marginal pitcher's park. Pettite had his best year at Minute Maid Park (eeeeech!), a hitter's park.

What Pettitte HAS done is (A) demonstrate a knack at getting the win (which, I believe, is a real skill that is minimized, somewhat, by folks around here) and (B) demonstrated ability retention. He's won 20 games twice, in an environment where starter wins are harder to come by. He missed out on the 1996 AL Cy Young Award, which he was initially favored to win. (The winner, Pat Hentgen, probably deserved the award, but it was a year where there was no obvious candidate.)

Sutton is hardly the only precedent for a pitcher getting into the HOF on longevity and ability retention. Eppa Rixey, Red Faber, Red Ruffing, Ted Lyons, all fit this description. We won't even talk about Waite Hoyt and Herb Pennock, except to say that Pettitte is better than both of those guys, all things considered.

Pettitte is not exactly my cup of tea, but he shouldn't be dismissed as lightly as some dismiss him.

[NJYankeeFan]

Pettitte recently said he would consider retirement after this season if he struggles with injuries again. If his career ended right now, would you vote him in?

Not yet, but he could get there if he sticks around a few more and pitches better than he did last year.

[ol' aches and pains]

I'd say he needs 280+ wins. Withoout the HGH, he would sneak by with 250.

Bert Blyleven has 287 wins, 242 complete games, 60 shutouts, and an ERA .60 points better than Pettitte and he can't get in. :noidea

[Aqua]

Going into age 37, Sutton's W-L was 241-184; Pettitte's was 215-127. I grant you that Pettitte PROBABLY played on SOMEWHAT better teams, but Sutton hardly played on cellar dwellers. In addition, Sutton played in a number of superb pitcher-friendly parks. Dodger Stadium. The Astrodome. Anaheim Stadium. Even County Stadium in Milwaukee was a marginal pitcher's park. Pettite had his best year at Minute Maid Park (eeeeech!), a hitter's park.

What Pettitte HAS done is (A) demonstrate a knack at getting the win (which, I believe, is a real skill that is minimized, somewhat, by folks around here) and (B) demonstrated ability retention. He's won 20 games twice, in an environment where starter wins are harder to come by. He missed out on the 1996 AL Cy Young Award, which he was initially favored to win. (The winner, Pat Hentgen, probably deserved the award, but it was a year where there was no obvious candidate.)

Sutton is hardly the only precedent for a pitcher getting into the HOF on longevity and ability retention. Eppa Rixey, Red Faber, Red Ruffing, Ted Lyons, all fit this description. We won't even talk about Waite Hoyt and Herb Pennock, except to say that Pettitte is better than both of those guys, all things considered.

Pettitte is not exactly my cup of tea, but he shouldn't be dismissed as lightly as some dismiss him.

These are good points.

I guess the thing for me is that these pitchers are the bottom of the hall of fame for me, and so you don't have to be much worse than them to miss out.

Rixey never had a season as good as Pettitte's 2005. I do think, however, that Rixey's 1921-1925 is a better five-year stretch, all things considered, than Pettitte's best five consecutive years (which are hurt in my estimation by the fact that he missed a lot of time in both 2002 and 2004). He's also still got 1800 innings on Pettitte, without taking into consideration that Rixey missed all of 1918 due to WWI.

Faber strikes me as a bit underrated; if they'd had the award then, he's at the very least a serious contender for the AL Cy in both 1921 and 1922. He was never quite that good again, but I'd take his 1916 and 1917 over Pettitte's third- and fourth-best seasons (1996 and 2001, maybe?). And again, he's got 1200+ more innings.

Ruffing is a strange case because through age 26, he was worse than league average. After that, he was quite good, and 1935-1940 is a strong peak; even though again, there's nothing there as good as Pettitte's 2005, I'd still take it over any six-year period of Pettitte's career. Ruffing was also a tremendous hitter for a pitcher (career OPS+ of 81), and he deserves at least some war credit for missing 1943 and 1944, although it was at the tail end of his career. He's over 4300 innings too.

Lyons suffers from some of the same problems as Pettitte, in that his good seasons are kind of spread out. But he does have his 1925-1927 stretch, where he put up very good numbers; whether it's better than Pettitte's 1995-1997 sort of depends on how you feel about league quality, but it's comparable at very least. After 1935, the ChiSox seemed to be using Lyons carefully -- he never hit 200 innings again -- but he also never threw fewer than 169, and he had ERA+ numbers of 153, 171, and 173 at various points during that stretch. I also think you've got to give him a bit of war credit too, because even though he was 41 in 1942, he was still coming off a year in which he led the league in both ERA and ERA+ and won 14 games. He's also got the batting advantage -- he wasn't in Ruffing's class, but he still had a career OPS+ of 45, and even batted .311 in 1930 (although that tells you as much about 1930 as it does about Lyons). He's also over 4100 IP for his career.

Sutton represents something very close to the HoF line for me -- I'd put him in, but I don't know that I'd put anyone in who was worse than him. And again, his 1971-1973 compares very favorably to Pettitte's best three consecutive years, and he led his league in WHIP four times. You've got a good point about him playing in extreme pitcher's parks -- that definitely inflates his numbers. But even ERA+, which theoretically adjusts for park effects (although you can certainly question how well it does it) give Sutton two years of 160 or better and a third year of 144, which isn't a bad comparison for Pettitte's best three complete years (177, 155, 129). And there's the ungodly number of innings he pitched -- 5282, almost twice what Pettitte has currently, and even in an easier era to rack up innings, that's a massive gap.

Hoyt and Pennock are HoF mistakes, and I can't defend them -- but even Hoyt has an ERA+ that's five points lower than Pettitte's (116 to 111) in 1000 more IP.

I agree with you that Pettitte is perhaps too easily dismissed. He's got two 20-win seasons, three top-5 Cy finishes, a .631 winning percentage, and his unholy 2005 season on his side, plus a good postseason resume. The BWAA likes those things, and they could well put him in. He's also not done with his career, although he's 37 years old and hasn't looked much better than a no. 3 or 4 starter this year to me. But I don't think he compares favorably even with those HoFers with reputations as compilers, and I highly doubt that he'll finish strongly enough to change that.

[STLCards2]

One thing to differentiate Pettitte from Faber, Rixey, and Lyons - not only did Ted, Eppa, and Red do it for much, much longer, but they had far worse teams behind them game after game after game.

Ruffing also created 100 runs above an average pitcher...don't think Pettitte is known for his bat.

[White Knight]

Bert Blyleven has 287 wins, 242 complete games, 60 shutouts, and an ERA .60 points better than Pettitte and he can't get in. :noidea

Andy Pettitte doesn't have a .534 lifetime percentage. Moose will get in before Bert too.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Andy Pettitte doesn't have a .534 lifetime percentage. Moose will get in before Bert too.

Blyleven's winning percentage is what's keeping him out of the HOF. It's strange, given the BBWAA's tendency to favor power pitchers, that Blyleven's lifetime strikeout totals haven't balanced that off at all.

Blyleven was a better pitcher, IMO, than Pettitte; he did what he did for a series of mediocre teams; there weren't too many winners on Bert's resume'.

[ol' aches and pains]

Andy Pettitte doesn't have a .534 lifetime percentage. Moose will get in before Bert too.

Blyleven played for a lot of bad teams in his long career. What stands out to me when I look at Blyleven's stats is the 60 complete game shutouts. Pettitte has 4. If Pettitte gets in the Hall, it'll be because he played in New York, not because he's a better pitcher than Bert Blyleven.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Blyleven played for a lot of bad teams in his long career. What stands out to me when I look at Blyleven's stats is the 60 complete game shutouts. Pettitte has 4. If Pettitte gets in the Hall, it'll be because he played in New York, not because he's a better pitcher than Bert Blyleven.

To be fair, Blyleven pitched in an era which was much, much more favorable to the pitcher. As such, the likelihood of a complete game, let alone a shutout, is magnified.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Andy Pettitte doesn't have a .534 lifetime percentage. Moose will get in before Bert too.

Blyleven will get in before Moose appears on the ballot.

If Andy Pettite had Blyleven's teams behind him, he'd have a .435 winning percentage.

[ol' aches and pains]

Blyleven will get in before Moose appears on the ballot.

If Andy Pettite had Blyleven's teams behind him, he'd have a .435 winning percentage.

And if Blyleven had spent his career in NY, he would have been inducted years ago.

[ol' aches and pains]

To be fair, Blyleven pitched in an era which was much, much more favorable to the pitcher. As such, the likelihood of a complete game, let alone a shutout, is magnified.

OK, let's compare Blyleven's 60 complete game shutouts to some HOF pitchers from his own era:

Steve Carlton - 55
Jim Palmer - 53
Gaylord Perry - 53
Juan Marichal - 52
Bob Gibson - 56
Fergie Jenkins - 49

Pretty good company, eh? Anybody who thinks Andy Pettitte is more deserving of enshrinement than Blyleven is kidding themselves.

[Fuzzy Bear]

And if Blyleven had spent his career in NY, he would have been inducted years ago.

I support Blyleven's induction, and I view his exclusion as egregious. But this statement just doesn't hold water.

Other than Reggie Jackson, how many HOFers have their been from the 1970s-1980s Yankee teams? Gossage? He's the only other one. All the "borderline" cases from the 1970s-1980s Yankee teams have not been inducted. I'm talking about Munson, Randolph, Lyle, Guidry, Mattingly, and Nettles. These are the type of guys that people would expect to see in the HOF just because of their Yankee connection, but none of them are there! Jackson was a HOFer, and would have been one if he had never put on the pinstripes. Gossage was a HOFer because of the longevity of his career; had he petered out after he left NY, he wouldn't be in the Hall. (Note that Bruce Sutter, who was NEVER a Yankee, made it into the HOF before Goose.)

If you're talking about the 1970s-1980s Mets, which of these guys made the HOF? Tom Seaver? Playing in NY had nothing to do with Seaver making the HOF; he was far, far beyond that. Willie Mays? He's another "Met" HOFer. (I don't think I need to explain here.) Who else, though; who made it to the HOF simply because they were a New York Met? Not Rusty Staub. Not Doc Gooden. Not Jerry Koosman. No one that I can think of. The only POSSIBLE exception to this rule is Gary Carter, whose years as a Met did relieve the anonymity in which Carter toiled in from 1978-86 as the best catcher in all of MLB. Even that's a poor example. Carter's initial rejection was ridiculous; he was at the "highest common denominator" level, where there was no precedent for NOT inducting Carter, or a catcher like him.

There are guys that make the All-Star team because they are NY players, but this does not carry over to the HOF. The exceptions to this were some NY Giants, and that was during the Frankie Frisch years of the VC (where St. Louis Cards got similarly lucky). This was the exception; it was not the rule. If being a "New York" player exponentially boosted one's HOF chances, then Gil Hodges and Babe Herman, wherever they are now, must wonder why that "rule" wasn't observed when it was their HOF time.

[Captain Cold Nose]

And if Blyleven had spent his career in NY, he would have been inducted years ago.

That's probably true, as long as he maintained his career length.

For the record, the comment about Pettite's record if he had pitched with the teams Blyleven played on should not be taken entirely seriously. But I do believe he has benefitted greatly from the teams behind him. He is a good pitcher with excellent luck in choice of teammates.

I would take Koosman over him, all things being equal.

[Cougar]

I support Blyleven's induction, and I view his exclusion as egregious. But this statement just doesn't hold water.

Other than Reggie Jackson, how many HOFers have their been from the 1970s-1980s Yankee teams? Gossage? He's the only other one. All the "borderline" cases from the 1970s-1980s Yankee teams have not been inducted. I'm talking about Munson, Randolph, Lyle, Guidry, Mattingly, and Nettles. These are the type of guys that people would expect to see in the HOF just because of their Yankee connection, but none of them are there! Jackson was a HOFer, and would have been one if he had never put on the pinstripes. Gossage was a HOFer because of the longevity of his career; had he petered out after he left NY, he wouldn't be in the Hall. (Note that Bruce Sutter, who was NEVER a Yankee, made it into the HOF before Goose.)

If you're talking about the 1970s-1980s Mets, which of these guys made the HOF? Tom Seaver? Playing in NY had nothing to do with Seaver making the HOF; he was far, far beyond that. Willie Mays? He's another "Met" HOFer. (I don't think I need to explain here.) Who else, though; who made it to the HOF simply because they were a New York Met? Not Rusty Staub. Not Doc Gooden. Not Jerry Koosman. No one that I can think of. The only POSSIBLE exception to this rule is Gary Carter, whose years as a Met did relieve the anonymity in which Carter toiled in from 1978-86 as the best catcher in all of MLB. Even that's a poor example. Carter's initial rejection was ridiculous; he was at the "highest common denominator" level, where there was no precedent for NOT inducting Carter, or a catcher like him.

There are guys that make the All-Star team because they are NY players, but this does not carry over to the HOF. The exceptions to this were some NY Giants, and that was during the Frankie Frisch years of the VC (where St. Louis Cards got similarly lucky). This was the exception; it was not the rule. If being a "New York" player exponentially boosted one's HOF chances, then Gil Hodges and Babe Herman, wherever they are now, must wonder why that "rule" wasn't observed when it was their HOF time.

Thanks Fuzzy...this rant was well overdue to come from someone; you did it well.

[AstrosFan]

I'm not entirely sure Ol' Aches and Pains's post was entirely about exposure. I think it also referred to the quality of those teams as opposed to those Blyleven pitched for.

Given average run support (park adjusted), and adjusting for defense as provided by the Total Zone runs from Baseball Reference, here's how I see Blyleven's W-L playing out (split seasons are combined):

First Last Year W L cW cL
Bert Blyleven 1970 10 9 10 9
Bert Blyleven 1971 20 11 30 20
Bert Blyleven 1972 19 15 49 35
Bert Blyleven 1973 25 12 74 47
Bert Blyleven 1974 22 12 96 59
Bert Blyleven 1975 15 10 111 69
Bert Blyleven 1976 18 11 129 80
Bert Blyleven 1977 16 10 145 90
Bert Blyleven 1978 15 9 160 99
Bert Blyleven 1979 9 8 169 107
Bert Blyleven 1980 10 11 179 118
Bert Blyleven 1981 13 5 192 123
Bert Blyleven 1982 1 3 193 126
Bert Blyleven 1983 9 8 202 134
Bert Blyleven 1984 17 9 219 143
Bert Blyleven 1985 20 13 239 156
Bert Blyleven 1986 17 14 256 170
Bert Blyleven 1987 15 12 271 182
Bert Blyleven 1988 11 16 282 198
Bert Blyleven 1989 14 8 296 206
Bert Blyleven 1990 6 9 302 215
Bert Blyleven 1992 8 12 310 227

The "c" means cumulative.

This is the resume of a pitcher that gets in first ballot.

[ol' aches and pains]

I support Blyleven's induction, and I view his exclusion as egregious. But this statement just doesn't hold water.

Other than Reggie Jackson, how many HOFers have their been from the 1970s-1980s Yankee teams? Gossage? He's the only other one. All the "borderline" cases from the 1970s-1980s Yankee teams have not been inducted. I'm talking about Munson, Randolph, Lyle, Guidry, Mattingly, and Nettles. These are the type of guys that people would expect to see in the HOF just because of their Yankee connection, but none of them are there! Jackson was a HOFer, and would have been one if he had never put on the pinstripes. Gossage was a HOFer because of the longevity of his career; had he petered out after he left NY, he wouldn't be in the Hall. (Note that Bruce Sutter, who was NEVER a Yankee, made it into the HOF before Goose.)

If you're talking about the 1970s-1980s Mets, which of these guys made the HOF? Tom Seaver? Playing in NY had nothing to do with Seaver making the HOF; he was far, far beyond that. Willie Mays? He's another "Met" HOFer. (I don't think I need to explain here.) Who else, though; who made it to the HOF simply because they were a New York Met? Not Rusty Staub. Not Doc Gooden. Not Jerry Koosman. No one that I can think of. The only POSSIBLE exception to this rule is Gary Carter, whose years as a Met did relieve the anonymity in which Carter toiled in from 1978-86 as the best catcher in all of MLB. Even that's a poor example. Carter's initial rejection was ridiculous; he was at the "highest common denominator" level, where there was no precedent for NOT inducting Carter, or a catcher like him.

There are guys that make the All-Star team because they are NY players, but this does not carry over to the HOF. The exceptions to this were some NY Giants, and that was during the Frankie Frisch years of the VC (where St. Louis Cards got similarly lucky). This was the exception; it was not the rule. If being a "New York" player exponentially boosted one's HOF chances, then Gil Hodges and Babe Herman, wherever they are now, must wonder why that "rule" wasn't observed when it was their HOF time.

You're missing my point-I'm not talking about Thurman Munson, Don Mattingly, Ron Guidry, or any other Yankee or Met you care to name. I'm talking about Bert Blyleven. If he had pitched for the Yankees or Mets of his era, his Win/loss% would be a lot better due to the better run support he would have received. That, in addition to the media exposure of playing in NY, would have put him in the Hall, in my opinion. He shouldn't be penalized for playing on bad teams, not his fault.

When I was looking up shutouts for Blyleven's contemporaries, I was concentrating on HOF'rs, so I didn't look at Guidry. I did just now, and I don't know why he's not in the Hall, either.

[RuthMayBond]

When I was looking up shutouts for Blyleven's contemporaries, I was concentrating on HOF'rs, so I didn't look at Guidry. I did just now, and I don't know why he's not in the Hall, either.Because there are about forty other Hall-eligible pitchers who had better careers and aren't in yet?

[philliesfiend55]

As one poster pointed out in dissecting Pettitte's career "His peak wasn't high enough". To which I'd add, his winning percentage wasn't high enough in light of the fact that he had the best team in baseball backing him up for most of his career.
He's certainly meritorious of a spot in Monument Park, the Yankees' team Hall Of Fame. If he plays one more year, until 2010, he'll win 200 games as a Yankee (plus 37 as a Houston Astro). Unless he retires after this year he'll finish with about 240 wins overall and just over 200 as a Yankee. If his winning percentage was higher and he was truly a #1 starter for a longer portion of his career, he might get my vote for Cooperstown. As it is, I think a spot in Monument Park is his proper level (Much like Bernie Williams).

-philliesfiend55-

[Cougar]

You're missing my point-I'm not talking about Thurman Munson, Don Mattingly, Ron Guidry, or any other Yankee or Met you care to name. I'm talking about Bert Blyleven. If he had pitched for the Yankees or Mets of his era, his Win/loss% would be a lot better due to the better run support he would have received. That, in addition to the media exposure of playing in NY, would have put him in the Hall, in my opinion. He shouldn't be penalized for playing on bad teams, not his fault.

When I was looking up shutouts for Blyleven's contemporaries, I was concentrating on HOF'rs, so I didn't look at Guidry. I did just now, and I don't know why he's not in the Hall, either.

An enthusiastic second of your comment on Guidry. He deserves much more love than he gets.

On your broader point: Blyleven played from 1970-1992. In this period, the Yankees were only a superior team from 1976-1981; they were usually a 80-90 win team for the rest of the period (with 1985 as a high point), until the end where they got pretty awful for a short time. Blyleven would have done well for them.

On the other hand, the Mets ran the gamut from mediocre to awful throughout the 1970's and into the 1980's, the height of Blyleven's powers. They only got good in 1984 with the arrival of Davey Johnson, Keith Hernandez, Gary Carter, Darryl Strawberry, and Doc Gooden; then they were an excellent team until 1990, after which they fell apart completely. I don't think Blyleven would have necessarily thrived on this team. It does remind one just how good Tom Seaver was.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You're missing my point-I'm not talking about Thurman Munson, Don Mattingly, Ron Guidry, or any other Yankee or Met you care to name. I'm talking about Bert Blyleven. If he had pitched for the Yankees or Mets of his era, his Win/loss% would be a lot better due to the better run support he would have received. That, in addition to the media exposure of playing in NY, would have put him in the Hall, in my opinion. He shouldn't be penalized for playing on bad teams, not his fault.

When I was looking up shutouts for Blyleven's contemporaries, I was concentrating on HOF'rs, so I didn't look at Guidry. I did just now, and I don't know why he's not in the Hall, either.

The Yankees and Mets of Blyleven's era were not uniformally successful. The 1976-81 Yankee teams were successful, but many of the Yankee teams of that era were only a bit above .500, and some had losing records. The Mets of 1977-83 were amongst the worst teams in baseball during those years, and the best Met teams, prior to 1985, were just a little bit over .500, including their pennant-winning 1973 team.

[Boston Boxer]

he has had a very good career, butnot hall worthy imo...plus nobody that does steroids gets my vote. I just cant do it.

[Captain Cold Nose]

The Yankees and Mets of Blyleven's era were not uniformally successful. The 1976-81 Yankee teams were successful, but many of the Yankee teams of that era were only a bit above .500, and some had losing records. The Mets of 1977-83 were amongst the worst teams in baseball during those years, and the best Met teams, prior to 1985, were just a little bit over .500, including their pennant-winning 1973 team.

A Met rotation with Seaver, Blyleven and Koosman might have really been something, though. And if Ryan had been given a bigger chance . . .

[lyrical]

He definitely doesn't have a case now or even after 2010 if he plays that long, but if Pettitte can win 270+ by playing a few more years at a high level, accrue a record 100+ games over .500 while keeping his ERA under 4, he's got a shot, although the HGH thing obviously hurts. He is a media darling in NY, has a rep for being a gamer/stopper/winner, great intangibles, etc. He's played on good teams but you've got to be doing something right to have good teams wanting to sign you year after year. Blyleven and Mussina would have to be in already though for him to have a shot. :P

[White Knight]

...plus nobody that does steroids gets my vote. I just cant do it.

So then you might support Pettitte for the HOF?

[murcercf1]

You're missing my point-I'm not talking about Thurman Munson, Don Mattingly, Ron Guidry, or any other Yankee or Met you care to name. I'm talking about Bert Blyleven. If he had pitched for the Yankees or Mets of his era, his Win/loss% would be a lot better due to the better run support he would have received. That, in addition to the media exposure of playing in NY, would have put him in the Hall, in my opinion. He shouldn't be penalized for playing on bad teams, not his fault.

When I was looking up shutouts for Blyleven's contemporaries, I was concentrating on HOF'rs, so I didn't look at Guidry. I did just now, and I don't know why he's not in the Hall, either.

You forgot Winfield and Henderson........both 1980's Yankees. In fact Winfield
played more years for the Yankees than any of the teams he played for and
should have gone into the HOF as a Yankee

[White Knight]

This thread totally needs to be reopened, as the poll numbers are way too lopsided.

[Captain Cold Nose]

This thread totally needs to be reopened, as the poll numbers are way too lopsided.

This forum is cursed due to the dearth of blind homers.

Has any pitcher in history benefited greater from the team he pitched for than Petitte?

[bob]

This forum is cursed due to the dearth of blind homers.

Has any pitcher in history benefited greater from the team he pitched for than Petitte?
Probably not. 15 Seasons, all 15 of which were on >.500 teams. If he does get in it'll be because he was on a yankee dynasty and has the most postseason wins ever and is very much a compiler with no significant peak. Only 2 seasons with a sub 3.00 ERA, few strikeouts for the era he's playing in, a very average WHIP.
He's the kind of guy you can count on to get you 14-18 wins a year and 8-12 losses with an era of 3.50 to 4.50.
Thats not hall of hame worthy for me. Hall of pretty good.

[Freakshow]

He's entered the HOF Gray Area, similar to some of the lesser members like Bender and Haines.

Most Wins, ERA+ 108-119, IP 2800-3650, 1890-2009
Cnt Player W ERA+ IP From To Ages G
+----+-----------------+---+----+------+----+----+-----+----+
1 Andy Pettitte 229 116 2926.1 1995 2009 23-37 468
2 Luis Tiant 229 114 3486.1 1964 1982 23-41 573
3 Mel Harder 223 113 3426.1 1928 1947 18-37 582
4 Freddie Fitzsimmo 217 111 3223.2 1925 1943 23-41 513
5 Wilbur Cooper 216 116 3480 1912 1926 20-34 517
6 Rick Reuschel 214 114 3548.1 1972 1991 23-42 557
7 Chief Bender 212 112 3017 1903 1925 19-41 459
8 Billy Pierce 211 119 3306.2 1945 1964 18-37 585
9 Jesse Haines 210 108 3208.2 1918 1937 24-43 555
10 Vida Blue 209 108 3343.1 1969 1986 19-36 502
11 Milt Pappas 209 110 3186 1957 1973 18-34 520

[Milt on Tilt]

I wouldn't vote for him, but he wouldn't be the worst selection. Just upsetting since the deciding factor will be 'MOST POSTSEASON WINS!!!!'

Might I add, I especially wouldn't vote for him since I've decided anyone one on the fence that was proven to use PED's falls on the wrong side. For example, Bonds, Arod, Clemens Yes. Petitte, Brown, No.

[Philly-brownsfan]

Are Hall Of Fame voters just going to gloss over his involvement with Roger Clemens and their alleged use of banned performance enhancing substances?

[RuthMayBond]

Are Hall Of Fame voters just going to gloss over his involvement with Roger Clemens and their alleged use of banned performance enhancing substances?They will investigate him thoroughly . . .
. . . AFTER they vote him in :banghead:

[RuthMayBond]

This thread totally needs to be reopened, as the poll numbers are way too lopsided.Until BBF gets a whining smilie
:rant::blah::cry::rolleyes:

[EricAnno]

he has had a very good career, butnot hall worthy imo...plus nobody that does steroids gets my vote. I just cant do it.

Pettitte didn't use steroids. There is a rather large difference between steroids and human growth hormone.

The New England Journal of Medicine wrote, in 1990, that they gave a bunch of elderly men human growth hormone and studied the results. They said that the majority of the elderly men showed signs of age reversal, as they started having thicker skin and leaner bodies.

A lot of people went crazy over this report, saying that taking HGH "de-ages" you and is somehow a perforamance-enhancing drug.

What the story doesn't tell you is that human growth hormone has little-to-no affect on an athlete's skills. It's been proven.

[Milt on Tilt]

What the story doesn't tell you is that human growth hormone has little-to-no affect on an athlete's skills. It's been proven.

I don't buy it unless you cite some medical study. Obviously its not a steroid, but its like Kleenex, Steroid is the catch all word for all PEDs now.

[DoubleX]

he has had a very good career, butnot hall worthy imo...plus nobody that does steroids gets my vote. I just cant do it.

An understandable position, but the problem with it is that you can't know where to draw the line. Given how rampant steroids use has been in baseball, well beyond what we actually know, this view will almost certainly lead to voting for players that did in fact use something, it's just that they weren't outed before the vote. I wouldn't be surprised if there are already players in the Hall who tried some form of PEDs at some point in their careers.

[STLCards2]

This forum is cursed due to the dearth of blind homers.

Has any pitcher in history benefited greater from the team he pitched for than Petitte?

Offensively? Not many. Defensilvely? Many...Palmer, Ford, Gomez, M. Brown, Joss...

[Captain Cold Nose]

Offensively? Not many. Defensilvely? Many...Palmer, Ford, Gomez, M. Brown, Joss...

Ford? Really? I know Clete Boyer was a fine glove man but was unaware the rest of the squad was great enough to make a difference.

Of course, those Oriole teams under Palmer, etc. had some tremendous defensive players by rep, at least. That went a long way toward their success.

I do wonder how much other pitchers, such as David Wells, would have benefited from sending the majority of their careers with the Yankees squads Petitte had the pleasure of pitching for. Wells was an all-star caliber pitcher at a few other stops. Could Petitte have said so much if he pitched i Detroit and Cincinnati?

[Cougar]

Offensively? Not many. Defensilvely? Many...Palmer, Ford, Gomez, M. Brown, Joss...

Those pitchers generally had pretty good offensive support too.

[EricAnno]

I don't buy it unless you cite some medical study. Obviously its not a steroid, but its like Kleenex, Steroid is the catch all word for all PEDs now.

This is just one. (http://medheadlines.com/2008/03/18/hgh-all-hype-no-performance/)

There are many, many others.

[PVNICK]

This is just one. (http://medheadlines.com/2008/03/18/hgh-all-hype-no-performance/)

There are many, many others.

Did you read the article or just the headline?

To study the drug in clinical trials that more closely match real use in the world of professional athletics is “dangerous, unethical and it’s never going to be done,” according to Dr. Gary I. Wadler, spokesman for the American College of Sports Medicine and a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

The above paragraph was contained in the article you cited in support of your theory that HGH had no effect on athletes.

[EricAnno]

Did you read the article or just the headline?

To study the drug in clinical trials that more closely match real use in the world of professional athletics is “dangerous, unethical and it’s never going to be done,” according to Dr. Gary I. Wadler, spokesman for the American College of Sports Medicine and a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

The above paragraph was contained in the article you cited in support of your theory that HGH had no effect on athletes.

At no point in that article is my assertion proved wrong.

Once again, the HGH effects showed absolutely no differences in athletic abilities. HGH does not make a baseball player better. It is completely different from steroids.

[DoubleX]

This is just one. (http://medheadlines.com/2008/03/18/hgh-all-hype-no-performance/)

There are many, many others.

That study was very limited and flat out says it doesn't mirror how HGH would be used in the real world by professional athletes (noting that conducting such a study would be unethical) In this study, the amount of muscle gain by the test group was only 5 lbs, that's certainly not mirroring reality. Pretty much every paragraph of this study stresses it's limitations and the only conclusion that may be drawn is that there is no perceptible difference when HGH is used at very limited and controlled levels, and not in a manner likely used by professional athletes. There's a ton of context to this study that can in no way support a blanketed statement that use of HGH by professional athletes doesn't do anything (especially when the study pretty much concedes its own limitations in this respect).

Just using logic, it's hard to dispute that a bigger and stronger person will be bigger and stronger, and thus able to say hit a baseball further. The most basic example of this is a child growing up - he/she gets bigger and stronger and can do things that he/she couldn't previously do. Of course, hand eye coordination and balance also play into it, but increased strength, especially when augmented to the levels that pro-athletes aspire to, can make a difference.

[PVNICK]

At no point in that article is my assertion proved wrong.

Once again, the HGH effects showed absolutely no differences in athletic abilities. HGH does not make a baseball player better. It is completely different from steroids.

Read it again slowly. or just read the quote I gave you.:banghead:

[Captain Cold Nose]

Andy Petitte is the subject matter. Please don't turn this into a discussion on HGH.

[PVNICK]

Andy Petitte is the subject matter. Please don't turn this into a discussion on HGH.

Sorry. My bad.

[DoubleX]

Read it again slowly. or just read the quote I gave you.:banghead:

I'm glad someone else picked up on how grossly and admittedly limited that study was.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Sorry. My bad.

Getting off-track happens, no big deal. Just trying to push it back, s'all.

[STLCards2]

Those pitchers generally had pretty good offensive support too.

Yes, they did. And Pettite has had very average defensive support.

[STLCards2]

Ford? Really? I know Clete Boyer was a fine glove man but was unaware the rest of the squad was great enough to make a difference.

?

BP's DERA+, Smith's WAR, Fangraph's FIP, THT's WSAB, and Souder's DNRA+, all have Ford being helped quite a bit due to defensive support. I doubt they are all wrong. There are many out there who had more defensive help, but I used HOF pitchers for impact purposes!

[Captain Cold Nose]

BP's DERA+, Smith's WAR, Fangraph's FIP, THT's WSAB, and Souder's DNRA+, all have Ford being helped quite a bit due to defensive support. I doubt they are all wrong. There are many out there who had more defensive help, but I used HOF pitchers for impact purposes!

Which seems to me to be the logical way to do it for the sake of this discussion.

[Bravesfan1984]

I would say he would need 300 wins to get in.

[henrich]

I just voted no. He sits pretty close to the bubble, but for now, just below for me.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I just voted no. He sits pretty close to the bubble, but for now, just below for me.

He's still adding to his credentials, however. He's clearly on the bubble, but he's got a terrific W-L record, and he's adding to it. I think he'll be a viable candidate if he gets to 270 wins, as he'll have done it without artificially lengthening his career.

Andy Pettitte has NEVER, repeat NEVER posted a losing record; indeed, he's never posted a .500 record or below. I wonder how many pitchers in the history of baseball with 15 full seasons in the big leagues have never had a losing record? Whitey Ford went 14 years (he lost time to the military) before posting losing seasons in his last two years. Who else? Jim Palmer had a losing seaons in mid-career. Tom Seaver was .500 in 1974. I'm not saying that Pettite is better than those guys, but his accomplishment of 15 straight winning seasons is, I believe, quite rare, and deserves more respect than it gets.

[Cougar]

He's still adding to his credentials, however. He's clearly on the bubble, but he's got a terrific W-L record, and he's adding to it. I think he'll be a viable candidate if he gets to 270 wins, as he'll have done it without artificially lengthening his career.

Andy Pettitte has NEVER, repeat NEVER posted a losing record; indeed, he's never posted a .500 record or below. I wonder how many pitchers in the history of baseball with 15 full seasons in the big leagues have never had a losing record? Whitey Ford went 14 years (he lost time to the military) before posting losing seasons in his last two years. Who else? Jim Palmer had a losing seaons in mid-career. Tom Seaver was .500 in 1974. I'm not saying that Pettite is better than those guys, but his accomplishment of 15 straight winning seasons is, I believe, quite rare, and deserves more respect than it gets.

Actually, Pettitte was 14-14 last season (2008). He's never been below .500, though.

[White Knight]

I would say he would need 300 wins to get in.

With a winning percentage like his, I disagree. What about Mike Mussina? Won't Andy in three years surpass him, if he hasn't already?

[Los Bravos]

3.91 career ERA.

Next question?

[White Knight]

3.91 career ERA.

Next question?

In a steroid era, that's pretty good. He also wins when it counts. Postseason definitely helps him.

[Los Bravos]

His postseason ERA is 3.90

Just enjoy the rings, dude. Pettitte is headed for the same fate as Key, Cone, Welles and Brown.

[White Knight]

His postseason ERA is 3.90

Just enjoy the rings, dude. Pettitte is headed for the same fate as Key, Cone, Welles and Brown.

He's a lot better than those guys, as his record percentage shows. 250 wins and he will likely make it. 270 and it's a lock.

[Los Bravos]

Jack Morris has 250+ wins, post season glory and a 3.90 ERA. Plus, he didn't follow a steroid abuser and his connection around for the better part of a decade. Still...he's not in and he ain't getting in.

I'll be interested to see what all the Wins scoffers will make of this when they see it :think:

I know the mods probably don't want to see it, but I would be willing to bet a fresh poll would yield very similar results.

[Captain Cold Nose]

He's a lot better than those guys, as his record percentage shows. 250 wins and he will likely make it. 270 and it's a lock.

His winning percentage is a good indicator of what playing for the Yankees all those years does for winning percentages. I don't buy his winning percentage at face value, nor do I think he was a better pitcher than any of the four listed. Better than Brown or Cone? No way. I don't think he's better than Key. As for Wells, maybe. But winning percentage is going to be higher when you pitcher for the Yankees as opposed to the Reds and Tigers.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Actually, Pettitte was 14-14 last season (2008). He's never been below .500, though.

I guess I need to clean my glasses. :)

It's still a remarkable accomplishment, and an overlooked one, IMO.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Jack Morris has 250+ wins, post season glory and a 3.90 ERA. Plus, he didn't follow a steroid abuser and his connection around for the better part of a decade. Still...he's not in and he ain't getting in.

I'll be interested to see what all the Wins scoffers will make of this when they see it :think:

I know the mods probably don't want to see it, but I would be willing to bet a fresh poll would yield very similar results.

Pettitte has a chance to pass Morris by a significant margin. It's possible he'll be in the area of Blyleven, John, and Kaat for wins, but with a much better winning percentage. Hardly chopped liver.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Pettitte has a chance to pass Morris by a significant margin. It's possible he'll be in the area of Blyleven, John, and Kaat for wins, but with a much better winning percentage. Hardly chopped liver.

Just like his teams. Blyleven, John, Kaat and Morris can't say as much.

[Philly-brownsfan]

They will investigate him thoroughly . . .
. . . AFTER they vote him in :banghead:
Pettitte should return to the Yankees and get his 200th Yankee win next season. (He also has 37 wins for Houston). That's something only 2 other Yankee pitchers have done (Ford & Ruffing). He's certain to get his plaque in Yankee Stadium's Monument Park, but regarding getting into Cooperstown, even if he played two more years, finished his career with 250 wins or more and finished at 100 or more games above .500, and all those post-season wins, people will point to a relatively high career ERA and all the run support he got from the Yankees.
It should prove to be a lively debate in future years once Pettitte has retired and his final career numbers have been established.

[DoubleX]

Pettitte should return to the Yankees and get his 200th Yankee win next season. (He also has 35 wins for Houston). That's something only 2 other Yankee pitchers have done (Ford & Ruffing). He's certain to get his plaque in Yankee Stadium's Monument Park, but regarding getting into Cooperstown, even if he finished his career with 250 wins or more and 100 or more games above .500, and all those post-season wins, people will point to a relatively high career ERA and all the run support he got from the Yankees.
It should prove to be a lively debate in future years once Pettitte has retired and his final career numbers have been established.

I agree. Pettitte for the Hall is a hot topic right now, but unless he gets close to 300 wins, I think he'll fall short of the Hall for the reasons you mentioned. He'll hang on the ballot though and there will be writers, likely New York based, who will argue that his big game pitching and championships should put him over the top. The interesting thing is that Pettitte really hasn't been that special in the postseason. He's had a ton of opportunities by virtue of playing on lots good teams. and thus has been able to set records have his share of memorable moments, but his 3.90 postseason ERA is right in line with his 3.91 regular season ERA. I think the best way to describe him is that he's a pro, he goes out there and battles, and while he might not be great, you can feel good about him giving his team a chance to win.

[henrich]

Just like his teams. Blyleven, John, Kaat and Morris can't say as much.


I would vote for Blyleven, John, Kaat and Morris for the Hall. Pettitte is getting closer and he hasn't passed Mussina yet, but I think he will. Someone mentioned Cone earlier and I think he had a similar case to Pettitte currently.

[Los Bravos]

Pettitte has a chance to pass Morris by a significant margin. It's possible he'll be in the area of Blyleven, John, and Kaat for wins, but with a much better winning percentage. Hardly chopped liver.According the the Hall voters, two of those guys are definitively chopped liver and the other one is a bologna sandwich. The interesting thing is that Pettitte really hasn't been that special in the postseason. He's had a ton of opportunities by virtue of playing on lots good teams. and thus has been able to set records have his share of memorable moments, but his 3.90 postseason ERA is right in line with his 3.91 regular season ERA.Bingo. It's very interesting to look at his October record game by game.

[Philly-brownsfan]

Pettitte has threatend to quit the last couple of years.
The IDEA that he wanted to pitch in Old Yankee Stadium's last year made him come back in 2008.
the thought of pitching in New Yankee Stadium's first year made him come back in 2009.
Now he's understandably charged up by pitching for the 2009 World's Champs.
He wants to come back in 2010 to help the Yankees repeat and on a personal level he needs 8 more wins for his 200th win as a Yankee. He'd bE just the third Yankees pitcher to do that.
I don't think he'll hang around long enough to get near Mussina's 270 career wins.
Perhaps the Yankees will sign him for 2010 wih an option year for 2011. That would take Pettitte through his 39th birthday. That's far longer than he intended to pitch a few years ago. Possibly by then his lifetime record for New York and Houston will be 250 to 255 wins and 150 to 155 losses. He's currently at 94 games above .500 at 229-135. If he can climb to 100 wins above .500 and over 250 career wins that would be a strong boost for his Hall Of Fame candidacy. Excepting those with short careers, mOST Pitchers WHOSE WINNING PERCENTAGE IS .625 or more (5 wins for every 8 decisions) make the Hall). Pettitte is currently at .629.
Pettitte's known as a homebody. He's not going to pitch into his mid-40s like Randy Johnson or Nolan Ryan did. He probably won't be around the big leagues in 2012 to celebrate his 40th birthday in uniform.

[Bravesfan1984]

His winning percentage is a good indicator of what playing for the Yankees all those years does for winning percentages. I don't buy his winning percentage at face value, nor do I think he was a better pitcher than any of the four listed. Better than Brown or Cone? No way. I don't think he's better than Key. As for Wells, maybe. But winning percentage is going to be higher when you pitcher for the Yankees as opposed to the Reds and Tigers.

Agreed the teams he played for have won 90+ games 7 times and 100+ games 5 times while having an era at almost 4.00. He has been made to look better because the teams he has played.

[Bravesfan1984]

With a winning percentage like his, I disagree. What about Mike Mussina? Won't Andy in three years surpass him, if he hasn't already?

Mussina has a lower career era and has not played on great teams like Pettite his whole career. I do not consider Mussina a HOFer either though.

[ol' aches and pains]

This thread totally needs to be reopened, as the poll numbers are way too lopsided.

Since it's up for discussion again, I will reiterate-if Pettite is a HOF'r and Blyleven isn't, there needs to be an investigation.

[dominik]

He would need close to 300 wins. Maybe 280+ at least.

His longevity is impressive, but he never had a HOF peak.

[Los Bravos]

How many votes have been registered since this was bumped and how has the percentage changed? I haven't kept a close watch but I think his approval percentage has slipped just in the last few days.

[cardsfanatic]

While this is true now, it's not necessarily going to be the case.

When Gaylord Perry was Andy Pettitte's age, he had one fewer career win than Pettitte does now, and nowhere near the winning pct. Pettitte is a guy who MIGHT win 300. I'm not betting on it, but who was betting on Gaylord Perry the day he won his 200th game?

If Perry hadn't had a big season at age 40, would he be memorable? Or would he be just another Fergie Jenkins? Or, even worse, just another Bert Blyleven?

Pettitte is good enough to where he MIGHT do what Perry did in his late career. It's not likely he will, but it's NEVER likely. The HOF is for those who do the UNLIKELY, and Pettitte still has a chance to do the unlikely.

This post ended up being true, in response to my post. Nearly two years later, I feel differently about Pettite. I think if he hangs around 2-3 more seasons and has 14-15 win seasons -- in otherwords, pushes his record up to 260-270 wins, that he just might be deserving of a call from the HOF.

So, I've changed my mind, essentially. Two years ago I felt he had no chance but now, I think he has a decent shot.

[cardsfanatic]

Mussina has a lower career era and has not played on great teams like Pettite his whole career. I do not consider Mussina a HOFer either though.

And how do you feel about John Smoltz?

[Los Bravos]

If you're think he'll talk John up, you're barking up the wrong tree. Go have a look in the Smoltz thread and dial back a few pages. In spite of that screen name, he doesn't like Smoltz because John doesn't have enough wins to suit him. Such is the crackerjack analysis we routinely get from him.

Pettitte is perceived (correctly, in my opinion) as a cheater. It's really just that simple. Every other argument that can be mustered for him is overshadowed by that fact. He may eventually become fodder for discussions around here of who should be in and isn't, but he's not sniffing the inside of the Hall absent a real sea change of the voters in the next few years.

[cardsfanatic]

If you're think he'll talk John up, you're barking up the wrong tree. Go have a look in the Smoltz thread and dial back a few pages. In spite of that screen name, he doesn't like Smoltz because John doesn't have enough wins to suit him. Such is the crackerjack analysis we routinely get from him.

Yes, heaven forbid the guy be consistent in his views. If he's opposed to Smoltz as well then all that does is bolster my respect for the guy. At least he's fair across the board in his assessments which is more than I can say for most people around here.

The mere thought that because he's a Braves fan he _must_ support Smoltz for the HOF is quite comical to me. Just wait for my thread where I bash all other Cardinal fans that don't support Willie McGee for the Hall. If you are a Cardinal fan you _must_ support McGee through blind homerism. No dissent is allowed!

[Bravesfan1984]

If you're think he'll talk John up, you're barking up the wrong tree. Go have a look in the Smoltz thread and dial back a few pages. In spite of that screen name, he doesn't like Smoltz because John doesn't have enough wins to suit him. Such is the crackerjack analysis we routinely get from him.

Pettitte is perceived (correctly, in my opinion) as a cheater. It's really just that simple. Every other argument that can be mustered for him is overshadowed by that fact. He may eventually become fodder for discussions around here of who should be in and isn't, but he's not sniffing the inside of the Hall absent a real sea change of the voters in the next few years.

Where did I say I did not like John Smoltz? I rooted for him while and was glad he was a part of the team. Just because I do not think he is a Hall of Famer does not mean I do not like him.

[Los Bravos]

Okay, fine. You think he's a swell guy. You still have him short of the HOF (which is your right, even though it's a silly position.)

I read his original question to you to be a challenge to you wanting to keep Pettitte out because he assumed you would favor John, solely because of your screen name. Having recently seen your negative assessment of Smoltz's suitability for induction, I just wanted to set him straight.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yes, heaven forbid the guy be consistent in his views. If he's opposed to Smoltz as well then all that does is bolster my respect for the guy. At least he's fair across the board in his assessments which is more than I can say for most people around here.

The mere thought that because he's a Braves fan he _must_ support Smoltz for the HOF is quite comical to me. Just wait for my thread where I bash all other Cardinal fans that don't support Willie McGee for the Hall. If you are a Cardinal fan you _must_ support McGee through blind homerism. No dissent is allowed!

BravesFan1984 is consistent; he's the ultimate "Small Hall" guy here.

The reason I have problems with "Small Hall" guys is that they propose making the process of HOF enshrinement totally unfair to not only scores of players, but to the FANS of those players.

The HOF has had a de facto standard for enshrinement since the mid-1940s. That standard is this: A player who can claim to have been, at some period of seasons in his career, to have been the best player in his league at his respective position, can expect induction into the HOF. Exceptions to this rule would be guys who played at a time when there was a surplus of talent at a particular position (Earl Averill in the DiMaggio years, Duke Snider in the era of Mantle and Mays).

The HOF has not been "only for the greatest" since the mid-1940s. The HOF hasn't been for only the Ruths and Cobbs and Groves and Spahns snce the forties. The HOF has been for the Earl Averills and Duke Sniders since the forties; it's been for the Elmer Flicks and the Jim Rices (some of them) since the forties. It's a long-term standard. To jack the standard up to where we say "no way" to John Smoltz is not only wholly unfair to John Smoltz, it is unfair to his fans. It is one thing to jack up HOF standards to where we say "No more Frankie Frisch VC selections!". It's quite another to tell guys the equal of Earl Averill and Duke Snider that they're no longer good enough for the HOF.

Guys who would view Jack Morris' induction, or who view Jim Rice's induction as "lowering the HOF standards" just don't understand who the HOF has taken on ROUTINELY since the forties. Those who view the HOF as "only for the greatest" need to think about how they would feel if the criteria for a desired honor were jacked up 7 levels just when it was THEIR turn to be recognized.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

The problem with "small Hall guys" is that you just can't up and change the standards of the Hall once they've been in place for so long and are so well established. Over the years, the voters have made their approximate criteria apparent. Once that's been done, I'm of the opinion that the criteria shouldn't change.

The voters aren't perfect, but they've gotten better, and certainly more consistent. There are a few undeserving players who have slipped in, and there are an even smaller number of true snubs. The lousy selections have largely stopped, and the snubs will probably continue to happen. However, these two small groups of players are what statisticians (in the academic sense, not the baseball sense) call outliers. They're floating in no man's land, apart from the groups of players they've been inappropriately put in. The cluster of Hall of Famers and the cluster of non Hall of Famers are what we should try to fit candidates to at this point.

It's not that hard to see that Smoltz fits into the cluster of HOFers. To exclude him would be to change the standards for induction - there is no real modern precedent for excluding a pitcher with his resume.

Pettitte, on the other hand, is a tougher case to crack. He's had a better career than Catfish Hunter, but didn't peak quite as high. Hunter was also a controversial selection. Pettitte's clearly inferior to Schilling, whose candidacy has (perhaps unfairly) always had its critics. Although Pettitte's relative ERA isn't terrible, his actual ERA would currently be the highest among HOFers. If he retired today, I probably wouldn't vote for him. However, he won't retire today, and I think his fate depends on what he does over the next few years. If his ERA rises above 4.00, his candidacy is probably shot. If he can manage 250 wins and keep his ERA where it is, he'll be a strong candidate. If he gets in and Bert Blyleven doesn't, I'll lose some faith in humanity.

[Paul Wendt]

...
The HOF has had a de facto standard for enshrinement since the mid-1940s.
...
The HOF has been for the Earl Averills and Duke Sniders since the forties; it's been for the Elmer Flicks and the Jim Rices (some of them) since the forties. It's a long-term standard.
...
Guys who would view Jack Morris' induction, or who view Jim Rice's induction as "lowering the HOF standards" just don't understand who the HOF has taken on ROUTINELY since the forties.

Right - "some of them".
Wrong - everything else.
That the Hall of Fame recognition has been for some of the Jim Rices belies the "long-term standard" and the "ROUTINE" election since the forties.

[Ace Venom]

My biggest problem when considering Andy Pettitte's candidacy is that there are too many pitchers who are on the outside looking in and that includes closers. Consider the pitchers from this era who will get in way ahead of Pettitte:

Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Tom Glavine
John Smoltz
Mike Mussina
Curt Schilling

And here are some that deserve to get in before Pettitte that aren't on that short list:

Roger Clemens
Bert Blyleven
Carl Mays
Trevor Hoffman
Dan Quisenberry
Mariano Rivera
Lee Smith
John Franco

None of those are in any particular order. However, Pettitte would not be the worst selection. He would be a better choice than fellow 200 game winners Tommy John, Luis Tiant, David Wells, Kenny Rogers, Jamie Moyer, Jack Morris and Jim Kaat, just naming a few examples.

[White Knight]

Mike Mussina

Moose and Andy are an interesting comparison. Both have the high win/low loss percentage. However, I think if Andy gets to 270, he'll be regarded as the better pitcher. I'm still not sold on Moose going in the HOF. He screwed himself by retiring in his prime (well, 39 is not prime, but he still won 20 games and could have done two or three more years).

[nyykan_t]

Moose and Andy are an interesting comparison. Both have the high win/low loss percentage. However, I think if Andy gets to 270, he'll be regarded as the better pitcher. I'm still not sold on Moose going in the HOF. He screwed himself by retiring in his prime (well, 39 is not prime, but he still won 20 games and could have done two or three more years).
Not if Pettitte's ERA is over 4.00 which is likely when he hangs around long enough to get 270 wins.

Moose did a smart move. Aging pitcher can lose their stuff pretty fast and sudden. 30 wins are still a lots for a 39 years old pitcher. It is not a sure thing that he can get to 300 wins. One bad year can easily pushes his ERA over 3.90. Then suddenly he puts himself in a very bad position. He will be directly compared to Jack Morris. If Jack Morris is outside the Hall, why Moose? I know it is unfair but lots of voters will view it in this way. Even if he gets 300 wins, the ERA may cost him the induction. Not many voters look at ERA+. They will just look at the raw ERA and determine that Moose is not good enough to be inducted.

Now Moose retired after the 20 wins season. Later it will give some imagination to some voters that he is capable to be the next 300 games winners. Also it never hurts when you end your career as a 20 wins pitcher. That will give a good impression to the voters. And his raw ERA is high but still acceptable to HOF standard. His ERA+ looks good too. His decision of retiring actually helps his case.