Any love for Oswalt?

[AlecBoy006]

Will Roy Oswalt make the Hall?

As of now, I don't think so. But those are good hall worthy numbers in a very good pitchers park.

[Colorado Express]

If he can do it for 7-8 more years, I'll change my answer to yes.

[dgarza]

If he can do it for 7-8 more years, I'll change my answer to yes.
That's about right. I'd say maybe 5 more good years, maybe tack on some average ones after that as well, and he's a "YES".

[BoSox Rule]

Its way too early, but he's one of the best pitchers in baseball, and really could end up as one of the 15 best ever.

[digglahhh]

He has HOF talent, that's as far as I am willing to go right now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Oswalt is about 60 percent of the way to the HOF. I believe that if he kept doing what he's doing now, but blew out his arm at around 160 wins, he'd get in.

Oswalt's W-L total, placing him 7th in the NL in victories is misleading; he won 15. Six pitchers were tied for 1st with 16 (yes, SIXTEEN) wins. One more win and Oswalt would have added to his black ink.

I would rather have Oswalt than any other pitcher in the NL. He's the most consistent, year to year, and a good pick for the Cy Young Award next year. He is, without a doubt, on a HOF course, and he doesn't need to take it up a notch. He just needs to keep doing what he's been doing.

[KCGHOST]

See me in 5+ years.

[STLCards2]

With a 139 ERA+, and .668 W% over 1,600 IP through 8 seasons, how close is Roy Oswalt from serious HOF talk? He has never won a Cy Young (even though he has five top-5 finishes), was out Pujolsed for a ROTY award, and has recently been out-attentioned by Halliday, Santana, and Sabbathia. With a sluggish 1st half of 2008, he was a forgoten man last year (despite a 2nd half that quietly rivaled Sabbathia's). To me, is only a few more productive years away from reaching borderline HOf level. He looks like the new Plank/Glavine/Mussina: very good every year, never Pedroesque dominating.

What does everybody else think? How do his HOF chances compare to Halladay? Webb? Sabbathia? Peavy? (I think we would all agree that Santana has a leg up on all of these guys).

[Senor Octobre]

What does everybody else think? How do his HOF chances compare to Halladay? Webb? Sabbathia? Peavy? (I think we would all agree that Santana has a leg up on all of these guys).

I'd throw Tim Hudson in that group, but I think Oswalt is well on his way to a HOF career. A bit of a down year last year but he really picked it up in the 2nd half. A few more Cy Young type seasons and a decent decline phase and he'd be a shoo-in IMO.

[STLCards2]

I'd throw Tim Hudson in that group, but I think Oswalt is well on his way to a HOF career. A bit of a down year last year but he really picked it up in the 2nd half. A few more Cy Young type seasons and a decent decline phase and he'd be a shoo-in IMO.

Husdon may not have enough steam to make it. He started his decline a bit early and has done little to stop it. A mid-career turn-around may help him a lot.

[flota89]

I think Oswalt needs a few more really good seasons before he starts his decline to make it. I see him as one of those guys that make it after a few years of voting. Who knows though. They can always get hurt.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

He obviously wouldn't be a strong candidate if he retired today, but he's only 31. At this point, he's well on his way to a HOF career. I'd say he needs about three more typical seasons before the serious discussions can start. That would put him at about 175 wins. Like we've said, he's never won a Cy Young or been downright dominant, but he's more than your average compiler - he already has an ERA title and two 20-win seasons under his belt in just eight years. What's most remarkable about him is his year-to-year consistency. For a seasoned veteran to be able to say that, in his worst season, he went 17-10 with a 120 ERA+ is pretty special. At this point, I'd say he's behind Santana, about even with Halladay, and ahead of Peavy, Hudson, Sabathia, and Webb in terms of putting together a HOF resume. It may not stay that way, as some of those guys have more momentum than he does, but, at this writing, that's how I see it. Halladay has a good ERA+, but a relatively high actual ERA, which could be cause for concern with the BBWAA if it rises during his decline phase. Peavy has shown he can pitch well at a young age, but is somewhat inconsistent thus far. Hudson is like a poor man's Oswalt in the "consistently good, but never dominating" sense. Sabathia and Webb are the two I was thinking of when I talked about momentum - they're both in the middle of peaks that are better than Oswalt's, but don't quite have the overall resume Oswalt does yet. Sabathia has a ton of wins at a young age, but really needs to get that 3.66 career ERA down (which he's been doing a good job of). Webb's looking darn good too. Right now, I'd say Oswalt is behind Santana and just a hair ahead of Halladay as the second most likely starter from this generation to end up in the HOF.

[STLCards2]

He obviously wouldn't be a strong candidate if he retired today, but he's only 31. At this point, he's well on his way to a HOF career. I'd say he needs about three more typical seasons before the serious discussions can start. That would put him at about 175 wins. Like we've said, he's never won a Cy Young or been downright dominant, but he's more than your average compiler - he already has an ERA title and two 20-win seasons under his belt in just eight years. What's most remarkable about him is his year-to-year consistency. For a seasoned veteran to be able to say that, in his worst season, he went 17-10 with a 120 ERA+ is pretty special. At this point, I'd say he's behind Santana, about even with Halladay, and ahead of Peavy, Hudson, Sabathia, and Webb in terms of putting together a HOF resume. It may not stay that way, as some of those guys have more momentum than he does, but, at this writing, that's how I see it. Halladay has a good ERA+, but a relatively high actual ERA, which could be cause for concern with the BBWAA if it rises during his decline phase. Peavy has shown he can pitch well at a young age, but is somewhat inconsistent thus far. Hudson is like a poor man's Oswalt in the "consistently good, but never dominating" sense. Sabathia and Webb are the two I was thinking of when I talked about momentum - they're both in the middle of peaks that are better than Oswalt's, but don't quite have the overall resume Oswalt does yet. Sabathia has a ton of wins at a young age, but really needs to get that 3.66 career ERA down (which he's been doing a good job of). Webb's looking darn good too. Right now, I'd say Oswalt is behind Santana and just a hair ahead of Halladay as the second most likely starter from this generation to end up in the HOF.

I concur with everything stated here.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

At this point in his carer, Oswalt has a solid HoF case. A CYA would really bolster his case. He's only 31 so a CYA season is quite still possible in his future.

[Fielding Marshall]

I really like Oswalt. Looking at his career is causing me to reassess the kind of peak pitchers need in this era to be inducted, because he's clearly demonstrated his skills are no joke.

I probably need to think more on this, but I might actually put him in right now. I'm not a fan of waiting around and needing to see him decline just to get more career length; if it's clear a player was high-quality based upon about 7+ years of high quality performance, I think he should go in. My strategy in assessing a player is to see whether his best years are Hall-worthy, then to see by his other years if his best years were flukes or actually reflected a player's skill. Oswalt squeezes into the Hall-worthy boat at this point, though it would certainly help in assessing his career if he added to his resume.

Call me crazy.

[Los Bravos]

I'd throw Tim Hudson in that group, but I think Oswalt is well on his way to a HOF career.Agreed, on both counts. They each need @ four more typical years to start the conversation seriously.

[KCGHOST]

I think he needs five more good seasons to be seriously considered.

[Westlake]

I think he needs five more good seasons to be seriously considered.

Five just to be considered?!

Five more years like the last eight and he's a no-doubter to me. That'd be about 2600 IP with a 140 ERA+. Obviously the rate stats go down with decline, but the IP go up.

[Freakshow]

Pitchers born in 1974 or later, best ERA+, 900+ IP
Cnt Player ERA+ W W-L% WHIP BrYr IP From To
+----+-----------------+----+---+-----+-----+----+------+----+----+
1 Johan Santana 144 109 .681 1.102 1979 1543 2000 2008
2 Brandon Webb 143 87 .584 1.237 1979 1315.2 2003 2008
3 Roy Oswalt 139 129 .668 1.198 1977 1622 2001 2008
4 Roy Halladay 131 131 .665 1.208 1977 1807.2 1998 2008
5 Carlos Zambrano 128 96 .611 1.287 1981 1382 2001 2008
6 Tim Hudson 126 146 .655 1.253 1975 2017.1 1999 2008
7 Mark Buehrle 122 122 .584 1.270 1979 1847.2 2000 2008
8 Jake Peavy 121 86 .581 1.186 1981 1261 2002 2008
9 C.C. Sabathia 121 117 .616 1.244 1980 1659.1 2001 2008
10 Kerry Wood 118 77 .558 1.250 1977 1219.1 1998 2008
11 Danny Haren 117 65 .556 1.218 1980 997.1 2003 2008
12 John Lackey 116 91 .591 1.311 1978 1324.2 2002 2008
13 Josh Beckett 116 89 .589 1.222 1980 1188.2 2001 2008
14 Ben Sheets 116 86 .509 1.201 1978 1428 2001 2008
15 Barry Zito 116 123 .569 1.296 1978 1807 2000 2008

[MadHatter]

I think he needs five more good seasons to be seriously considered.

I agree. He's only been in the league 8 years - but won 20 games twice. That's nice, but there are other players who have done similar feats - how do we know he isn't Lamarr Hoyt?

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I agree. He's only been in the league 8 years - but won 20 games twice. That's nice, but there are other players who have done similar feats - how do we know he isn't Lamarr Hoyt?

I know what you meant, but Oswalt passed La Marr Hoyt in career value long ago and has since left him in the dust...

La Marr Hoyt for his entire career:
98 wins
68 losses
.590 winning percentage
3.99 ERA
99 ERA+
1.214 WHIP

Roy Oswalt for his first eight seasons (his entire career up to this point):
129 wins
64 losses
.668 winning percentage
3.13 ERA
139 ERA+
1.198 WHIP

Maybe Bret Saberhagen would be a better forewarning. Oswalt has taken the slow and steady route, but he's gotten a lot further on it than he gets credit for. That ERA+ is phenomenal.

[Fielding Marshall]

Maybe Bret Saberhagen would be a better forewarning. Oswalt has taken the slow and steady route, but he's gotten a lot further on it than he gets credit for. That ERA+ is phenomenal.

Saberhagen doesn't even have 8 seasons like Oswalt's over his entire career.

[Senor Octobre]

Pitchers born in 1974 or later, best ERA+, 900+ IP
Cnt Player ERA+ W W-L% WHIP BrYr IP From To
+----+-----------------+----+---+-----+-----+----+------+----+----+
1 Johan Santana 144 109 .681 1.102 1979 1543 2000 2008
2 Brandon Webb 143 87 .584 1.237 1979 1315.2 2003 2008
3 Roy Oswalt 139 129 .668 1.198 1977 1622 2001 2008
4 Roy Halladay 131 131 .665 1.208 1977 1807.2 1998 2008
5 Carlos Zambrano 128 96 .611 1.287 1981 1382 2001 2008
6 Tim Hudson 126 146 .655 1.253 1975 2017.1 1999 2008
7 Mark Buehrle 122 122 .584 1.270 1979 1847.2 2000 2008
8 Jake Peavy 121 86 .581 1.186 1981 1261 2002 2008
9 C.C. Sabathia 121 117 .616 1.244 1980 1659.1 2001 2008
10 Kerry Wood 118 77 .558 1.250 1977 1219.1 1998 2008
11 Danny Haren 117 65 .556 1.218 1980 997.1 2003 2008
12 John Lackey 116 91 .591 1.311 1978 1324.2 2002 2008
13 Josh Beckett 116 89 .589 1.222 1980 1188.2 2001 2008
14 Ben Sheets 116 86 .509 1.201 1978 1428 2001 2008
15 Barry Zito 116 123 .569 1.296 1978 1807 2000 2008

Wow, I hadn't noticed how good Mark Buehrle has been over his career thus far.

[Domenic]

Roy Oswalt reminds me a great deal of Mike Mussina. Both have been terribly underappreciated, both suffered with teams that diminished their perceived value (Mussina with the poor defenses of the Yankees, Oswalt on some poor Astros teams), and both barely missed out on Cy Young Awards (though, Mussina deserved one in 2001 - I'm not sure that Oswalt has ever come so close). Further, both lack seasons with gaudy numbers, instead building a career on remarkable consistency.

To me, only Santana has a better halfway-point Hall of Fame career. With three or four seasons at his current level, and three or four seasons of gradual decline, I believe Oswalt will be a Hall of Famer.

[Mike90]

Wow, I hadn't noticed how good Mark Buehrle has been over his career thus far.

That's what no 20-win seasons and a winning percentage below .600 will do for you. He's been an excellent pitcher every season of his career aside from that uncharacteristic 2006.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

Saberhagen doesn't even have 8 seasons like Oswalt's over his entire career.

No he doesn't, but, at age 30ish, he had two Cy Youngs and pretty comparable career numbers to those Oswalt currently has:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp2.cgi?I=oswalro01:Roy+Oswalt&st=int&compage=30&age=30

I just used him as an example of a guy who looked really good at a similar point in his career to where Oswalt is now, but didn't do enough after that to become a serious HOF candidate. He's certainly a better example than La Marr Hoyt, which, if you'll read the post I was replying to, is all I was going for. I'll concede that Oswalt's better off than Saberhagen because he's more consistent from year to year if that's what you want to hear.

[MadHatter]

He's certainly a better example than La Marr Hoyt, which, if you'll read the post I was replying to, is all I was going for. I'll concede that Oswalt's better off than Saberhagen because he's more consistent from year to year if that's what you want to hear.

OK - I threw Lamarr Hoyt out there without doing my research first - He was my "Hasty Generalization".

[JDD]

This guy needs to make a little more noise on the national stage. This may sound silly, but he just isn't FAMOUS enough to make the Hall of Fame.

[bambambaseball]

Hes Mike Mussina in 10 years!:atthepc

[STLCards2]

Hes Mike Mussina in 10 years!:atthepc


Exactly - Ozwalt (who is rolling, finally) is in the Glavine, Mussina, Plank school of pitching. Very, very good for a long time, but never Pedroesque dominating. The Hall has plenty of room for these guys.

[Brad Harris]

See me in 5+ years.
Agreed, though he's on a better pace than 99% of his peers.

[jjpm74]

He's already 32. He'd need to stay healthy and pitch at his current level until he's 40 to get there. I give him about a 10% chance at this point.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Exactly - Ozwalt (who is rolling, finally) is in the Glavine, Mussina, Plank school of pitching. Very, very good for a long time, but never Pedroesque dominating. The Hall has plenty of room for these guys.

How many pitchers in history had a Pedroesque peak?

[STLCards2]

How many pitchers in history had a Pedroesque peak?

Or any peak that is considered dominating. Or any single seasons in which they were out-of -this world great.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Or any peak that is considered dominating. Or any single seasons in which they were out-of -this world great.

That is true. It would help Oswalt if he won a few Cy Young Awards.

[Brad Harris]

So here's the question. We have, coming up over the next decade, just a small cadre of starting pitchers with any realistic chance of earning election to the Hall through the writers' ballot. Maddux, Johnson, Pedro, Glavine, possibly Clemens, possibly Maddux, possibly Schilling. At the point that all of the above have seen at least one ballot, they'll be the only starters among BBWAA holdovers. Clearly, there's a "generation gap" between this group and the next; the guys just around age 30 today.

So my question is this: if not Oswalt, who? Who among his generation is likely going to wind up a stronger candidate for the Hall? Other than Santana (who clearly heads this group), who else will be a strong enough candidate to receive any kind of significant support when he hits the ballot? Halladay? Sabathia? Hudson? Buehrle? Webb?

[mwiggins]

So here's the question. We have, coming up over the next decade, just a small cadre of starting pitchers with any realistic chance of earning election to the Hall through the writers' ballot. Maddux, Johnson, Pedro, Glavine, possibly Clemens, possibly Maddux, possibly Schilling. At the point that all of the above have seen at least one ballot, they'll be the only starters among BBWAA holdovers. Clearly, there's a "generation gap" between this group and the next; the guys just around age 30 today.

So my question is this: if not Oswalt, who? Who among his generation is likely going to wind up a stronger candidate for the Hall? Other than Santana (who clearly heads this group), who else will be a strong enough candidate to receive any kind of significant support when he hits the ballot? Halladay? Sabathia? Hudson? Buehrle? Webb?

How many does their have to be? Not ever "generation" of starting pitchers has had their share of Hall of Famers. Esp now that starting pitcher has become a much less important position than in most of the rest of baseball history.

Not a single HoF starting pitcher entered the league between Seaver in 1967 and Clemens in 1984 (I'll consider him a "Hall of Famer" for the purposes of this argument). The fact that a number of them appeared between 1984 and 1992 doesn't mean that the next generation of starting pitchers will neccessarily produce a number of Hall of Famers as well.

I would guess Santana and Halladay will end up making it, along with Rivera and Hoffman (and maybe Nathan if he keeps rolling), from the 1993-2002 "decade". But with the quality of young pitching right now, you might see another bumper crop of Hall of Famers from this new pitching generation. It all goes in cycles.

[jjpm74]

So here's the question. We have, coming up over the next decade, just a small cadre of starting pitchers with any realistic chance of earning election to the Hall through the writers' ballot. Maddux, Johnson, Pedro, Glavine, possibly Clemens, possibly Maddux, possibly Schilling. At the point that all of the above have seen at least one ballot, they'll be the only starters among BBWAA holdovers. Clearly, there's a "generation gap" between this group and the next; the guys just around age 30 today.

You left out Mike Mussina, Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman from this group.

The thing is, with this group, we have Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez and Greg Maddux who many consider to be among the 20 best pitchers in the history of the game. How many other generations can lay claim to that?

So my question is this: if not Oswalt, who? Who among his generation is likely going to wind up a stronger candidate for the Hall? Other than Santana (who clearly heads this group), who else will be a strong enough candidate to receive any kind of significant support when he hits the ballot? Halladay? Sabathia? Hudson? Buehrle? Webb?

Of the younger group of pitchers who are at mid career at this point, Johan Santana is obviously the best of the best and a HOFer barring a career ending injury in the next season or 2. Outside of him:

If Brandon Webb can stay healthy, he will likely be a HOFer. Through 7 seasons, he has led the league in wins 2 times and has a 142 ERA+. Webb also has a Cy Young and 2 second place finishes in the CY Young going for him. He is quietly putting up the best numbers as a pitcher of anyone in the NL with the exception of Johan Santana.

Carlos Zambrano at 28 years old has put together a great career to this point. If he can stay healthy, his chances are on par with Roy Oswalt's.

Roy Halladay has a Cy Young as well as 3 additional top 5 Cy Young finishes. At 33, he stands at a .675 winning PCT and is 59 wins away from 200 (assuming 200 becomes the new 300). If he can get to 200 wins without falling apart, he will get in. This year he is off to the best start in his career and shows no signs of slowing down.

Outside of them, Tim Hudson has a shot, as does Danny Haren.

It's no accident that I left C.C. Sabathia out of this group. Pitchers like him tend to fall apart once they cross 30 years old. Sabathia will have a career along the lines of David Cone. Very good, but short of the HOF.

[STLCards2]

I'd say Santana and Halladay are very likely. Oswalt, Webb, Sabathia, Peavy, Buehrle, all will have shots. I would guess probably 4-5 of the above mentioned will make it.

Also, guys like Lincecum, Cane, F. Hernandez, Grienke, Hamels, and others have the same distance of seasons between their debuts and the 7 above's debuts as did Mussina/Hoffman/Rivera/Pedro from Maddux/Clemens/Glavine, etc.

I am sure there are 4-5 very young under 25's that will be HOfers too.

I am sure there is at least one career bounce -back guy in there too - Zambrano (even though he hasn't fallen too much), Hudson, etc. Throw in a Paplebon or maybe a Nathan? At least one great/young reliever will make it too.

I promise back in 1991, when Madddux was just good and not great, Glavine just had his first good season, Johnson was still a struggling pitcher with control problems, Schilling was a reliever, Smoltz was behind Liebrandt and Avery on his own staff, Mussina was a rookie, and before Pedro, Mo. or Hoffman started - many said "wow, is Clemens the only guy from this era who will make the HOF?"

[mwiggins]

I promise back in 1991, when Madddux was just good and not great, Glavine just had his first good season, Johnson was still a struggling pitcher with control problems, Schilling was a reliever, Smoltz was behind Liebrandt and Avery on his own staff, Mussina was a rookie, and before Pedro, Mo. or Hoffman started - many said "wow, is Clemens the only guy from this era who will make the HOF?"

Well, Clemens plus Saberhagen. And probably Gooden too, as he had 132 wins at age 26 and sub-3.00 ERA, and was coming off a "comeback" year in 1990.

[STLCards2]

Well, Clemens plus Saberhagen. And probably Gooden too, as he had 132 wins at age 26 and sub-3.00 ERA, and was coming off a "comeback" year in 1990.

I'd say Clemens, Gooden and hershiser. People used the phrase "Futue HOFer Orel Hershiser" all the time. Never heard that about Saberhagen. The talk about him was the "good year/bad year, every other year" thing. I don't think most thought of him as a HOF, even though he was heading in that direction before he had even more partial seasons.

[mwiggins]

I'd say Clemens, Gooden and hershiser. People used the phrase "Futue HOFer Orel Hershiser" all the time. Never heard that about Saberhagen. The talk about him was the "good year/bad year, every other year" thing. I don't think most thought of him as a HOF, even though he was heading in that direction before he had even more partial seasons.

You're probably right about Sabes. If you were talking the late 80's, yeah Hershiser for sure, but by 1991 was was becoming a long shot. He was 32 with only 106 wins, and only one Cy Young. And he was coming off two injury plagued years.

Sabes was still 5 years younger at that point, had a few more wins, and had won two Cy Youngs, and had pitched well in 1991. There was still a lot of "potential" at that point. Nobody knew how much his career would fall apart when he got to the Mets.

But maybe I'm misremembering how highly he was thought of back then.

[JDD]

Not a single HoF starting pitcher entered the league between Seaver in 1967 and Clemens in 1984 (I'll consider him a "Hall of Famer" for the purposes of this argument). The fact that a number of them appeared between 1984 and 1992 doesn't mean that the next generation of starting pitchers will neccessarily produce a number of Hall of Famers as well.

Maybe all the best arms after Seaver were converted to closers, and once everyone had a decent bullpen, the wins returned to the Glavines and Moyers of the world.

All the really good pitchers were starters, or used to be... just a thought.

Nolan Ryan was born in 1947... just scrolling down my magic spreadsheet, I only see one HOF worthy starting pitcher, Bert Blyleven (1951), before Clemens' birth year comes up in 1962.

The guys who came up short were Stieb, Morris, Soto, Valenzuela, Hershiser, Dennis Martinez, guys who flashed HOF talent but could not quite gather up enough Win Shares. Frank Tanana was there too before he lost his fastball.

This IS an interesting point, and one of the reasons why Blyleven has a case, Jack Morris too (most wins in the 1980s).

But look at the guys born between WW2 and 1962:

Lyle, Fingers, Gossage, Sutter, Eckersley, Lee Smith, John Franco, Dave Righetti.

Guys like Righetti, Gossage, Aguilera were thrown to the bullpen. Eckersley of course is the Icon of this movement.

So while there were HOF talented pitchers throwing in that era (the 1980s), they all moved to the bullpen, save Blyleven.

Just a thought.

[STLCards2]

Maybe all the best arms after Seaver were converted to closers, and once everyone had a decent bullpen, the wins returned to the Glavines and Moyers of the world.

All the really good pitchers were starters, or used to be... just a thought.

Nolan Ryan was born in 1947... just scrolling down my magic spreadsheet, I only see one HOF worthy starting pitcher, Bert Blyleven (1951), before Clemens' birth year comes up in 1962.

The guys who came up short were Stieb, Morris, Soto, Valenzuela, Hershiser, Dennis Martinez, guys who flashed HOF talent but could not quite gather up enough Win Shares. Frank Tanana was there too before he lost his fastball.

This IS an interesting point, and one of the reasons why Blyleven has a case, Jack Morris too (most wins in the 1980s).

But look at the guys born between WW2 and 1962:

Lyle, Fingers, Gossage, Sutter, Eckersley, Lee Smith, John Franco, Dave Righetti.

Guys like Righetti, Gossage, Aguilera were thrown to the bullpen. Eckersley of course is the Icon of this movement.

So while there were HOF talented pitchers throwing in that era (the 1980s), they all moved to the bullpen, save Blyleven.

Just a thought.

1. Everybody didn't have a decent bullpen. Some had great pens, some had bad pens, and most were in the middle. You have to look at the pens relative to others.

2. Glavine in the same breath as Moyer? Glavine has a 500 IP advantage, a 13 point ERA+ advantage, was a far superior postseason pitcher and was a much better hitter.

Also, Glavine's bullpen support is actually below average - to the tune of about 7 inherited runners allowed by his bullpen more that what was expected. Glavine's peak from 1991-2002 was not all-time great, but definitely HOF level. His post peak from 2004-2007 especially, is well above average for a pitcher his age. Glavine received slightly above average run-support (102%) so received a few wins he didn't "deserve", but Glavine was no career compiler (like Wynn) and was no beneficiary of a lot of gift wins. Glavine is in the same class of pitcher as Mussina, Palmer, and Plank. Very good for very long, but no completely dominate seasons. None of which are compilers.

3. I do think you are right that some of the best arms went to the pen. Also, some of the best 80's arms just got hurt - Gooden self destructed, Saberhagen had too many injuries. Hershiser had some injuries too. Rueschel may be in the HOF if he didn't play for mostly lousy teams his whole career. Stieb was close too.

The 80's were not short of HOF arms, just short on the arms reaching their potential, staying healthy, and catching breaks.

4. It is important to remember that talent distribution will not always be even at all positions every era. Since the mid 70's, Schmidt, Brett, Molitor, Boggs, Rodriguez, and Chipper all happened to play a lot of 3B. Those 7 players would be in most people's top 10-12. It just happens. Look at all of the great CF in the 60's, or the plethora of good SS in the 90's.

However, given the number of players in the MLB now, one should still expect at least 7-8 current younger pitchers to be HOFers someday.

[JDD]

Hey hey hey, just relax... I was just looking for guys who weren't about to throw a ball thru a brick wall, and benefited from this recent era (bullpens willing to work, expansion, etc).

They came to mind after about seven seconds worth of thought.

[STLCards2]

Hey hey hey, just relax... I was just looking for guys who weren't about to throw a ball thru a brick wall, and benefited from this recent era (bullpens willing to work, expansion, etc).

They came to mind after about seven seconds worth of thought.

Relax? I am very relaxed.:cool: Why is a healthy discussion a sign of somebody not relaxing. Do you honestly think I am emotionaly attached to any of your or anybody elses' posts here? Just discussing the topics you and others have brought up.:D

By the way - out of curiosity, why do you think there is a connection between being a soft-tosser and getting more bullpen help that a hard-thrower?

I have show that comapred to the average pitcher, Glavine was slightly hurt by his bullpens.


Anyway - since K rates were so high in this era and easy for K pitchers to accumulate, guys like Moyer and Glavine had environmental factors working against them. The free-swinging era favors K pitchers. This is one of the reasons why guys like Pedro, Clemens, and Johnson and other K artists had such enormously good ERA+s.

[mwiggins]

Maybe all the best arms after Seaver were converted to closers, and once everyone had a decent bullpen, the wins returned to the Glavines and Moyers of the world.



Or the best arms, other than Blyleven, mostly flamed out early due to overuse, injury, drugs, or just bad luck. Tanana, Blue, Busby, Fernando, and Guidry to name a few.

[JDD]

But that is a pretty long gap in birth years not to have a HOF starting pitcher.... yet that is where we mined most of the HOF relievers.

Coincidence?

[mwiggins]

But that is a pretty long gap in birth years not to have a HOF starting pitcher.... yet that is where we mined most of the HOF relievers.

Coincidence?

Probabaly. Those 4 guys happened to hit in transition periods for relievers that really allowed them to stand out. Fingers and Gossage during the golden era of the fireman, Sutter during the early days of the save specialist, and Eck during the early days of the 9th inning specialist.

And those guys are only most of the HoF relievers because relief pitcher wasn't a HoF worthy position for most of baseball's history, except in the very rare case of Wilhelm.

And it is just chance mostly. Because in 1983 you had Hershiser enter the league. In 1984, you had Gooden and Clemens and Saberhagen. And in 1986 you had Maddux. And in 1987 you had Glavine. A large number of future Hall of Famers or should-have-been Hall of Famers popping up within a 5 year period, much like we saw in the mid-60's with Jenkins, Carlton, Sutton, Hunter, Palmer, Ryan, and Seaver.

And there were more relievers being used in the mid-80's than there were in the 70's. If we were losing HoF starters to the bullpen in the post-Seaver era, why did so many pop up in the 80's when a higher percentage of pitchers were going to the pen and relief pitching was even more important?

[Brad Harris]

Should the number of Hall-worthy relievers necessarily detract from the number of Hall-worthy starters in a given era?

[mwiggins]

Should the number of Hall-worthy relievers necessarily detract from the number of Hall-worthy starters in a given era?

I don't believe there's any sort of quota for Hall of Famers from each position in every era, but it should. Starting pitching is a less important position in the modern game, and they make up less of the total "pitching" in this era.

[jjpm74]

Should the number of Hall-worthy relievers necessarily detract from the number of Hall-worthy starters in a given era?


It's difficult to generalize in this regard. We've only had 1 full generation of pitching under the current 6 inning starter generation and really, the degree of specialization we see today is only about 10 years old.

[leecemark]

And there were more relievers being used in the mid-80's than there were in the 70's. If we were losing HoF starters to the bullpen in the post-Seaver era, why did so many pop up in the 80's when a higher percentage of pitchers were going to the pen and relief pitching was even more important?

--I doubt we are losing Hall of Fame pitchers to the bullpen. Guys get moved to the bullpen because they lack secondary pitches and/or durability - although I suppose some may have developed given more opportunity. What we are seeing is starting pitchers getting less IP and fewer opportunities for wins. It is becoming more difficult for SP to build a HoF resume as a result.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

So here's the question. We have, coming up over the next decade, just a small cadre of starting pitchers with any realistic chance of earning election to the Hall through the writers' ballot. Maddux, Johnson, Pedro, Glavine, possibly Clemens, possibly Maddux, possibly Schilling. At the point that all of the above have seen at least one ballot, they'll be the only starters among BBWAA holdovers. Clearly, there's a "generation gap" between this group and the next; the guys just around age 30 today.

So my question is this: if not Oswalt, who? Who among his generation is likely going to wind up a stronger candidate for the Hall? Other than Santana (who clearly heads this group), who else will be a strong enough candidate to receive any kind of significant support when he hits the ballot? Halladay? Sabathia? Hudson? Buehrle? Webb?

I've posted this before. The bottom list are the current "young guns". By around 2018 some of these young guns will be finishing up HoF careers. I consider Oswalt one of the young guns.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I don't believe there's any sort of quota for Hall of Famers from each position in every era, but it should. Starting pitching is a less important position in the modern game, and they make up less of the total "pitching" in this era.

I don't think this is true. It is true that starting pitchers generally pitch less. However, having great starting pitching is still very important. Where would the 2009 SF Giants be without Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain?

[stejay]

call me stupid, but looking at stats, and especially with a relatively young age, is it me or has Barry Zito still got a chance of HOF?
.559 win/loss percentage, which could still improve greatly, 3.85 ERA....
31 years old, he may have 7 years of good pitching left in him if hes lucky... that could be an outside chance.
If there is a case for Oswalt, there is for Zito.
Oswalt-
3.17 ERA. .663 win/loss percentage. Obviously Oswalt's stats are better, but Zito still has many good years left, with a great team. You really do never know in baseball.

[PVNICK]

call me stupid, but looking at stats, and especially with a relatively young age, is it me or has Barry Zito still got a chance of HOF?
.559 win/loss percentage, which could still improve greatly, 3.85 ERA....
31 years old, he may have 7 years of good pitching left in him if hes lucky... that could be an outside chance.
If there is a case for Oswalt, there is for Zito.
Oswalt-
3.17 ERA. .663 win/loss percentage. Obviously Oswalt's stats are better, but Zito still has many good years left, with a great team. You really do never know in baseball.
I don't see how with the nosedive his performance and reputation have taken since he went to SF. He's pretty much s***ed for two going on three years now.

[baseball junkie]

Maybe I'm thinking of someone else, and/or stupid, or just had a major brain hemorrhage but hasn't Oswalt already made it very clear he intends to retire at the end of his current contract?

That contract runs through 2011. So, two and half more years and Roy's out of here!

I believe he is being honest when he says he will retire after the 2011 season. He came from a very small town. He graduated with a high school class of around 30 students! He married a girl he'd known since they were both about seven years old. He's a county boy and now he has two young daughters and I think he wants to see them grow up, instead of just pitching till his arm falls off to hit some arbitrary career win or strike out totals.

If he voluntarily retires in his prime, then I can't see putting him in the HOF. This isn't a Ross Youngs, Koufax or Puckett situation.

[mwiggins]

I don't think this is true. It is true that starting pitchers generally pitch less. However, having great starting pitching is still very important. Where would the 2009 SF Giants be without Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain?

I'm not saying starting pitchers aren't important anymore. But in other era, a team with 2 of the best 3 starting pitchers in the league that season would probably be doing a little better than a .554 winning %. How much more important to the Giants would Lincecum's 193 ERA+ and 1.050 WHIP if he were starting 40 games a year, instead of 34, and pitching 300 innings, instead of 240.

Pitching is still just as important as it ever was, but a single great starting pitcher is less important than probably in anytime in history.

[Brad Harris]

Maybe I'm thinking of someone else, and/or stupid, or just had a major brain hemorrhage but hasn't Oswalt already made it very clear he intends to retire at the end of his current contract?

That contract runs through 2011. So, two and half more years and Roy's out of here!

I believe he is being honest when he says he will retire after the 2011 season. He came from a very small town. He graduated with a high school class of around 30 students! He married a girl he'd known since they were both about seven years old. He's a county boy and now he has two young daughters and I think he wants to see them grow up, instead of just pitching till his arm falls off to hit some arbitrary career win or strike out totals.

If he voluntarily retires in his prime, then I can't see putting him in the HOF. This isn't a Ross Youngs, Koufax or Puckett situation.
I can't see Oswalt retiring that early - and I haven't read anything about that - but the biographical details do describe him so I'm sure you're thinking about the right guy.

[Jsquared83]

Interesting chart.. but in the era of the strict pitch count and long relievers, I'd be very surprised if any of those guys gets close to 300. Sabathia's case is the most interesting with the most wins at a young age and now being on the yanks, however, durability could become an issue with him quicker than anyone else due to his size. I really think 250 is the new 300.

[Jsquared83]

And I voted yes for Oswalt, not because he's a HOFer now but because he's been one of the elite pitchers of his era and has done it now for almost a decade. Barring the sudden retirement, if he can reach 200 wins and an ERA+ of over 130, it'd be a no brainer for me.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I'm not saying starting pitchers aren't important anymore. But in other era, a team with 2 of the best 3 starting pitchers in the league that season would probably be doing a little better than a .554 winning %.

The '09 Giants only have a .554 W% because their offense is so poor and not because Lincecum and Cain don't pitch enough. Until about three weeks ago the Giants were last in runs scored. Today they are 13th out of 16. They still have the NL's lowest OBP and SLG. If the Giants had scored the league average in runs, with their pitching, and using the Pythagorian W-L formula they would have an estimated .581 W%.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Interesting chart.. but in the era of the strict pitch count and long relievers, I'd be very surprised if any of those guys gets close to 300. Sabathia's case is the most interesting with the most wins at a young age and now being on the yanks, however, durability could become an issue with him quicker than anyone else due to his size. I really think 250 is the new 300.

The list shows clearly that the young guns are for the most part right in the middle of the pace of the post WW II 300-game winners. If strict pitch counts and long releivers were to diminish the chances of the current young pitchers to win 300 then why are they not behind in terms of wins in their late 20's compared to the 300 game winners?

Also not all teams have strict counts on their pitchers. Does Doc Halloday have a strict pitch count? Sabathia? Zambrano?

I don't see any major change in the game that will make the 300 game winner go extinct. The only way I see the 300 game winner diappearing is if all teams moved to a 6-man rotation and the top starters only got 25-26 starts per season. That's not going to happen.

Also, Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, and Johnson all pitched in 5-man rotations with reliever specialists and all won 300+ games. Clemens and Maddux went way past 300 wins. If Mussina hadn't retired after his 20 win season and if John Smoltz didn't close for four seasons they both may have won 300 games or come very close.

[Jsquared83]

The list shows clearly that the young guns are for the most part right in the middle of the pace of the post WW II 300-game winners. If strict pitch counts and long releivers were to diminish the chances of the current young pitchers to win 300 then why are they not behind in terms of wins in their late 20's compared to the 300 game winners?

Also not all teams have strict counts on their pitchers. Does Doc Halloday have a strict pitch count? Sabathia? Zambrano?

I don't see any major change in the game that will make the 300 game winner go extinct. The only way I see the 300 game winner diappearing is if all teams moved to a 6-man rotation and the top starters only got 25-26 starts per season. That's not going to happen.

Also, Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, and Johnson all pitched in 5-man rotations with reliever specialists and all won 300+ games. Clemens and Maddux went way past 300 wins. If Mussina hadn't retired after his 20 win season and if John Smoltz didn't close for four seasons they both may have won 300 games or come very close.

The handful of guys that are on pace for 300 all have to productive into their late 30s to even get close. I dont think a 37-38 year old Roy Halladay is going to be let out there for 120+ pitch outings. Same with Sabathia. Take a guy like Andy Pettitte, very good pitcher in his 15th season, 37 years old, the benefit on being on all excellent teams, fairly durable guy, 223 wins.. I dont think anyone here can project him out to 300 without him winning games consistently past the age of 40.

I dont think the 300 Win era is completely over. I just think it's going to take a perfect storm and a great talent for someone to reach it in this environment.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The handful of guys that are on pace for 300 all have to productive into their late 30s to even get close. I dont think a 37-38 year old Roy Halladay is going to be let out there for 120+ pitch outings. Same with Sabathia. Take a guy like Andy Pettitte, very good pitcher in his 15th season, 37 years old, the benefit on being on all excellent teams, fairly durable guy, 223 wins.. I dont think anyone here can project him out to 300 without him winning games consistently past the age of 40.
Of course. It takes excellence, consistency, health, and some good luck to win 300 games. But that has always been true for all the 300 game winners at least since WW II.



I dont think the 300 Win era is completely over. I just think it's going to take a perfect storm and a great talent for someone to reach it in this environment.
Again, this has always been true throughout baseball history. All the post WW II 300 pitchers were great talents that were consistent over long careers. Again, I don't expect all the young guns on my list to win 300, most will fall short. But with some many young guns having great starts to their career I would think that increases the odds of at least one or two making it. We shall see how things are going around 2018.

[baseball junkie]

Why are you all so convinced that he's lying about retiring after 2011?

Or is this simply a hypothetical thread of what he could do if he doesn't retire in two years?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Why are you all so convinced that he's lying about retiring after 2011?

Or is this simply a hypothetical thread of what he could do if he doesn't retire in two years?

Who are you asking?

[baseball junkie]

Everyone that's discussing him like he's going to play till 2018 or 2020.

[JDD]

I'm not saying starting pitchers aren't important anymore. But in other era, a team with 2 of the best 3 starting pitchers in the league that season would probably be doing a little better than a .554 winning %. How much more important to the Giants would Lincecum's 193 ERA+ and 1.050 WHIP if he were starting 40 games a year, instead of 34, and pitching 300 innings, instead of 240.

Pitching is still just as important as it ever was, but a single great starting pitcher is less important than probably in anytime in history.

Interesting statement, considering they are throwing fewer and fewer innings when looking at the history of rotation aces.

But those front line guys are still coveted at trade deadline time.

[Cowtipper]

He had a REALLY weird year this year...he made 30 starts but came away with only 14 decisions. It was probably his worst year to date, too, as he went 8-6 with a 4.12 ERA, the highest of his career.

Still, he's 31 and in my mind one of the better pitchers in the game.

[Brad Harris]

Damn good pitcher, but not close enough yet.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Astros' fans have mentioned to me that Oswalt has made comments about retiring at age 33. But would he actually do it?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3673258&campaign=rsssrch&source=buster_olney

[nyykan_t]

Let him get to 200 wins first.

[Cowtipper]

I think these two may be "combinable":

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=88035