Trevor Hoffman--Is He a HOFer? (1 Viewer)

[bialczabub]

That's good for fantasy: but not for evaluating a season.

...

(And if ugly peripherals don't correspond to low ERAs, then we don't need to look at the peripherals for a guy who has been in the majors for close to two decades.)

I'm not so sure. ERA still is heavily dependent on defense and park factors. A lifetime Dodger who had an above average defense behind him for the majority of his career is already going to have a huge advantage over a Rockies pitcher with a crummy defense. Even in the long term. If the guy swicthed teams all the time, I suppose it all evens out, but park factors and defense mud the waters.HR, Ks, and GB/FB are all pretty independent. WHIP less so. ERA, even in the long run, less so.

A good question is: what would it take for a lifetime (or close to it) Colorado Rockies pitcher to make the HOF?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Let's assume we have two starters who played on teams with perfectly average defenses throughout their careers. Who would you say had the better career/who should make the HOF?

A: 2500 IP, 3.35 ERA, 4 K/9IP, 1.25 WHIP

B: 2500 IP, 4.25 ERA, 8 K/9IP, 1.00 WHIP

The problem with this hypothetical is that it realistically could never happen. A guy with a 1.00 WHIP would never have a 4.25 ERA over a 2500 inning career.. assuming the league had a reasonable number of runs scored per game. It would probably be better to use adjusted ERA (ERA+) for this debate.Your example would indicate a guy (pitcher B) with the worst luck of all time.

That's been my point, though. If that wouldn't happen, you're saying over a long enough time a pitcher's ERA will be telling. And if we're evaluating a HOF, we have more than enough time. If you want to include WHIP in the discussion, you're implying that there's a point where you'd put a guy in the HOF with a low WHIP and a high ERA over a guy with a high WHIP and a low ERA. I don't think I'd do that very often, so I don't think WHIP has much utility. It's got some, but ERA+ adjusted for era and park is going to be more important.

 

[Chase Stuart]

That's good for fantasy: but not for evaluating a season.

...

(And if ugly peripherals don't correspond to low ERAs, then we don't need to look at the peripherals for a guy who has been in the majors for close to two decades.)

I'm not so sure. ERA still is heavily dependent on defense and park factors. A lifetime Dodger who had an above average defense behind him for the majority of his career is already going to have a huge advantage over a Rockies pitcher with a crummy defense. Even in the long term. If the guy swicthed teams all the time, I suppose it all evens out, but park factors and defense mud the waters.HR, Ks, and GB/FB are all pretty independent. WHIP less so. ERA, even in the long run, less so.

A good question is: what would it take for a lifetime (or close to it) Colorado Rockies pitcher to make the HOF?

ERA+ adjusted for park and era does the job.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I think your points about the defense and other noise in ERA is well taken. Do you agree with what I said though about if you were to perform a regression analysis based on a team's ERA and WHIP to figure out how many wins that team would have, that WHIP might not add anything?

If we were going to play the "Guess how many wins Team X had" game, team WHIP would be really low on the list. My standards for evaluating a HOF are how many wins did he add to his team.

I haven't figured out how to figure out the problems with ERA, but they're good questions. I just think WHIP and other peripherals are so much more important going forward than looking back.

The problem with ERA is that it's a composite of many many factors. Quite honestly, it says more about the team than the player. WHIP is a more pure evaluation of a pitcher's performance.There are ways to adjust ERA for some of these effects, but it's not easy to do.

Ultimately, you're right: you want to limit the number of runs scored. That's the job of a pitcher. However, ERA is not a terribly good measure of this. It's an amalgam of too many other factors that the pitcher has zero control over.

Yes, WHIP is a good measure for evaluating the future prospects of a pitcher, but it's also a great measure of how well the pitcher performed in areas that he can directly control. Again, I don't think you can dismiss it as being unimportant in evaluating a pitcher's performance. I think it's crucial.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think your points about the defense and other noise in ERA is well taken. Do you agree with what I said though about if you were to perform a regression analysis based on a team's ERA and WHIP to figure out how many wins that team would have, that WHIP might not add anything?

If we were going to play the "Guess how many wins Team X had" game, team WHIP would be really low on the list. My standards for evaluating a HOF are how many wins did he add to his team.

I haven't figured out how to figure out the problems with ERA, but they're good questions. I just think WHIP and other peripherals are so much more important going forward than looking back.

The problem with ERA is that it's a composite of many many factors. Quite honestly, it says more about the team than the player. WHIP is a more pure evaluation of a pitcher's performance.There are ways to adjust ERA for some of these effects, but it's not easy to do.

Ultimately, you're right: you want to limit the number of runs scored. That's the job of a pitcher. However, ERA is not a terribly good measure of this. It's an amalgam of too many other factors that the pitcher has zero control over.

Yes, WHIP is a good measure for evaluating the future prospects of a pitcher, but it's also a great measure of how well the pitcher performed in areas that he can directly control. Again, I don't think you can dismiss it as being unimportant in evaluating a pitcher's performance. I think it's crucial.

What do you think of my comparison to the Cano/Lopez situation?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

That's good for fantasy: but not for evaluating a season.

...

(And if ugly peripherals don't correspond to low ERAs, then we don't need to look at the peripherals for a guy who has been in the majors for close to two decades.)

I'm not so sure. ERA still is heavily dependent on defense and park factors. A lifetime Dodger who had an above average defense behind him for the majority of his career is already going to have a huge advantage over a Rockies pitcher with a crummy defense. Even in the long term. If the guy swicthed teams all the time, I suppose it all evens out, but park factors and defense mud the waters.HR, Ks, and GB/FB are all pretty independent. WHIP less so. ERA, even in the long run, less so.

A good question is: what would it take for a lifetime (or close to it) Colorado Rockies pitcher to make the HOF?

ERA+ adjusted for park and era does the job.

ERA+ is better, but it only adjusts the ERA based on the league (and sometimes park). It has no correction for important specific effects like team defense or situational pitching.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I think your points about the defense and other noise in ERA is well taken. Do you agree with what I said though about if you were to perform a regression analysis based on a team's ERA and WHIP to figure out how many wins that team would have, that WHIP might not add anything?

If we were going to play the "Guess how many wins Team X had" game, team WHIP would be really low on the list. My standards for evaluating a HOF are how many wins did he add to his team.

I haven't figured out how to figure out the problems with ERA, but they're good questions. I just think WHIP and other peripherals are so much more important going forward than looking back.

The problem with ERA is that it's a composite of many many factors. Quite honestly, it says more about the team than the player. WHIP is a more pure evaluation of a pitcher's performance.There are ways to adjust ERA for some of these effects, but it's not easy to do.

Ultimately, you're right: you want to limit the number of runs scored. That's the job of a pitcher. However, ERA is not a terribly good measure of this. It's an amalgam of too many other factors that the pitcher has zero control over.

Yes, WHIP is a good measure for evaluating the future prospects of a pitcher, but it's also a great measure of how well the pitcher performed in areas that he can directly control. Again, I don't think you can dismiss it as being unimportant in evaluating a pitcher's performance. I think it's crucial.

What do you think of my comparison to the Cano/Lopez situation?

The criteria for evaluating hitting and pitching are completely different.

 

[Chase Stuart]

That's good for fantasy: but not for evaluating a season.

...

(And if ugly peripherals don't correspond to low ERAs, then we don't need to look at the peripherals for a guy who has been in the majors for close to two decades.)

I'm not so sure. ERA still is heavily dependent on defense and park factors. A lifetime Dodger who had an above average defense behind him for the majority of his career is already going to have a huge advantage over a Rockies pitcher with a crummy defense. Even in the long term. If the guy swicthed teams all the time, I suppose it all evens out, but park factors and defense mud the waters.HR, Ks, and GB/FB are all pretty independent. WHIP less so. ERA, even in the long run, less so.

A good question is: what would it take for a lifetime (or close to it) Colorado Rockies pitcher to make the HOF?

ERA+ adjusted for park and era does the job.

ERA+ is better, but it only adjusts the ERA based on the league (and sometimes park). It has no correction for important specific effects like team defense or situational pitching.

Yeah, fair points. I suppose that's when WHIP and K/9IP becomes more important. I don't think we're really in much disagreement here, and I think you agree that WHIP is more important prospectively.

 

[bialczabub]

from baseball prospectus:

NRA

Normalized Runs Allowed. "Normalized runs" have the same win value, against a league average of 4.5 and a pythagorean exponent of 2, as the player's actual runs allowed did when measured against his league average.

DERA

Defense-adjusted ERA. Not to be confused with Voros McCracken's Defense-Neutral ERA. Based on the PRAA, DERA is intended to be a defense-independent version of the NRA. As with that statistic, 4.50 is average. Note that if DERA is higher than NRA, you can safely assume he pitched in front of an above-average defense.

Lifetime DERA:

Gossage 3.55

Smith 3.44

Hoffman 3.01

Rivera 2.30

but nothing is perfect: Billy Wagner 2.73

I also like their statistic "Stuff," but that's imperfect for sure, too.

Stuff

A rough indicator of the pitcher's overall dominance, based on normalized strikeout rates, walk rates, home run rates, runs allowed, and innings per game. "10" is league average, while "0" is roughly replacement level. The formula is as follows: Stuff = EqK9 * 6 - 1.333 * (EqERA + PERA) - 3 * EqBB9 - 5 * EqHR9 -3 * MAX{6-IP/G),0}

Lifetime Average Stuff:

Gossage 14

Smith 19

Hoffman 21

Rivera 18

Wagner 31

 

[Mr. Pickles]

That's been my point, though. If that wouldn't happen, you're saying over a long enough time a pitcher's ERA will be telling. And if we're evaluating a HOF, we have more than enough time.

If you want to include WHIP in the discussion, you're implying that there's a point where you'd put a guy in the HOF with a low WHIP and a high ERA over a guy with a high WHIP and a low ERA. I don't think I'd do that very often, so I don't think WHIP has much utility. It's got some, but ERA+ adjusted for era and park is going to be more important.

In the case of a reliever, ERA could really be skewed by a lot of factors. Look at Sutter. He only played in 661 games. That's not an eternity by any stretch. He also pitched longer each outing than most relievers. That will affect his numbers substantially. We haven't even talked about the propensity for most relievers to go all-out for a limited number of pitches. It's difficult to compare guys from different eras and in different roles.Good WHIP and good ERA should be highly correlated in the long run, but it's not always true that a pitcher's dominance will be completely captured by his ERA. I'm not a fan of K/9 or things like that.. an out is an out. However, I do think that WHIP is a very personal and useful stat for a pitcher in that it's something that he himself controls.

WHIP is a pretty damn good measure of a pitcher's performance, and far less flawed than ERA. I don't really see how that's even a debatable point.

 

[Chase Stuart]

That's been my point, though. If that wouldn't happen, you're saying over a long enough time a pitcher's ERA will be telling. And if we're evaluating a HOF, we have more than enough time.

If you want to include WHIP in the discussion, you're implying that there's a point where you'd put a guy in the HOF with a low WHIP and a high ERA over a guy with a high WHIP and a low ERA. I don't think I'd do that very often, so I don't think WHIP has much utility. It's got some, but ERA+ adjusted for era and park is going to be more important.

In the case of a reliever, ERA could really be skewed by a lot of factors. Look at Sutter. He only played in 661 games. That's not an eternity by any stretch. He also pitched longer each outing than most relievers. That will affect his numbers substantially. We haven't even talked about the propensity for most relievers to go all-out for a limited number of pitches. It's difficult to compare guys from different eras and in different roles.Good WHIP and good ERA should be highly correlated in the long run, but it's not always true that a pitcher's dominance will be completely captured by his ERA. I'm not a fan of K/9 or things like that.. an out is an out. However, I do think that WHIP is a very personal and useful stat for a pitcher in that it's something that he himself controls.

WHIP is a pretty damn good measure of a pitcher's performance, and far less flawed than ERA. I don't really see how that's even a debatable point.

All solid points.

 

[bialczabub]

I'm not a fan of K/9 or things like that.. an out is an out.

But as I said before: K/9, HR, and GB/FB are the only widely accepted defense independent stats. And HR is unfortunately park dependent.You'd be hard pressed to find guys with good K/9, HR, and GB/FB with other, more inclusive stats, that aren't good.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I'm not a fan of K/9 or things like that.. an out is an out.

But as I said before: K/9, HR, and GB/FB are the only widely accepted defense independent stats. And HR is unfortunately park dependent.You'd be hard pressed to find guys with good K/9, HR, and GB/FB with other, more inclusive stats, that aren't good.

I agree, but at some point you have to say that performance is independent of how you do it. If a pitcher manages to get hitters out and keep them off the bases, I don't care how he does it. Assuming we can extract the pitcher's influence on these things, a strikeout is no better than any other kind of out.Now, it's clear that there are very few examples of dominant "soft tossers," but I don't really think it's all that important to reward strikeout pitchers more than others with similar stats.

 

[tikitime]

Wouldn't OPS against be the best measure?

 

[bialczabub]

I'm not a fan of K/9 or things like that.. an out is an out.

But as I said before: K/9, HR, and GB/FB are the only widely accepted defense independent stats. And HR is unfortunately park dependent.You'd be hard pressed to find guys with good K/9, HR, and GB/FB with other, more inclusive stats, that aren't good.

I agree, but at some point you have to say that performance is independent of how you do it. If a pitcher manages to get hitters out and keep them off the bases, I don't care how he does it. Assuming we can extract the pitcher's influence on these things, a strikeout is no better than any other kind of out.Now, it's clear that there are very few examples of dominant "soft tossers," but I don't really think it's all that important to reward strikeout pitchers more than others with similar stats.

Yeah.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Wouldn't OPS against be the best measure?

it would have to be adjusted as well, but i agree that it's a good one.

 

[bialczabub]

The BEST indicator available is probably DIPS.

 

[Righetti]

Jonathan Papelbon down?

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

He's borderline for me and I'm the type that seems to want to let "too many" players in.

I don't think I ever considered him the dominant closer in the league.

honestly?

Yeah. You did?I'm fully willing to admit I may be wrong on this one...

1998 he was not only the dominant closer in the league, he may have been the dominant pitcher in the league.Yeah, he's kinda one of those lull you to sleep kind of guys, but he is money in the bank. His lifetime WHIP is 1.05 vs. 1.25 or so for Lee Smith. Well over a K/IP kinda pitcher who has totally retoooled his approach after earlier being able to hit mid-high 90's, now 85 is about top speed.

He has been so good for so long people simply forget how good he's been. He's led or come in second in the majors in saves 6x. This year he's having another tremendous year and no one even knows it. He will end his career, almost assuredly, as the career saves leader. This is Hoffman's 14th year (only 37 and he missed all of 2003 I believe), while Smith had played 18 years. The only other reliever deserving of the HOF currently would be Mariano Rivera.....all my opinion, which isn't worth a crap since I don't vote and believe Jim Rice should be in ahead of all of them

His 98 season will only be remembered for giving up Brosius gopher ball.This is crazy talk that he's even being mentioned as a HOFer while Goose is on the outside looking in.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

His 98 season will only be remembered for giving up Brosius gopher ball.

This is crazy talk that he's even being mentioned as a HOFer while Goose is on the outside looking in.

Meh, that 98 season was pretty damn good. Many of us consider the whole season, not just the postseason.Goose had his flaws. I think if you say Goose should be in, the door will be wide open for a guy like Hoffman.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'll throw out another example in the theoretical numbers side of the house.

Which is more important for a reliever (or any pitcher for thar matter), the stats or winning?

PLAYER A had a 2.00 ERA, a 1.00 WHIP, and averages a K per IP but ends the year 0-6, 32 saves, and had 8 blown saves. Basically in games with decisions or save situations his team went 32-14. Maybe his ERA was low because he let a lot of inherited runners to score (earned or unearned).

PLAYER B who had a 4.00 ERA, a 1.40 WHIP, unimpressive K/IP but went 5-1 with 40 saves and only 2 blown saves. Maybe his ERA was high becuase in his 2 blown saves he got shelled and they left him in to rest the rest of the bullpen. His record in games with decisions or save situations was 45-3.

The bottom line in these examples is that PLAYER B'S team won more than PLAYER A'S team did in situations relying on the closer. PLAYER B gave up a few more runs and baserunners over the span of the season. So what? (I know, people will say that over the long haul PLAYER A will do better and PLAYER B will not do as well as things will even out.)

Let's look at this more from a business perspective. A manager tells two employees that they need to land a new account but have $50,000 to spent to be able to do it. EMPLOYEE 1 comes in under budget and only spends $40,000--but doesn't land that $1 million account. EMPLOYEE 2 comes in over budget and spends $60,000--but gets the $1 million account. Come time for promotion, who is going to get promoted, EMPLOYEE 1 or EMPLOYEE 2? I doubt anyone will even remember that EMPLOYEE 1 came in under budget because he did not bring in any additional revenue.

I have looked into ways to better analyze stats on many levels, and sometimes I think ERA is a bogus statistic. I have seen plenty of games when a guy was getting out and out shelled but had the "good fortune" of having an outfielder have to dash across the outfield on a missile and have it glance off his glove for an error on what easily could have been scored a hit. The pitcher continued to get rocked and allowed 8 runs in that inning, but because of the error 6-7 of the runs were offically recorded as unearned. IMO, that is not helping the team any and the pitcher's ERA did not go up at all even though he was horrible.

As other's have mentioned, it is possible due to bad luck or bad timing to have great peripheral numbers and a medicocre ERA. And it's possible to have a great ERA and a terrible record (ask Nolan Ryan when he went 8-16 but led the league in Ks and ERA). And Mark Mulder ranks Top 20 all-time in Winning %, yet his lifetime ERA is 4.03 with a 1.32 WHIP. There are a lot of examples where the statistics don't make sense, and deciphering those results becomes almost impossible.

Obviously the best outcome is a player with great numbers and a great winning and/or save percentage, but there are only a handful of guys in that category and after that is where it starts getting messy.

As for Hoffman, he's allowed 900 baserunners in 857.1 IP for a 1.05 WHIP. If he allowed 100 more baserunners and kept his other numbers the same, his WHIP would be 1.17. Would that make any difference in evaluating him at all? That's 7 more baserunners a year over his career.

I yearn for the old days of baaseball (old to me is the 70s) when a closer was brought in to get out of jams with runners on base in key situations from the 7th inning on instead of the start the 9th inning with the bases empty and a 3-run lead. If the closer got out of it, he earned his save and sometimes pitched 3 innings to get it.

Now almost anyone can be a closer. Think about it. What's the most likely outcome for any pitcher in any inning pitched? No runs scored. Look at any boxscore--that's the most common run total in any given inning. Somehow we have gotten to the point where we have rewarded and tout pitchers for being able to pitch a single inning and get the most common result for a single inning.

If baseball wants to start putting closers in on a consistent basis, I seeno reason why Hoffman wouldn't be a legit candidate. But if you take him, there are a lot of other guys that merit consideration.

 

[guru_007]

I'll throw out another example in the theoretical numbers side of the house.Which is more important for a reliever (or any pitcher for thar matter), the stats or winning?PLAYER A had a 2.00 ERA, a 1.00 WHIP, and averages a K per IP but ends the year 0-6, 32 saves, and had 8 blown saves. Basically in games with decisions or save situations his team went 32-14. Maybe his ERA was low because he let a lot of inherited runners to score (earned or unearned).PLAYER B who had a 4.00 ERA, a 1.40 WHIP, unimpressive K/IP but went 5-1 with 40 saves and only 2 blown saves. Maybe his ERA was high becuase in his 2 blown saves he got shelled and they left him in to rest the rest of the bullpen. His record in games with decisions or save situations was 45-3.The bottom line in these examples is that PLAYER B'S team won more than PLAYER A'S team did in situations relying on the closer. PLAYER B gave up a few more runs and baserunners over the span of the season. So what? (I know, people will say that over the long haul PLAYER A will do better and PLAYER B will not do as well as things will even out.)

David, I agree with the majority of your post....however....WHIP and K/IP are a strong indicator of a pitchers actual performance, but past and expected future performance, and as had been argued at length, ERA is a measure that has many other variables outside of the pitchers control. It's still a yardstick and should be used as such, but there are better numbers to look at when comparing actual apples to apples.As per your examples up top, again on a ONE season basis, obviously Player B was more important to his team than Player A. However, when evaluating a player over his entire career, there is just no way that these numbers will hold true. In your example above, I would use the following real life players as exampleslayer A - Billy Wagner, circa 1997. A young promising reliever who hasn't quite gotten down the art of nailing down the save. He can dominate 80% of the time (32/40), however, the other times he isn't quite as dominant. However, as per his other periphery numbers, it can be argued that this guy has the makings of a stud reliever. He is allowing 1 base running per inning to reach base and striking out 1 per inning. Obviously he is for the most part over powering hitters, except in some cases when he is hittable, teams have taken advantage.Player B - Danny Graves, circa 2002. While I think 40 saves (with just two blown saves) is a bit optimistic for a guy that is letting nearly a runner and a half on per 9 innings, and not able to strike out anyone on the other teams, he has been a very effective pitcher for one year. But, again, this is a one year basis. If I am a general manager, and all you have given me are the stats listed above, and you want me to sign one pitcher for the upcoming season, I am going to take Pitcher A. Results are one thing, but in an unknown season, expected results are what I have to go on.Again, a guy like Trevor Hoffman has been as reliable a reliever there has been for going on a dozen seasons now. And while I would agree that Rivera is a more dominant reliever, and more HOF worthy, does none of that have to do with the teams they have pitched for? How many times has SD reached the playoffs or WS the past 12 years? If Hoffman had the national spotlight that the Yankees have had, putting up identical numbers, do you not think he would received more recognition?Does it surprise anyone that Hoffman has a significantly better K/IP ration than Mariano Rivera? Their WHIP's are near identical over their respective careers, while Rivera's ERA is quite a bit better. Everyone always equates a dominant closer with one who is overpowering and able to strike everyone out.

 

[SofaKings]

As soon as Jack Morris gets in, Trevor can move up the ballot.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'll throw out another example in the theoretical numbers side of the house.

Which is more important for a reliever (or any pitcher for thar matter), the stats or winning?

PLAYER A had a 2.00 ERA, a 1.00 WHIP, and averages a K per IP but ends the year 0-6, 32 saves, and had 8 blown saves.  Basically in games with decisions or save situations his team went 32-14.  Maybe his ERA was low because he let a lot of inherited runners to score (earned or unearned).

PLAYER B who had a 4.00 ERA, a 1.40 WHIP, unimpressive K/IP but went 5-1 with 40 saves and only 2 blown saves.  Maybe his ERA was high becuase in his 2 blown saves he got shelled and they left him in to rest the rest of the bullpen.  His record in games with decisions or save situations was 45-3.

The bottom line in these examples is that PLAYER B'S team won more than PLAYER A'S team did in situations relying on the closer.  PLAYER B gave up a few more runs and baserunners over the span of the season.  So what?  (I know, people will say that over the long haul PLAYER A will do better and PLAYER B will not do as well as things will even out.)

David, I agree with the majority of your post....however....WHIP and K/IP are a strong indicator of a pitchers actual performance, but past and expected future performance, and as had been argued at length, ERA is a measure that has many other variables outside of the pitchers control. It's still a yardstick and should be used as such, but there are better numbers to look at when comparing actual apples to apples.As per your examples up top, again on a ONE season basis, obviously Player B was more important to his team than Player A. However, when evaluating a player over his entire career, there is just no way that these numbers will hold true. In your example above, I would use the following real life players as examples:

Player A - Billy Wagner, circa 1997. A young promising reliever who hasn't quite gotten down the art of nailing down the save. He can dominate 80% of the time (32/40), however, the other times he isn't quite as dominant. However, as per his other periphery numbers, it can be argued that this guy has the makings of a stud reliever. He is allowing 1 base running per inning to reach base and striking out 1 per inning. Obviously he is for the most part over powering hitters, except in some cases when he is hittable, teams have taken advantage.

Player B - Danny Graves, circa 2002. While I think 40 saves (with just two blown saves) is a bit optimistic for a guy that is letting nearly a runner and a half on per 9 innings, and not able to strike out anyone on the other teams, he has been a very effective pitcher for one year. But, again, this is a one year basis. If I am a general manager, and all you have given me are the stats listed above, and you want me to sign one pitcher for the upcoming season, I am going to take Pitcher A. Results are one thing, but in an unknown season, expected results are what I have to go on.

Again, a guy like Trevor Hoffman has been as reliable a reliever there has been for going on a dozen seasons now. And while I would agree that Rivera is a more dominant reliever, and more HOF worthy, does none of that have to do with the teams they have pitched for? How many times has SD reached the playoffs or WS the past 12 years? If Hoffman had the national spotlight that the Yankees have had, putting up identical numbers, do you not think he would received more recognition?

Does it surprise anyone that Hoffman has a significantly better K/IP ration than Mariano Rivera? Their WHIP's are near identical over their respective careers, while Rivera's ERA is quite a bit better. Everyone always equates a dominant closer with one who is overpowering and able to strike everyone out.

I am not saying that other measurables do not have a place, nor am I saying that they are not good evaluation tools in their own right. I agree that in theory players with better WHP an K/9 numbers should be expected to normally have better ERAs and therefore better winning percentages, but we've already seen a ton of examples where the planets don't align.If I had a specific point about Hoffman, it was that just because his WHIP and K/9 numbers are solid does not in and off itself mean he was better than someone like Lee Smith. As I just outlined, I hold closers in about the same light as designated hitters. They both are specialists and is there a place in the HOF for guys that in this era basically have to get three outs before they give up three runs.

You touched upon perhaps the single most debatable issue in sports--does playing on a specific team matter when evaluating a player's career? I would have to say yes in a big way.

Hoffman could easily have done what Rivera has done if he were a Yankee. He could have been the one that was lethal in the post season and won multiple World Series titles. But he didn't. He played for the Padres. That certainly will not help his HOF cause any.

That's part of the problem with evaluating players in general but certainly with pitchers in general. Take Roger Clemens from last year and put him on the Red Sox or Yankees and he could have been 25-3. But that didn't happen either. We only can compare what actually happened not what might have happened. If Michael Jordan played on the Clippers, would he be still consider the best (or one of the best) basketball players of all time? Would Jerry Rice be the all time receiving leader if he spent his career playing for Tampa Bay?

Let's look at another pitcher, Tom Glavine. He has a career 286-186 record with a 3.44 career ERA, 1.30 WHIP, and 5.3 K/9. He has the 9th best career ERA and 27th best WHIP of current starting pitchers. Glavine's career ERA is not terrible, but his Adjusted ERA+ is like 99th all time among qualifying pitchers. Is Glavine a HOFer?

 

[guru_007]

If I had a specific point about Hoffman, it was that just because his WHIP and K/9 numbers are solid does not in and off itself mean he was better than someone like Lee Smith. As I just outlined, I hold closers in about the same light as designated hitters. They both are specialists and is there a place in the HOF for guys that in this era basically have to get three outs before they give up three runs....Let's look at another pitcher, Tom Glavine. He has a career 286-186 record with a 3.44 career ERA, 1.30 WHIP, and 5.3 K/9. He has the 9th best career ERA and 27th best WHIP of current starting pitchers. Glavine's career ERA is not terrible, but his Adjusted ERA+ is like 99th all time among qualifying pitchers. Is Glavine a HOFer?

I'm not the best at replying to specific quotes, so I just stole the two points I wanted to respond to as everything else was right on.I agree with the relievers and DH's are specialists......and in order to make a case for one of these two "positions" to get in, they need to do something special. You mention that just because Hoffman's career WHIP and K/IP ratios are better than Smith, that doesn't necessarily make him better. Sure, I agree these in and of themselves do not make him a better pitcher. However, when comparing the two, they are a good place to start. And when you have one guy with a career WHIP of 1.05 and the other guy with 1.25, well that's a pretty big difference. When I factor that with the fact that Hoffman is going to end his career with the all-time saves record, pretty easily in fact, again I'm going to say Hoffman has had a brillaint career and if not HOF worthy (which I think he is), he should be on the VERY short list of relief pitchers worthy of induction. Better than Gossage. Better than Smith. Gossage's merits are his few dominant seasons on WS teams. Plus he wasn't a one inning reliever. But, his overall career was simply not that brilliant. Very good, sure. Smith's merits are his sheer numbers. But when you compare Hoffman's sheer numbers when he retires to Smith's, they are going to blow him out of the water, and these are basically contemporaries of each other. Gossage pitched is a bit of a different era, but Smith benefitted from one inning saves, just as much as Hoffman.The Glavine argument is a good one, as you point out his WHIP is very ordinary, and he benefitted from great teams receiving a ton of wins. He's going to have to go in, just because he will reach 300 wins, but I never had the feeling when he was pitching that he was a HOF pitcher. Even with in his Cy Young seasons he had good seasons, not dominant. 20 wins total on a division winner. mid 2's ERA. Very pedestrian K and WHIP numbers. But to pitch so well for so long (just like Hoffman) bodes well for HOF induction.

 

[PIK95]

He is in without a doubt, IMO.

 

[David Yudkin]

As another example of what is noteworthy and what isn't, which is a better pictcher over his career (assuming they played at the same time) . . .

PLAYER A

15 wins a year x 20 years = 300 wins

PLAYER B

20 wins a year x 12 years = 240 wins

Assuming the rest of their numbers in terms of ERA, WHIP, K/9, etc. are similar, who has a better chance of being a HOFer? Probably PLAYER A because his win total was so high. But I am pretty sure PLAYER B accomplished something much harder to do in winning 60 more games over the course of his career than PLAYER A did over his 12 years in the league. (In the same 12-year timeframe, PLAYER A had 180 wins vs 240 for PLAYER B.) This may not be the best example, as not many players in the modern era have averaged 20 wins a year, but the concept is pretty clear anyway.

That's my biggest concern for HOF consideration for almost any sport. PLAYER B may have always outproduced PLAYER A but because PLAYER A played a few extra mediocre years PLAYER gets to Canton or Cooperstown while PLAYER B needs a ticket. I don't see why hanging on for a full mediocre seasons makes a player's HOF candidacy that much better when many times the age 38-41 years the player may even be below average at his position.

This is what gets me about someone like Jim Rice. He could have been a ho-hum OF/1B/DH type for 3 or 4 more seasons and ended up with some better total career numbers, but the fact that he didn't get to 400 home runs is held against him. If he wanted to play until say Barry Bonds' age, he probably could have milked it to get to 3,000 hits, so he could have hung on to get say 450 HR and 3,000 hits with 1,700 RBI. IMO, that would have been a waste of a player, a roster spot, and would have been a negative to the Red Sox for all those years. He could of stuck around and played there or elsewhere, but he hung them up rather than be a part-timer with limited value to the team.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

His 98 season will only be remembered for giving up Brosius gopher ball.

This is crazy talk that he's even being mentioned as a HOFer while Goose is on the outside looking in.

Meh, that 98 season was pretty damn good. Many of us consider the whole season, not just the postseason.Goose had his flaws. I think if you say Goose should be in, the door will be wide open for a guy like Hoffman.

Goose's biggest flaw is tangiblity to his numbers. He doesn't have as many saves as Hoffman. Hell, he doesn't have as many saves as Jose Mesa. But he was a shutdown reliever who rarely faltered on the big stage. Hoffman spit the bit in two of his highest profile games, the World Series where at home San Diego might have gotten back into it, and in the All-Star game this week(granted, far less import on that one). I think those kinds of high profile, national failures will only take down his reputation. Hoffman has a much smaller post season sample, but he's got two blown saves and three saves, in his career postseason. Picking up creampuff saves in the west against the Rockies and D-Backs shouldn't weigh too heavily in this debate.

To me, it's a simple matter of watching ball over the eras. And if you could have Goose at his best or Hoffman at his best, it's a no brainer to me. Goose all the way.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

The last two games are a great microchasm of a very good, but not a hall of fame pitcher. On the biggest stage, you don't want Hoffman closing, and he is NOT a Hall of Famer.

 

[Capella]

Don't people realize how difficult it is for a closer to get in? The only active closer who is a lock is Rivera -- and I can't think of anybody else offhand that's going to have a shot. Hoffman has had a great career, but the Pads haven't had much success, he's never had much chance to perform in the big moments, he's in a small market and his stats aren't exactly mind-blowing.There's no way this guy goes into the HOF.

Slammed shut tonight.

 

[Reality Football]

If anything a choke like this makes Lee Smith look better viz. Hoffman.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Numbers wise I think he gets in. Every closer blows saves in pressure situations.

 

[WampusCat43]

We'll still trade you Gary Majewski, Todd Coffey and two old St. Bernards for him.

*Redsfan*

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Numbers wise I think he gets in. Every closer blows saves in pressure situations.

Yeah but you would think Hall of Famer closers would eventually get some saves in pressure games.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The last two games are a great microchasm of a very good, but not a hall of fame pitcher. On the biggest stage, you don't want Hoffman closing, and he is NOT a Hall of Famer.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Don't people realize how difficult it is for a closer to get in? The only active closer who is a lock is Rivera -- and I can't think of anybody else offhand that's going to have a shot. Hoffman has had a great career, but the Pads haven't had much success, he's never had much chance to perform in the big moments, he's in a small market and his stats aren't exactly mind-blowing.There's no way this guy goes into the HOF.

Slammed shut tonight.

Yep. 42-47 in save chances this year kills his HOF chances.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

The last two games are a great microchasm of a very good, but not a hall of fame pitcher. On the biggest stage, you don't want Hoffman closing, and he is NOT a Hall of Famer.

Forget this?

 

[Smack Tripper]

Bump for the retirement