Pitchers With Losing Records, HOF Worthy?

boblight24 · 03-31-2008, 11:45 AM

In a replay of MLB History from 1901, I am seeing numerous pitchers getting into the Hall of Fame with losing records. Is this okay with baseball purists?

Red Donahue
1893-1915
247-273 3.27 ERA 610 G 433 CG 14SV 4,682.1 IP 378.2 VORP
Chick Robitaille
1903-1917
230-273 2.97 ERA 530 G 438 CG 4,593.1 IP 401.9VORP

Jim St Vrain
1901-1916
238-248 2.80 ERA 573 G 396 CG 15SV 4,538 IP 499.6 VORP

Just wanted some thoughts on the matter, there are also a handful of guys with just over .500 W/L records.

littlechris1977 · 03-31-2008, 11:56 AM

If they were the only good players on crappy teams, I'd say it's OK

Simmo13 · 03-31-2008, 12:31 PM

I would think that numbers other than W/L are more heavily weighted in the decision, VORP etc. The recent highly entertaining (and informative) "Malarkey" thread is worth a browse.

dawurm9 · 03-31-2008, 12:44 PM

In terms of ERA and wins most of these pitchers would be easily into our real-life HOF. The losses are skewed because of the huge amount of complete games these guys are throwing. Losses that would usually go to relievers in 3-2 games are being picked up by these guys since they seem to throw a complete game the majority of their starts. Looks like these are great pitchers on bad to average teams. HOF worthy to me.

rogmax11 · 03-31-2008, 01:20 PM

The HOF issue within the game is reflective of the minimums that are in effect upon your starting the game with the default values. The selection of all pitchers with more than 250 wins ignores other factors, including losses.

What I suggest is deleting the HOF minimums entirely and selecting your entrants manually.

Kelric · 03-31-2008, 01:59 PM

Those VORPs are nothing special. Depending on the number of innings and CGs other guys in their league throw during their careers, if anybody else is close or has better record (even fewer wins if it means a lot fewer losses) I probably would not put them in the HoF based just on the stats you give for them. St. Vrain would have the best chance of me letting him in.

BaseballMan · 03-31-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawurm9

In terms of ERA and wins most of these pitchers would be easily into our real-life HOF. The losses are skewed because of the huge amount of complete games these guys are throwing. Losses that would usually go to relievers in 3-2 games are being picked up by these guys since they seem to throw a complete game the majority of their starts. Looks like these are great pitchers on bad to average teams. HOF worthy to me.

I dont know. Maybe for this era but for the era they pitch i doubt that they would have made it. Look at how many pithcers with losing records made it from that era. Of course we might have to keep in mind players werent voted into the HOF until 1936. I might put St. Vrain in but losing almost 30 games more than youwin makes it harder decision for the other two. Id have to know how they compare to the other pitchers of that simulated era before i could make a fair judgement.

Syd Thrift · 03-31-2008, 07:03 PM

[broken record]

This is a symptom of pitchers in the game being too consistent.

[/broken record]

MadMax58 · 03-31-2008, 07:15 PM

Despite being deaball era pitching...I'd have to imagine there are pitchers with winning records who should have

(a) a reversal of those w/l ratios
(b) better ERA
(c) better VORP ratings

Therefore...I would say no, as it looks to me the HoF is basing it's decision on wins and ERA qualifiers...and not as much on VORP.

The Wolf · 03-31-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boblight24

Is this okay with baseball purists?

I'm not a purist, but if it happened in my league I'd still be distressed by it.

In fact I'd probably post about it here just like you did.

boblight24 · 04-01-2008, 10:53 AM

I appreciate all the input. In some ways I feel like the "blind" inductions of these players is what the HOF should be about and in other ways I cringe at the idea of losing records being immortalized on a plaque. I should mention that Jim St Vrain was a MONSTER pitcher and then all of sudden hit a wall. He was drafted by the BoSox and won 3 Outstanding Pitcher Awards and led the league in wins 4 times and then all of sudden one season he ended up with a 12-30 record and was subsequently traded and bounced around and brought his record back up, but he never really recovered from that 30-loss season. He did end up being a very good relief pitcher in an era where they were unheard of.

What I have decided to do, and I've found it to be very exciting, is to take Bill James' Hall of Fame Monitor and Black Ink Test and plug in the stats of the players who are eligible for the HOF and use that and create my own HOF. As the year progress in my replay I will post some results.

StyxNCa · 04-01-2008, 01:34 PM

I think I would have to compare the pitcher's winning % with the overall winning % of the teams he played on during his career. If his % is much better than the teams he played on, I would put him in. If he is about equal to or worse than those teams, then obviously not.

Eugene Church · 04-04-2008, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogmax11

The HOF issue within the game is reflective of the minimums that are in effect upon your starting the game with the default values. The selection of all pitchers with more than 250 wins ignores other factors, including losses.

What I suggest is deleting the HOF minimums entirely and selecting your entrants manually.

This is a fine suggestion.

I ran a 30-year test league using V2007 and found that there were many, many unworthy Hall of Famers.

I will manually put in the Hall of Famer from now on.

03-31-2008, 11:45 AM	#1
boblight24 All Star Reserve Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Beyond Is Where I Roam Posts: 554 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	Pitchers With Losing Records, HOF Worthy? In a replay of MLB History from 1901, I am seeing numerous pitchers getting into the Hall of Fame with losing records. Is this okay with baseball purists? Red Donahue 1893-1915 247-273 3.27 ERA 610 G 433 CG 14SV 4,682.1 IP 378.2 VORP Chick Robitaille 1903-1917 230-273 2.97 ERA 530 G 438 CG 4,593.1 IP 401.9VORP Jim St Vrain 1901-1916 238-248 2.80 ERA 573 G 396 CG 15SV 4,538 IP 499.6 VORP Just wanted some thoughts on the matter, there are also a handful of guys with just over .500 W/L records. __________________ "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda "Good is not good enough, when better is expected." ~Vin Scully

03-31-2008, 11:56 AM	#2
littlechris1977 Major Leagues Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 437	If they were the only good players on crappy teams, I'd say it's OK __________________ I can do all things... Philippians 4:13

04-01-2008, 10:53 AM	#11
boblight24 All Star Reserve Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Beyond Is Where I Roam Posts: 554 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	I appreciate all the input. In some ways I feel like the "blind" inductions of these players is what the HOF should be about and in other ways I cringe at the idea of losing records being immortalized on a plaque. I should mention that Jim St Vrain was a MONSTER pitcher and then all of sudden hit a wall. He was drafted by the BoSox and won 3 Outstanding Pitcher Awards and led the league in wins 4 times and then all of sudden one season he ended up with a 12-30 record and was subsequently traded and bounced around and brought his record back up, but he never really recovered from that 30-loss season. He did end up being a very good relief pitcher in an era where they were unheard of. What I have decided to do, and I've found it to be very exciting, is to take Bill James' Hall of Fame Monitor and Black Ink Test and plug in the stats of the players who are eligible for the HOF and use that and create my own HOF. As the year progress in my replay I will post some results. __________________ "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda "Good is not good enough, when better is expected." ~Vin Scully

03-31-2008, 12:31 PM	#3
Simmo13 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: those blue remembered hills Posts: 955	I would think that numbers other than W/L are more heavily weighted in the decision, VORP etc. The recent highly entertaining (and informative) "Malarkey" thread is worth a browse.

03-31-2008, 12:44 PM	#4
dawurm9 Bat Boy Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 17	In terms of ERA and wins most of these pitchers would be easily into our real-life HOF. The losses are skewed because of the huge amount of complete games these guys are throwing. Losses that would usually go to relievers in 3-2 games are being picked up by these guys since they seem to throw a complete game the majority of their starts. Looks like these are great pitchers on bad to average teams. HOF worthy to me.

03-31-2008, 01:20 PM	#5
rogmax11 All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,320	The HOF issue within the game is reflective of the minimums that are in effect upon your starting the game with the default values. The selection of all pitchers with more than 250 wins ignores other factors, including losses. What I suggest is deleting the HOF minimums entirely and selecting your entrants manually.

03-31-2008, 01:59 PM	#6
Kelric Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Greater Boston Area Posts: 3,992	Those VORPs are nothing special. Depending on the number of innings and CGs other guys in their league throw during their careers, if anybody else is close or has better record (even fewer wins if it means a lot fewer losses) I probably would not put them in the HoF based just on the stats you give for them. St. Vrain would have the best chance of me letting him in.

03-31-2008, 07:15 PM	#9
MadMax58 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 266	Despite being deaball era pitching...I'd have to imagine there are pitchers with winning records who should have (a) a reversal of those w/l ratios (b) better ERA (c) better VORP ratings Therefore...I would say no, as it looks to me the HoF is basing it's decision on wins and ERA qualifiers...and not as much on VORP.

04-01-2008, 01:34 PM	#12
StyxNCa Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Victoria, Texas Posts: 3,136	I think I would have to compare the pitcher's winning % with the overall winning % of the teams he played on during his career. If his % is much better than the teams he played on, I would put him in. If he is about equal to or worse than those teams, then obviously not.