Does 300 wins automatically equal Hall of Fame?

[joefromchicago]

Here's a pitcher in my league who the AI inducted into the Hall of Fame.*



Some background: This pitcher played his entire career for one team. He never won the outstanding pitcher award, but he was named to five all-star squads. He never led the league in wins or strikeouts, although he led the league twice in losses. He won the ERA title twice and led the league twice in WHIP and once in VORP. His team went to the postseason only once in his 22-year career, and he spent most of that season in the minors and did not pitch in the championship series. He is the career leader in games, games started, complete games, innings pitched, and hits allowed, and is second overall in strikeouts (although he is 45th in career K/9IP). He is sixth all-time for wins, but, not surprisingly, he's first overall in losses.

This is a pitcher who embodies Woody Allen's maxim that 90% of life is just showing up. Basically, this is a guy who won 344 games just by showing up. He was the number one or two pitcher on a bunch of mediocre teams for a long, long time. The teams he played on had a .468 winning percentage, while he ended up with a .441 winning percentage.

Obviously, if he had a career record of 172-217 rather than 344-436, he would never be considered for the Hall of Fame. Nevertheless, he did win over 300 games, which is quite an accomplishment, even if he lost a lot more than he won. So, does he go into the HofF or not?


*I won't name the pitcher, and I'm removing the seasons and team info because I'm twenty seasons ahead of my dynasty report, so this player is still active in the reports.

[ike121212]

I found these facts interesting:

• In general, 55 WAR has been the midpoint level for all Hall of Famers as three-fourths of the eligible players with 55 or more WAR are in the Hall of Fame.
• 84 percent of eligible players with 63 or more WAR are in the Hall of Fame

Cy Young has the top all-time pitcher WAR at 146. The W/L might be eye catching, but a 150 WAR is an overwhelming 'Yes'.

[RchW]

There are no real life analogues to this guy so it's difficult to use real life comparisons. Since that's all we have I'll point out that Eppa Rixey and Nolan Ryan are the lowest win% pitchers in real life to be in the HoF. Rixey was a veterans committee choice so is suspect anyway. Ryan had a career win% of 0.526, Rixey 0.515.

Regarding WAR, no one IRL could possibly achieve these levels of WAR while losing. It's also unique to OOTP that pitchers who lose a lot continue to pitch irrespective of the results. It makes me question whether the WAR in BBref is calculated the same way as OOTP. I'm no expert on WAR so I may be off base with that challenge.

He is definitely HoF on quantity. Is there a real life pitcher with high WAR and a losing record?

[Matt Arnold]

If a pitcher can go 300+ IP for 21 seasons, I say he deserves into the Hall. Of course, no way in real life should he pitch that long. I mean, geez, his career K/BB is like 1.4:1, which is terrible. His seasons up until he was ~28 were pretty solid overall.

Real life he'd probably be down to a bottom rotation starter by his age 32 season, once he started putting up 1:1 K:BB numbers. And he definitely shouldn't have been given 400 IP a season when he's putting up 1:2 K:BB numbers a few years later.

But given the stats, I think he makes it into the Hall, at least for enduring through.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by RchW

Regarding WAR, no one IRL could possibly achieve these levels of WAR while losing. It's also unique to OOTP that pitchers who lose a lot continue to pitch irrespective of the results. It makes me question whether the WAR in BBref is calculated the same way as OOTP. I'm no expert on WAR so I may be off base with that challenge.

I think you're right on this, because a pitcher that good wouldn't play for teams that bad for his entire career. It's equivalent of Nolan Ryan spending his entire career with the modern day Pirates. Ryan is a good comparision because their ERA+ is very close.

[hopeful1212]

Seems odd that he compiled 150 WAR while his ERA+ is only 108 for his career.

[prodgers]

With an ERA of 2.70 over 2500 k's and a good bb/k ratio, a career BABIP of .286, over 300 wins... the only negative he has is the losing record. If he had a winning record or even .500 wp would we be having this conversation? I say he's in. As far as WAR is concerned or how it's calculated and how it effects the HOF, the stat itself is less than 15 years old so as far as using it as who get in and who doesn't IMO it doesn't belong in the conversation. Yes it is an informative stat and yes it is a good measurement of....something, but for over 100 years it wasn't even around. (there...that ought to spark some lively debate)

edit: looking at his runs vs earned runs the reason he lost seems say more about the team backing him up (or in this case..not) Perhaps the closest RL in that regard would be Walter Johnson

[joefromchicago]

First of all, thanks for all the replies. Let me clarify one thing: this guy was pitching in the 1880s and '90s, so the 300+ IP per season and sub 3.00 ERAs are pretty standard for a starting pitcher of that era.

Originally Posted by RchW

Regarding WAR, no one IRL could possibly achieve these levels of WAR while losing. It's also unique to OOTP that pitchers who lose a lot continue to pitch irrespective of the results. It makes me question whether the WAR in BBref is calculated the same way as OOTP. I'm no expert on WAR so I may be off base with that challenge.

His highest WAR was for a season in which he went 16-31 with an ERA+ of 92, so I also have my doubts about WAR as a valid statistic, at least for this time period.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by prodgers

As far as WAR is concerned or how it's calculated and how it effects the HOF, the stat itself is less than 15 years old so as far as using it as who get in and who doesn't IMO it doesn't belong in the conversation. Yes it is an informative stat and yes it is a good measurement of....something, but for over 100 years it wasn't even around. (there...that ought to spark some lively debate)

Fair enough, but there's not much league adjusted information here to work off. ERA+, WAR, and VORP are essentially adjusted and tell the same story.

This guy's stats are more staggering every time I look at them. Until 28, he was better than Cy Young. He was a completely different pitcher at 29...but then didn't age between 29 and 42. It's as if Cy Young turned into Phil Niekro.

[prodgers]

Originally Posted by ike121212

It's as if Cy Young turned into Phil Niekro.

[scott1964]

[PhillieFever]

Looking just at the guy's numbers makes it impossible to make a decision, because you need to know the environment in which those numbers were accrued. A 50 homer season in 2001 has nowhere near the same impact as a 50 homer season today. What was the league average ERA for the time period? What type of park did he pitch in? What was the average WAR for pitcher of the year winners?

[jbergey22]

With the environment he played in (1884-1906) assuming default. Id say no I guess. Interesting career that is for sure.

A slightly above average pitcher with a LONG career doesnt quite do it for me. IMO its like putting Derrick Lowe in the HOF in todays environment.

EDIT
Ok this appears like the time frame for the pitcher but I guess I am not sure. I was combining the stats from the OP with the Bill Vinton years. Let me know if I am wrong about the years and Id probably change my vote.

[Bol]

In today's environment it probably does, unless something really extreme happens - e.g. Jamie Moyer plays for another dozen years and gets to 300 wins.

But it all really depends on the environment - in the Dead Ball Era, not so much.

[Chicagofan76]

Joe I am typically a firm believer that any SP with 300 wins should be a 1st ballot HOFer but not in this case. No SP should go into the HOF with a losing record, his #'s are impressive though. His HR totals are a bit high for the era and his SHO a tad low, but being on a bad team will do that.
55% of me says no 45% of me says yes.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

What was the league average ERA for the time period? What type of park did he pitch in? What was the average WAR for pitcher of the year winners?

That would take a fair amount of work. Like I said in the original post, he led the league twice in ERA. He finished in the top ten eight times. His ERA+ numbers, however, are relative measures, so they give an idea of where he stood among his fellow pitchers.

He never led the league in WAR. He was in the top ten six times, and was second in the league when he was 28 (12.3). But WAR is a relative measure too, so you really don't need to know everybody's WAR to know whether a number is good or not.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by prodgers

edit: looking at his runs vs earned runs the reason he lost seems say more about the team backing him up (or in this case..not) Perhaps the closest RL in that regard would be Walter Johnson

I'm sure that played a part, but error totals for that era (1880s, 1890s) were really high -- it wasn't unusual for a team to commit eight or nine errors in a single game. Although he might have high numbers for unearned runs, then, his total is probably not very unusual compared to other pitchers of that era.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Ok this appears like the time frame for the pitcher but I guess I am not sure. I was combining the stats from the OP with the Bill Vinton years. Let me know if I am wrong about the years and Id probably change my vote.

No, you're correct. This pitcher was active in the 1880s and '90s, so right around the same time as Vinton. At least Vinton had a winning record

[Germaniac]

I would say YES

As soon as a pitcher has won 300 games, he deserves to go in, just like a hitter getting 3000 hits.

One basic reason is you have to stay in the big leagues long enough to get to that milestone, so my basic thinking is that that player has to perform on a certain level (compared to the rest of the players in the majors) so that he even gets the chance to win that many games.

If you look at his stats you see that he except for three season started well over 30 games, so he definitely was a key part to that pitching staff - his stats were pretty solid, in his mid-20's even outstanding, the only thing that IMO maybe would speak against him is that from age 30 on his walk/strikeout-ratio was 1266:1181 after a 566:1386 before age 30.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Germaniac

I would say YES

As soon as a pitcher has won 300 games, he deserves to go in, just like a hitter getting 3000 hits.

One basic reason is you have to stay in the big leagues long enough to get to that milestone, so my basic thinking is that that player has to perform on a certain level (compared to the rest of the players in the majors) so that he even gets the chance to win that many games.

If you look at his stats you see that he except for three season started well over 30 games, so he definitely was a key part to that pitching staff - his stats were pretty solid, in his mid-20's even outstanding, the only thing that IMO maybe would speak against him is that from age 30 on his walk/strikeout-ratio was 1266:1181 after a 566:1386 before age 30.

This time frame though made it common for pitchers to get 40+ starts and 350+ innings. Pitchers werent babied like they are today. 300 wins back then would be like 150 wins in today environment. The case could be made that he was an above average starter for 22 years however without being an excellent starter. Some people put a lot into longevity. I think its a really tough call actually. But its not because of the 300 wins