Is a starting pitcher with a losing record hof worthy? - Page 2

1991Cubs · 08-28-2023, 11:39 PM

In real life this seems like one of those players who would get in through the Veterans Committee 50 years after his death. Obviously, the game does not simulate that, so I say vote him in.

joefromchicago · 08-29-2023, 12:46 AM

I don't think this is a HOF problem so much as it is an OOTP problem.

As I discussed in this post, OOTP has a tendency to keep losing pitchers on major-league rosters far longer than would have been true in real life. In the history of the majors, only two pitchers have ever retired with losing records and over 200 wins: Jack Powell and Bobo Newsom. In contrast, I think it's fairly common to see pitchers in OOTP achieve that combination of stats.

Why is that? Well, I think it's a combination of factors:

OOTP focuses more on ratings than stats, something that, of course, would have been inaccessible to a real-life team. A manager in 1880 would have looked at a pitcher's ERA, IP, win-loss record, and maybe K/BB ratio and that's about it. A pitcher with a record like Bobby Mathews here probably would have been sent back to the bushes after the 1876 season, never to be heard from again. OOTP, I think, discounts win-loss records and focuses more on other ratings to determine whether a pitcher sticks around or not.
To follow up on that, I think, for OOTP, this is simply a roster-management issue. Is Player X better than someone who might replace him? Then he stays on the roster. If Player Y is better, then the AI gets rid of Player X. In real life, there are a lot more intangibles to consider. A team might not want to hold onto a pitcher with a bad win-loss record because the fans don't like him or his teammates think he's a "hoodoo." Jack Powell and Bobo Newsom both had unusual career trajectories that allowed them to stick around for a long time even though they lost more than they won. That's hard to duplicate in OOTP.
I wonder if this might also be a player-creation issue, at least in fictional leagues. OOTP maybe just doesn't create enough high-quality rookies who are able to nudge these borderline veterans off the MLB rosters. In real life, a manager or owner would likely take a gamble on some rookie who looks like he might be more successful than the veteran with the lousy W-L record. Because OOTP's AI literally knows everything about a player, however, it might be less likely to take that gamble.
There's also a tendency, in the modern game, to convert starters into relievers if they don't have a lot of success early on in their careers, so you just don't see pitchers these days who have been starters for ten or more seasons and who have overall losing records (José Ureña being an unusual and, frankly, baffling exception to that rule).

I'd also like to add my two cents to the discussion of Pelican's statement that "a pitcher's job is to win games." Well, yes, of course that's true. Every player's job is to win games. That's what ballplayers are supposed to do. The "win" statistic, on the other hand, is an imperfect approximation of a pitcher's role in a team's success or failure. Granted, the two things are not the same thing, but I don't agree that the stat therefore means nothing

Over the decades, winning pitchers tend to be better than losing pitchers. There might be some cause-versus-consequence issues there - winning pitchers, for instance, probably have longer careers (and thus more chances to win games) than losing pitchers just because they're winning pitchers. And the "win" stat presumably has a positive correlation with other stats, like ERA+, so the "win" is, in part, likely measuring some of the same things that other stats measure, albeit indirectly and imprecisely. Still, as a shorthand way of measuring a pitcher's effectiveness, it strikes me that we could do a lot worse than the "win" statistic.

As for Bobby Mathews, I'm assuming that you're treating the NA as a major league, which is not how MLB treats it. If you were treating the NA like a minor league, then the decision would be simple - Mathews doesn't get into the HOF, just as the real Bobby Mathews is not a member. His best years were in the NA, and although he revived his career and had three excellent years in the AA, they were too little, too late. I'm sure the OOTP AI will select him for the HOF if you give it the chance, but the AI looks at all pitchers as if they pitched in the 21st century, so a pitcher with 30 wins in the 1880s or who accumulates over 200 wins in the 19th century is treated like some sort of god instead of just an above-average hurler. OOTP, for instance, would definitely enshrine Jim McCormick, something that even the various HOF veterans' committees, with their low standards, have refused to do. In an era when getting 20 or 30 wins in a season was pretty common, ending up with a 260-288 record isn't particularly remarkable or commendable.

Pelican · 08-29-2023, 09:13 AM

I appreciate the comments criticizing my [over]statement that “a pitcher’s job is to win”. Of course it’s the job of all players, the field manager, the GM, the owner, the clubhouse attendant. I get that. What I was getting at is that SP in particular have a more direct role in that. A versatile SP can dial it up in a close game against a stingy opponent SP. And can relax a bit and hold off the other side for seven innings and win 6-4 or 8-6. Good ones can.

Last night, Tajuan Walker did not have his best stuff for the Phils against the Angels. Fortunately for him it was the Halos minus their best player; although Mickey Moniak did a decent Trout imitation. Walker pitched just well enough to keep the Phils ahead through six innings. The bullpen did the rest. An insurance run helped. Walker has been doing that all year, and he has 14 wins. No, Tajuan Walker will never be in the HOF. But a guy who put up fifteen seasons like Walker’s year would probably deserve it. That’s my point.

Guys with sexy stats but losing records probably do not pitch well in clutch situations. Yeah, I know that’s a gross generalization, and it won’t always be true. But you need a SP who can tailor his approach to the game situation, and reach back for that pitch when he needs it. You can’t slip and give up a gopher ball in a close game. And you need to pitch through adversity and bad stuff, when your team is scoring runs in bunches.

I may be biased because I suffered through the deGrom Cy Young year with him on my fantasy team. Believe me, there were plenty of games he coulda/shoulda/woulda won that year. Every close game he lost was a swing of thirty points for the Dancing Bears (no 20 for the win; instead -10 for the loss). Granted, our scoring system placed too much emphasis on wins and losses (and saves, also 20 points). But I thought that giving him that award was an insult to guys who pitched better in close games for their teams. (It was seen as a huge victory for sabremetrics and Moneyball.) I’m a fan of modern exotic stats, or some of them; but the fact is you have to win the games.

joefromchicago · 08-29-2023, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelican

I appreciate the comments criticizing my [over]statement that “a pitcher’s job is to win”. Of course it’s the job of all players, the field manager, the GM, the owner, the clubhouse attendant. I get that. What I was getting at is that SP in particular have a more direct role in that. A versatile SP can dial it up in a close game against a stingy opponent SP. And can relax a bit and hold off the other side for seven innings and win 6-4 or 8-6. Good ones can.

Don't take my comments as a criticism. For the most part, I actually agree with you

. The problem is that the term "win" is ambiguous. In this context, it can either mean "prevail against an opponent" or it can mean "fulfill the requirements for a statistic." If we renamed "wins" and "losses" for pitchers as "good games" and "bad games," I think some of the confusion might be avoided.

The "win" stat for starting pitchers, I think, measures something that has some meaning - a "win" tells us that the pitcher was effective and provided a particularly valuable service to the team (I'd argue that the "loss" stat is less informative for starters, and "wins" and "losses" are even less relevant for relievers, but that's a topic for another day). I disagree, then, with people who say that "wins" and "losses" only measure team performance. I don't think that's entirely true. Again, it's a shorthand method of measuring a pitcher's effectiveness, reducing a lot of complexity into a single stat. Is it perfect? No. Does it convey some useful information? I think so.

MathBandit · 08-29-2023, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelican

I appreciate the comments criticizing my [over]statement that “a pitcher’s job is to win”. Of course it’s the job of all players, the field manager, the GM, the owner, the clubhouse attendant. I get that. What I was getting at is that SP in particular have a more direct role in that. A versatile SP can dial it up in a close game against a stingy opponent SP. And can relax a bit and hold off the other side for seven innings and win 6-4 or 8-6. Good ones can.

Last night, Tajuan Walker did not have his best stuff for the Phils against the Angels. Fortunately for him it was the Halos minus their best player; although Mickey Moniak did a decent Trout imitation. Walker pitched just well enough to keep the Phils ahead through six innings. The bullpen did the rest. An insurance run helped. Walker has been doing that all year, and he has 14 wins. No, Tajuan Walker will never be in the HOF. But a guy who put up fifteen seasons like Walker’s year would probably deserve it. That’s my point.

Guys with sexy stats but losing records probably do not pitch well in clutch situations. Yeah, I know that’s a gross generalization, and it won’t always be true. But you need a SP who can tailor his approach to the game situation, and reach back for that pitch when he needs it. You can’t slip and give up a gopher ball in a close game. And you need to pitch through adversity and bad stuff, when your team is scoring runs in bunches.

I may be biased because I suffered through the deGrom Cy Young year with him on my fantasy team. Believe me, there were plenty of games he coulda/shoulda/woulda won that year. Every close game he lost was a swing of thirty points for the Dancing Bears (no 20 for the win; instead -10 for the loss). Granted, our scoring system placed too much emphasis on wins and losses (and saves, also 20 points). But I thought that giving him that award was an insult to guys who pitched better in close games for their teams. (It was seen as a huge victory for sabremetrics and Moneyball.) I’m a fan of modern exotic stats, or some of them; but the fact is you have to win the games.

This seems to rely on the premise that pitching in a 1-0 or 0-0 game in the 8th is different than pitching in a 7-1 game in the 5th. Pitching is pitching.

I would have thought that the Yankees absurd and comical mismanagement of Mariano Rivera would have put to bed the idea that pitching in 'clutch' situations is different than pitching in any other situation.

Pelican · 08-29-2023, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathBandit

This seems to rely on the premise that pitching in a 1-0 or 0-0 game in the 8th is different than pitching in a 7-1 game in the 5th. Pitching is pitching.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that, my friend. I haven't persuaded you there's a difference, and you are unlikely to persuade me there is no difference.

Now, if your point of view is meant to be that of the game engine, I am quickly out of my depth. I don't know how much the game engine "knows" about the situation (other than the batter, the runners on base, the inning) - if anything. The AI manager seems to know which relievers to bring into the game, and when. [I recently adjusted the slider on how quickly to pull SP and RP in my 1964 sim, with immediate results. Of it may have been a durability problem. Set at normal, guys were routinely throwing 120 to 140 pitches.] But that would not necessarily translate to the SP performing differently in a one-run or tie game. I doubt that happens. The developers could tell me I am wrong.

To circle back to the original HOF question, I would value career performance by a SP in a one-run or tie game very highly, as opposed to a blowout game. But I get it that reasonable minds may differ, which is why this thread is provocative.

David Watts · 08-31-2023, 07:48 PM

Here's one in my random debut league. I don't interfere, so it's up to the OOTP Gods, but I'm kind of hoping he doesn't get in.
Name: kept_complaining_2020-01-01_18-46-58.jpg
Views: 126
Size: 392.3 KB

Name: kept_complaining_2020-01-01_18-46-58.jpg
Views: 126
Size: 392.3 KB

Brad K · 08-31-2023, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelican

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that, my friend. I haven't persuaded you there's a difference, and you are unlikely to persuade me there is no difference.

The purpose of a debate isn't to convince the other person. It's to convince the audience.

monkeyman576 · 09-01-2023, 04:30 PM

This is a borderline HOFer. He obviously has had a mark on the league with his high number of starts and innings pitched, but there might be more sucessfull pitchers overall with more championships, key moments, etc. It's hard to argue you are a HOFer if you are constistantly on bad teams. See Felix Hernandez.

08-29-2023, 12:46 AM	#22
joefromchicago Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,726	I don't think this is a HOF problem so much as it is an OOTP problem. As I discussed in this post, OOTP has a tendency to keep losing pitchers on major-league rosters far longer than would have been true in real life. In the history of the majors, only two pitchers have ever retired with losing records and over 200 wins: Jack Powell and Bobo Newsom. In contrast, I think it's fairly common to see pitchers in OOTP achieve that combination of stats. Why is that? Well, I think it's a combination of factors: OOTP focuses more on ratings than stats, something that, of course, would have been inaccessible to a real-life team. A manager in 1880 would have looked at a pitcher's ERA, IP, win-loss record, and maybe K/BB ratio and that's about it. A pitcher with a record like Bobby Mathews here probably would have been sent back to the bushes after the 1876 season, never to be heard from again. OOTP, I think, discounts win-loss records and focuses more on other ratings to determine whether a pitcher sticks around or not. To follow up on that, I think, for OOTP, this is simply a roster-management issue. Is Player X better than someone who might replace him? Then he stays on the roster. If Player Y is better, then the AI gets rid of Player X. In real life, there are a lot more intangibles to consider. A team might not want to hold onto a pitcher with a bad win-loss record because the fans don't like him or his teammates think he's a "hoodoo." Jack Powell and Bobo Newsom both had unusual career trajectories that allowed them to stick around for a long time even though they lost more than they won. That's hard to duplicate in OOTP. I wonder if this might also be a player-creation issue, at least in fictional leagues. OOTP maybe just doesn't create enough high-quality rookies who are able to nudge these borderline veterans off the MLB rosters. In real life, a manager or owner would likely take a gamble on some rookie who looks like he might be more successful than the veteran with the lousy W-L record. Because OOTP's AI literally knows everything about a player, however, it might be less likely to take that gamble. There's also a tendency, in the modern game, to convert starters into relievers if they don't have a lot of success early on in their careers, so you just don't see pitchers these days who have been starters for ten or more seasons and who have overall losing records (José Ureña being an unusual and, frankly, baffling exception to that rule). I'd also like to add my two cents to the discussion of Pelican's statement that "a pitcher's job is to win games." Well, yes, of course that's true. Every player's job is to win games. That's what ballplayers are supposed to do. The "win" statistic, on the other hand, is an imperfect approximation of a pitcher's role in a team's success or failure. Granted, the two things are not the same thing, but I don't agree that the stat therefore means nothing Over the decades, winning pitchers tend to be better than losing pitchers. There might be some cause-versus-consequence issues there - winning pitchers, for instance, probably have longer careers (and thus more chances to win games) than losing pitchers just because they're winning pitchers. And the "win" stat presumably has a positive correlation with other stats, like ERA+, so the "win" is, in part, likely measuring some of the same things that other stats measure, albeit indirectly and imprecisely. Still, as a shorthand way of measuring a pitcher's effectiveness, it strikes me that we could do a lot worse than the "win" statistic. As for Bobby Mathews, I'm assuming that you're treating the NA as a major league, which is not how MLB treats it. If you were treating the NA like a minor league, then the decision would be simple - Mathews doesn't get into the HOF, just as the real Bobby Mathews is not a member. His best years were in the NA, and although he revived his career and had three excellent years in the AA, they were too little, too late. I'm sure the OOTP AI will select him for the HOF if you give it the chance, but the AI looks at all pitchers as if they pitched in the 21st century, so a pitcher with 30 wins in the 1880s or who accumulates over 200 wins in the 19th century is treated like some sort of god instead of just an above-average hurler. OOTP, for instance, would definitely enshrine Jim McCormick, something that even the various HOF veterans' committees, with their low standards, have refused to do. In an era when getting 20 or 30 wins in a season was pretty common, ending up with a 260-288 record isn't particularly remarkable or commendable. __________________ American-Ethnic (and Canadian) Namesets Historical Minor League Schedules 1870s City/Team Nickname Randomizers "It's Usually Sunny in Philadelphia" weather mod Negro League Schedules

08-29-2023, 09:13 AM	#23
Pelican Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2021 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 3,235	I appreciate the comments criticizing my [over]statement that “a pitcher’s job is to win”. Of course it’s the job of all players, the field manager, the GM, the owner, the clubhouse attendant. I get that. What I was getting at is that SP in particular have a more direct role in that. A versatile SP can dial it up in a close game against a stingy opponent SP. And can relax a bit and hold off the other side for seven innings and win 6-4 or 8-6. Good ones can. Last night, Tajuan Walker did not have his best stuff for the Phils against the Angels. Fortunately for him it was the Halos minus their best player; although Mickey Moniak did a decent Trout imitation. Walker pitched just well enough to keep the Phils ahead through six innings. The bullpen did the rest. An insurance run helped. Walker has been doing that all year, and he has 14 wins. No, Tajuan Walker will never be in the HOF. But a guy who put up fifteen seasons like Walker’s year would probably deserve it. That’s my point. Guys with sexy stats but losing records probably do not pitch well in clutch situations. Yeah, I know that’s a gross generalization, and it won’t always be true. But you need a SP who can tailor his approach to the game situation, and reach back for that pitch when he needs it. You can’t slip and give up a gopher ball in a close game. And you need to pitch through adversity and bad stuff, when your team is scoring runs in bunches. I may be biased because I suffered through the deGrom Cy Young year with him on my fantasy team. Believe me, there were plenty of games he coulda/shoulda/woulda won that year. Every close game he lost was a swing of thirty points for the Dancing Bears (no 20 for the win; instead -10 for the loss). Granted, our scoring system placed too much emphasis on wins and losses (and saves, also 20 points). But I thought that giving him that award was an insult to guys who pitched better in close games for their teams. (It was seen as a huge victory for sabremetrics and Moneyball.) I’m a fan of modern exotic stats, or some of them; but the fact is you have to win the games. __________________ Pelican OOTP 2020-? ”Hard to believe, Harry.” Last edited by Pelican; 08-29-2023 at 09:15 AM.

08-28-2023, 11:39 PM	#21
1991Cubs Minors (Single A) Join Date: Apr 2020 Posts: 54	In real life this seems like one of those players who would get in through the Veterans Committee 50 years after his death. Obviously, the game does not simulate that, so I say vote him in.

08-31-2023, 07:48 PM	#27
David Watts Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Looking for a place called Leehofooks Posts: 10,163 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	Here's one in my random debut league. I don't interfere, so it's up to the OOTP Gods, but I'm kind of hoping he doesn't get in.

09-01-2023, 04:30 PM	#29
monkeyman576 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,692	This is a borderline HOFer. He obviously has had a mark on the league with his high number of starts and innings pitched, but there might be more sucessfull pitchers overall with more championships, key moments, etc. It's hard to argue you are a HOFer if you are constistantly on bad teams. See Felix Hernandez.