- Thread starter
- #1
Topnotchsy
Featured Contributor, The best players in history?
- Aug 7, 2008
- 9,450
- 181
A little while back I started a thread that discussed players with the best shot to make the HOF.
One of the things that seemed to stand out was how few pitchers seem to have a chance at the Hall, compared to the number of hitters. There's also been talking of changing the "magic number" from 300 wins to a lower number (maybe 250).
I decided to dig a little deeper. Since 2000, 52 players have made the Hall (besides for exec's and others). Of those 39 (75%) were hitters and 13 (25%) were pitchers. I compared that to the historic numbers. In total there are 249 players in the Hall of which 172 (69%) are hitters and 77 (31%) are pitchers, so the percentage of pitchers who have made the Hall over the last roughly 15 years has dropped a bit. There are a few pitchers on the ballot next season (Clemens, Schilling, Mussina and Hoffman) so we should see a couple of more pitchers coming.
When it comes to magic numbers, in baseball there has historically been 3: 300 wins, 3000 hits and 500 home runs. The home run/steroids era has made 500 home runs less of a lock.
There have been 24 players to win 300 games and 30 who have had 3000 hits.
Certainly among pitchers there are many who pitched in the early days of the game, but more recently these players have won 300:
Gaylord Perry - 5/6/1982
Steve Carlton - 9/23/1983
Tom Seaver - 8/4/1985
Phil Niekro - 10/6/1985
Don Sutton - 6/18/1986
Nolan Ryan - 7/31/1990
Roger Clemens - 6/13/2003
Greg Maddux - 7/7/2004
Tom Glavine - 8/5/2007
Randy Johnson - 6/4/2009
In a span of 9 years, there were 6 pitchers who won their 300th game (from 1982-1990). Then there was a break until 2003. From 2003-2009 there were 4 who hit the mark. Since 1982, 10 of the 24 pitchers to win 300 hit the mark.
To me it seems like overall we may have hit a bit of a drought when it comes to truly elite pitchers, but overall I think a few things:
1) The 300 win mark, like the 3000 hit mark, is not designed to be the only decider of a Hall of Fame career. What it does do is say that if someone reached that number, they should be enshrined with (almost) no thought. I don't see any reason why that should change. Pitchers like Roy Halladay and others should be considered for their career in the same way that pitchers like Don Drysdale made the Hall despite not being near 300 wins. (On that consideration pitchers like Justin Verlander and Felix Hernandez should ultimately warrant consideration for the Hall.)
2) The ratio of pitchers in the Hall may be a little lower over the last couple of decades but that may also reflect the era following the steroid era, where numbers were a bit inflated. It may also have simply been a somewhat weak pitching era (although at the top of heap we did have a few pitchers winning 300 games.)
To be honest when I began to dig into the numbers I expected to conclude that we should change our expectations for pitchers a bit, but after a dive into the info, I think things are fine as they are...
Thoughts?
One of the things that seemed to stand out was how few pitchers seem to have a chance at the Hall, compared to the number of hitters. There's also been talking of changing the "magic number" from 300 wins to a lower number (maybe 250).
I decided to dig a little deeper. Since 2000, 52 players have made the Hall (besides for exec's and others). Of those 39 (75%) were hitters and 13 (25%) were pitchers. I compared that to the historic numbers. In total there are 249 players in the Hall of which 172 (69%) are hitters and 77 (31%) are pitchers, so the percentage of pitchers who have made the Hall over the last roughly 15 years has dropped a bit. There are a few pitchers on the ballot next season (Clemens, Schilling, Mussina and Hoffman) so we should see a couple of more pitchers coming.
When it comes to magic numbers, in baseball there has historically been 3: 300 wins, 3000 hits and 500 home runs. The home run/steroids era has made 500 home runs less of a lock.
There have been 24 players to win 300 games and 30 who have had 3000 hits.
Certainly among pitchers there are many who pitched in the early days of the game, but more recently these players have won 300:
Gaylord Perry - 5/6/1982
Steve Carlton - 9/23/1983
Tom Seaver - 8/4/1985
Phil Niekro - 10/6/1985
Don Sutton - 6/18/1986
Nolan Ryan - 7/31/1990
Roger Clemens - 6/13/2003
Greg Maddux - 7/7/2004
Tom Glavine - 8/5/2007
Randy Johnson - 6/4/2009
In a span of 9 years, there were 6 pitchers who won their 300th game (from 1982-1990). Then there was a break until 2003. From 2003-2009 there were 4 who hit the mark. Since 1982, 10 of the 24 pitchers to win 300 hit the mark.
To me it seems like overall we may have hit a bit of a drought when it comes to truly elite pitchers, but overall I think a few things:
1) The 300 win mark, like the 3000 hit mark, is not designed to be the only decider of a Hall of Fame career. What it does do is say that if someone reached that number, they should be enshrined with (almost) no thought. I don't see any reason why that should change. Pitchers like Roy Halladay and others should be considered for their career in the same way that pitchers like Don Drysdale made the Hall despite not being near 300 wins. (On that consideration pitchers like Justin Verlander and Felix Hernandez should ultimately warrant consideration for the Hall.)
2) The ratio of pitchers in the Hall may be a little lower over the last couple of decades but that may also reflect the era following the steroid era, where numbers were a bit inflated. It may also have simply been a somewhat weak pitching era (although at the top of heap we did have a few pitchers winning 300 games.)
To be honest when I began to dig into the numbers I expected to conclude that we should change our expectations for pitchers a bit, but after a dive into the info, I think things are fine as they are...
Thoughts?