Is CC Sabathia a Hall of Famer?
 

Just saw he won his 250th game today. Never really thought of him as a HOFer but I might be rethinking my stance. Only 14 pitchers with 250 wins and 3000 strikeouts. Of the 14, the only one not in the hall is Clemens. Your thoughts. Leon: if this is in the wrong area please move it. Thanks

I was thinking the same thing today...it seems a pitcher winning 300 games in this era will be extremely rare if seen at all? I think 250 is the new 300!!!! Especially if you've won WS's and have a lot of strikeouts. His style has evolved similarly to pettittes from more of a power game to offspeed painting the corners. I think they both deserve to go in!

7 seasons over .700 winning percentage. He was dominant.

Yes! Outside of CC & Carlton, how many other lefties have 250 wins & 3000K's?
Not Spahn, Not Grove.

I like his chances and I like him. The Hall of Fame has always been somewhat of a popularity contest past the over-qualified players. My perception is that nice guys who are borderline get in - Tony Perez, any friend of Bill Terry, Baines, Youngs, etc. granted, these are all stars that anyone would be ecstatic to have on their team. Perhaps a notch below, while the Dick Allens, roid monsters, Belles of the baseball world remain on the outside. I'm not judging, just saying how it looks. There are outliers to every generalization.

Id love for Sabathia to get into the Hall - he's more than deserving imo. Plus he's one of the few successful players fatter than me (almost).

Definitely. He has both the strong career numbers and a solid stretch where he was one of the top pitchers in the game.

Close but no cigar. Who cares about strikeouts? An out is an out. Career 3.71 ERA, 1.26 WHIP--Good, not great.

I agree with this. Verlander ... cc and MaYBE kershaw to 250. Although Kershaw will get in anyway, he only has 160 wins which shows how tough it is with all of the relief these days.

No, an out that is not a K can advance runners.

Just one.....Randy Johnson.

Steve

A strikeout can advance runners, although rarely. On the flip side a ball in play is much more likely to become a double play than a strikeout. I believe extensive analysis has been done on this by SABR and James and the conclusion is an out is an out.

Little League is a different story...........................

he’s the real deal

Better than Jack Morris, especially when you compare each to their contemporaries.

Not sure but IMO Kershaw is far from a HOF and will likely barely make it to 200 wins, much less 250. Too many miles on that elbow.

IMO Sabathia is likely in and Kershaw is a lock -- 3 Cy Young awards and top 5 in 7 consecutive years + an MVP

Attachment 357008

Maybe? If so then Schilling, Tiant, and Kevin Brown go in also?

Great--ERA covers that

Schilling would be in if he wasn't so detestable.

You're not going to have a lot of company on that one and Kershaw has back problems not elbow problems.

While I'm no fan of Shilling the person I have no problem with any of those three making the hall.

The only players with 3000 K that are not in the hof are CC, Clemens and Schilling. I think all 3 will be elected.

3 Cy Young awards, an MVP award, 7x All-Star, career winning percentage is essentially .700, career ERA of 2.41, a career WAR of 65+ in 12 years. Even if he has a career ending injury tomorrow those numbers dictate he is in... right now!

Lock. No question. It's just a damn shame his post-season performance has been such a relative disappointment. Otherwise, a generational pitcher, and by all indications a fine individual as well.

100% lock. Top 5 pitcher for a decade, Cy Young. On a side note I'm pretty sure his pants could be used as a parachute if the team plane went down.

The easy way out!
 

The easy thing to do would be to have automatic HOF qualifications like they do in Japan. 250W 3000Ks and 500 saves jump off of the page, but the cheaters have ruined that.

But CC is a lock for the HOF and with 3 or 4 more good seasons Kershaw is a first ballot HOF

CC is borderline, he'll get in, not first ballot though.

Yes, he's a HOFer. Dominant. And as mentioned above, 250 is the new 300...just as 600 is the new 500 in the HR category. (See what I did there?) ;)

If Bartolo had won 3 more would he get in, with his 4.12 lifetime ERA? I doubt it. I think it's still an overall assessment, but I agree CC should make it.

Eventually gets in
 

C.C. Will get in the Hall Of Fame someday. Not positive if i would or would not vote for him. I certainly wouldn't protest him making it to the Hall thats for sure.

I think he'll get the Mussina treatment and have to wait a few years but will get in. Don't really think of him as a HOFer though. He hasn't really been a good pitcher since 2012, which was 7 years ago. His 3,000 K's (while still impressive) feel like a Biggio compiler stat to me.

Hall of Stats has him at 115, 57th ranked pitcher, which is lower tier but definitely in. That seems accurate to me.

Hall of Fame
 

+1 - Add in 9.7 Ks per 9 innings; an even “1” WHIP; a 4.27 K/BB ratio and 11 consecutive seasons of a sub-3.00 ERA (of which 3 of those were sub-2.00)! His regular season numbers are uncanny and possibly merit him a top 10 pitcher status.

Hall of Stats rates Kershaw as 28th all time which again seems about right to me. Interestingly, he rates MUCH higher than Koufax to whom he is often compared.

I totally agree it's an overall assessment. And as such, CC should get in.

My 250 comment (which others above said the same), is pointing out one (huge) aspect of his game...not the only one for review.

C.C. was dominant for years, his numbers are good and in my opinion with the watering down of the Hall of Fame, he gets in.

It's now the Hall of Very Good and Not Necessarily Amazing. And he belongs there under that umbrella with other Bronx Bombers of similar stature.

You do have to wonder if we'll ever see another 300 game winner. I don't see anyone active now with a realistic chance. Verlander has 213 and is still phenomenal, but he's 36 so I wouldn't think his chances are great.

Kershaw compares to his contemporaries much better than Koufax does to his.

Koufax was dominant and put up great numbers in an era when pitchers put up much better numbers than they do today.

Kershaw put up similar numbers to Koufax in an era where pitchers put up far inferior numbers.

And I'm a MASSIVE Koufax fan.

Its been the Hall of Very Good since 1946.

When was that first group of marginal 30s players selected? That really set the tone.

Has CC played for the Yankees ? He has, therefore he will be in the Hall of Fame.

Chesbro, McCarthy, Tinker, Evers and Chance were all inducted in 1946. Maranville in 1954, Schalk in 1955. Flick in 1963, Combs and Haines in 1970.
Bancroft, Hafey, Hooper and Marquard in 1971. Need I go on?

You can make an argument for every one of them. But by and large, they are generally regarded as some of the weaker members. This is not some recent phenomenon. It has been going on for 70+ years.

Think you're being a little hard on McCarthy. 7 titles and 9 pennants is pretty good.

Tommy McCarthy, not Joe.

Lloyd Waner and Travis Jackson have to make that list. Ross Youngs.

What do people think of Pettitte's chances?

You are correct. There are productive outs and unproductive outs. Anyone who can induce a strikeout like Sabathia is dominant. I never liked him as he always killed by Orioles (but then again, who hasn't) but he is a HOFer for sure.

You say "compiler," I say "consistent."

Consistency means repeated results. Take a look at CC's career since 2013. Let me know if you think that's a HOF span. Without it he doesn't get to 250 wins or 3,000 K's. I call that compiling.

Surprised Jorge Posada wasn't enshrined. Chris Chambliss and Bernie Williams too.

Willie Randolph. The obvious one, Mattingly.

What about Munson or Maris?

Ah right. Lots of Yankees on that list of guys people want to see in.
Of them all, I would only agree with Mattingly.

Prediction-Kershaw will be a first ballot HOFer. He has been a dominant superstar by any measure. Sabathia will eventually get in. He is basically a compiler, but was dominant at times earlier in his career.
Also, 3000 strikeouts will eventually lose its ring just as 500 HRs has.
225 will probably end up being the new 300.

Not really sure why people don't think another pitcher will win 300 games. Randy Johnson won 300 games after he turned 25 years old. He's obviously one of the greatest pitchers of all time, but so are the majority of people who won 300 games.

Johnson had a very unusual career trajectory. And I think the trend over time is going to be towards shorter starts meaning fewer decisions.

Probably yes....But not a first ballot, maybe several ballots. I'm pretty sure he has a career ERA of close to 4.00....I dont know many pitchers in the Hall with that high of an ERA

Mattingly, yes....Randolph, no....Just my opinion

Sabathia is an absolute yes for HOF to me. Maybe not first ballot, but he definitely gets in.

In some sense he was a compiler, yes, with only one 20 win season. Yes, the ERA is a little "thick" but he also pitched virtually his entire career in the AL (ex the Milwaukee stint where he went 11-2 with a 1.65 ERA), including through the back half of the steroid era.

Pretty likable guy, seems like a pretty good teammate and he's definitely a gamer.

Being a lefty helps the case, but he seems like a pretty easy choice to me.

advanced metrics like Randolph better believe it or not.

None of these. And if I could, I would kick out a dozen of the marginal players that keep guys like Mattingly in the conversation. He was good, he wasn't great. Just good isn't good enough for even the Hall of Very Good.

FWIW Hall of Stats has Randolph about 50 points higher than Mattingly, who is by their standards utterly mediocre.

No offense Scott, then obviously the metrics SUCK

This shit about WAR and metrics just blows me away. If you were in game 7 of the World Series, bases loaded and down by two and two outs, who would you rather have at bat? Mattingly or Willie Randolph? This is just crazy, no contest

but you don't choose the HOF on one at bat you choose it on a body of work.

So....Randolph and Mattingly are the exact same age, you can get either one of them for the same price. You dont need any positional needs, so you are simply going with the player.....Who do you take?

Mattingley.....307 career batting average, Randolph, .274....Why are we even discussing this?

Give me a break. Randolph never had a season like Mattingly did in 1986 and that's not even the season he won the MVP. The distance between them is huge in my opinion. If not for his injuries, Mattingly would be the guy everyone compared Pujols to.

Yes....People need to realize that there are many variables to being elected to the HOF. Mattingly had them all...Including being a great team leader. Players, coaches loved him. To compare this guy to Willie Randolph is a disgrace, Willie Randolph is in more company with Mickey Rivers than Mattingly

It seems Mattingly and Garvey are the two players with the biggest gap between perception and the metrics. They really cream Joe Carter too.

If I had to take one for the career they had (not the one they should've had if, but etc.) I take Randolph. But then I'd rather win than look good.

Wow, I give up!:confused:

Surely you're not comparing Mattingly with Garvey are you? And don't call me surely!:rolleyes:

Mattingly had 6 wonderful years for a crap ball club. If he played for the Royals we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. 6 years...

Garvey had 200 hits what, 6 times? 10 time all star. .294 BA. MVP and a 2nd place. 4 Gold Gloves. The metrics HATE him. BR ranks him 51st at 1B.

Pete, not disgracing Garvey, only trying to heighten how good Mattingly was....Having said that, who would you rather have at identical ages?

I'd give a slight edge to Mattingly, but let's not forget if you watched baseball in the 70s, it was accepted wisdom that Garvey was one of the elite players in the game.

Willie Randolph is worth MUCH more as a second baseman as opposed to his contemporaries than Mattingly was as a first baseman compared to his. If Mattingly is easier to replace, than Randolph is obviously the better value. If Mattingly's whole career was like those 6 years it would be a different story, but unless your name is Koufax 6 years ain't enough to get you into the hall. Mattingly was barely a replacement level player the remainder of his career.

I'm not some kid (I'm sneaking up on 50) who thinks metrics are the only thing that counts. However there are baseball people a lot smarter than me who have certainly demonstrated that you ignore them at your peril if you want to win baseball games.

That being said you don't have to go deep into esoteric stats to understand that the value of Randolph's career is greater than that of Mattingly's. Randolph helped his team for almost the entirety of an 18 year career. Mattingly was a dead average producer at 1b except for that 6 year peak

We belong to two groups who will just never agree on these things, so I guess I'll give up too. After I snarkily point out that I have lots of company in the front offices of major league baseball teams that win.

This is why people trotting out 'advanced' (um...theoretical) metrics like WAR drives me frickin' bananas. Anyone watching him play back in the day KNEW Garvey was the man. And I hated the Dodgers!!

Yes, he was.....Loved his forearms!!