Jacob DeGrom has almost no shot at the HOF, discuss...
 

Dude is roughly 100 days younger than Kershaw and has 77 wins. I know wins aren't the be-all end-all but if he hits 150 wins it will be a miracle. Are we ready for a 120 win starting pitcher in the HOF? He needs to log two more years just to be eligible. With his injury history and age (33) does anyone see him adding significantly to his counting numbers? Only 1200 IP (less than Mariano Rivera) does he have a realistic chance of getting to even 2000? Only 1500k's which is a great ratio but I'm guessing he caps out at 2500 if he's lucky. His raw numbers are just going to be so small that his superb ratios and percentage numbers aren't going to cut it.

The only way he makes it is if his next five or so seasons, are absurdly good. Where he's somehow able to replicate what he did in 2018 or 2019, for five consecutive years, which knowing his track record, is a long shot.

I think he gets in on the Koufax clause, if he can stay healthy enough to grab a 3rd Cy Young.

Otherwise he's stuck in Johan Santana territory. Somebody who I think was overall a more valuable player then Degrom at his peak, simply because he was more of an innings eater when healthy.

The greatest ability is availability!

If he gets passed his current ailments I think he might have serious longevity. A big "if" I admit.

Don't forget, he was a shortstop for most of his life. His arm should -- should -- have a lot less wear and tear on it than a kid who has been pitching his arm off since he was 10. Assuming what happened last year is an anomaly, I wouldn't be so fast to predict his ultimate wins/losses.

Also mind blowing to hear the stats about in his last twenty starts his era was 1.78 (or whatever it was) and he had 3 wins or something absurd. So all those starts where he gave up 1 or 2 runs and didn't get a decision aren't important?

DeGrom has often suffered this plight. Since 2018, the year of his first Cy Young Award, deGrom has made 78 starts and pitched 503 innings. Seventy-eight percent (61) of those starts were quality starts, meaning he lasted six or more innings and surrendered three or fewer earned runs. He’s struck out 649 batters, walked 110 and allowed just 115 earned runs (2.06 ERA) over that span. Yet the Mets are 36-42 in those matchups. No, that’s not a typo.

The team is below .500 when one of the best aces in baseball history takes the mound and pitches well. For context, the rest of baseball won 78 percent of games (1,646-455) from 2018 to 2021 when their pitcher delivers a quality start.

deGrom needs two more seasons just to get to the 10 to be eligible. If they're "peak deGrom" seasons (8-10 WAR per) then he probably gets in based on that.

If they're less dominate seasons, it'll probably take 3-4 for him to have a chance. That'll involve pitching into his late 30's...so, we'll see.

Interestingly enough...once you get past the 4 Sure Thing Active HOF Pitchers, things get...tricky.

Next on the active WAR list is Chris Sale (46.5), who's got a shot but has his own health concerns. Then it's some solid guys who are not HOF level and too old to realistically get there - Wainwright (39, 44.5) and Lester (37, 44.2). Then it's deGrom.

After that, the only active SP's with over 35 WAR are fading Price (35, 40.3) and Bumgarner (31, 38.2).

So, if not Sale and deGrom, there may be a while before there's another Hall of Fame starting pitcher, unless Strasburg or Cole REALLY have long and productive 30's.

I’ve been thinking if he gets 1 more cy young he might be in and if he gets 2 more he sort of has to be in. Hopefully he puts the debate to rest and has a nice run of many dominant and healthy seasons.

IMO his bigger concern is can he go three consecutive games without getting yet another injury.

Well, up into last Summer he never had an injury issue I can recall since 2014. He's not exactly Steven Matz, who gets hurt every time someone breathes too hard on his arm.

I think he missed some starts in 2016 but yeah he was solid which makes you wonder about last year when it seemed to be one thing after another before he was shut down altogether.

Numbers like that with a sub 500 record to me means maybe a couple things.
That his team is not good offensively.
Or their relief pitching is not at all good.
Or that he's consistently matched up against other teams aces and comes away lacking.

That last one in some ways makes WAR pointless as it's typically figured.
If it was done based on comparing not to the league overall, but to other pitchers in a similar position - like only including first or first and second starters- it would probably be much lower.

Which to me would indicate a lot of it comes down to luck and simply being in the right place at the right time or situation.

I wonder, in regards to starting pitchers, has anyone ever tried to come up with a statistical measure to take into consideration the position players and relief pitchers on their teams from year to year to see if there is any way to possibly filter at least some of those variable factors out of the equation so as to more objectively be able to measure a starting pitcher's true worth/value, and how he more realistically rates against other pitcher's from his own time?

WAR adjusts for strength of opposition, league, team defense, and park factors, so it can be used to compare pitchers both within and across eras.

It tries to take things the pitcher can't control out of the equation, like who's pitching on the other side or how many runs the pitcher's team scores.

A pitcher who loses 2-1 did more to help their team win than one that wins 7-6 (assuming the same IP)...which is why pitching wins is an increasingly poor measure of performance.

The reason the Mets squandered so much of deGrom's prime is their offense...if your pitcher is giving up 2.5 earned runs per 9 IP, and you're not winning the majority of those games, that means you're scoring below 2.5 runs per game on the regular. That's lousy offense no matter who's pitching!

So the answer is NO then, there really isn't an effective statistical measure that takes into account the offense behind a starting pitcher.

Statistics don't look at the offense you have behind you at all then it seems like. I would think that is a much greater factor behind a pitcher's success than defense. Most all MLB players are exceptional athletes to start with, and likely wouldn't ever be on a major league roster if their fielding pct. wasn't over .900 to start with. Plus you don't have opposing teams making pitcher and other player changes because of a particular player's defensive abilities. Doesn't surprise me if there really isn't a viable measure trying to take into account a starting pitcher's offense behind him. In fact, I would think that from a statistical standpoint for evaluating starting pitchers, you should be factoring in not only the offense behind you, but the offenses you are facing, and the starting pitchers you are facing as well.

As you said, statistics like WAR can at best only TRY to take out factors outside a pitcher's control, but really don't seem to succeed very well. And when trying to extend the meaning of such statistics to even attempt a meaningful comparison of pitchers from different eras.....now you're talking a pipe dream as the context and all the different variables between eras make it virtually (and probably literally) impossible to effectively account for all the factors that could ever be involved in such comparisons. And worst of all, there's no way to ever truly prove which pitcher across different eras was better, so all everyone ever ends up doing is arguing.

I understand that because of the variables and things out of a pitcher's control that it is argued that wins aren't that important of a statistic in regards to pitching, but when the whole, sole reason you play the game is to win, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that being able to win is not factored in a bit more. Especially for pitchers who somehow always seem to be able to help their teams win a lot. It is the beauty and the curse of statistics, they can help try to explain many things, but they can never fully explain anything either when it comes to comparing ballplayers, especially pitchers. Makes for lively debates, that is for sure.

I guess I don’t understand why a pitcher’s teams offenses effects his pitching ability? They have no control over that. The way to remove that from the stats is easy…ignore W/L record.

FIP only counts those things a pitcher can control (walks, strikeouts, home runs) and tries to ignore those it can’t (non-HR batted balls), but you are right that it’s hard to completely remove every variable from baseball. No stat is perfect.

Baseball is a funny game. If there’s a runner on third with 1 out and the hitter flies out to CF, he has succeeded. Same situation, except with two outs, and he’s failed. :)

That's the funny thing though, especially in today's modern game where starting pitchers are routinely pulled from games, unlike 60+ years ago and further back. If you have a better (or worse) offense, and then take into account the bullpen as well, I think it would directly effect a manager's decision as to when to pull or leave in a starting pitcher, thus potentially impacting how well they do and what goes into their statistics. Also, someone pitching with a strong offense will likely pitch differently when they more often pitch from a lead, or have confidence their team can score and get them back into a game if they go down a run or two. It is simple human nature that anyone would likely be affected to some degree by their knowledge and confidence in the offense behind them, and the relievers following them. And the manager's also have a huge impact. If a starting pitcher knows his manager has a quick or slow trigger on pulling him early, depending on the game situation, that will likely impact a pitcher's performance as well.

And starting pitchers are arguably the player with the most impact on whether or not a team wins or loses a game, like quarterbacks in football, yet statistics try to remove the importance of wins in measuring pitchers. I fully understand the thinking and logic behind that rationale, but also know that regardless of all the variables, the fact that some pitchers win more often than others tends to demonstrate they have some ability that is superior to, or lacking in others. I've long felt that statistics can't effectively measure this "it" factor that some great pitchers have, so these statisticians simply put down such pitcher's undeniable success when it comes to being able to win, and try to attribute it to other factors they have less, or no, control over. And this is especially true when looking at pitchers from back in the days when relief pitchers were rarely used. And in those instances where starting pitchers went for complete games, they had a decidedly much greater impact on whether or not their teams won a game than if they only pitched 5-6-7 innings of a game. Yet, is there any statistical measure that can give starting pitchers who finish games and get the win their "due" over other starters who almost always pitch fewer innings, and then have to rely upon their offense and bullpen to insure they get the win? Unfortunately, I don't believe so. And this is likely a function of the bias built into statisticians who look at the modern game as a basis for their statistical formulas and equations, and through stubbornness or ignorance (or likely a combination of both) have likely greatly discounted (or outright ignored) the contributions of early pitchers who pitched complete games to make sure their teams won.

People talk about there being a nostalgic bias that gives players from long ago more due than they are truly deserving off, especially when comparing them to modern players and the way the modern game is played. A lot of people, especially statisticians and so-called data scientist types, will tell you that players from earlier eras are absolutely and without a doubt nowhere near as good as modern players of today. But I've often wondered if this isn't the result of an equal, or even greater, modern bias, as opposed to the often maligned nostalgic bias, that all baseball statistics seem to inherently contain, especially when it comes to pitchers!

When the whole, sole purpose of playing the game is to win, how can anyone go along with statistics that seek to remove the importance of a starting pitcher from earlier eras going the distance to get that all important win in comparing them to modern pitchers who don't have the same impact on a game's outcome? It is a true modern bias that statisticians will argue is correct, simply because it fits the era they are from and fulfills the narrative they want it to be. On some level I look at this type of modern bias as similar to how many people may view the value of modern cards, where you have Trout, Brady, and Lebron James cards going for millions of dollars for artificially created rarities. Whereas I would think many on this forum would argue that there are so many more vintage cards that are deserving of higher values than these modern cards due to the fact their rarity is not a prefabricated occurrence, and that there is an inherent bias with these current superstar athletes and players because everyone knows and still sees them competing today. Unfortunately, the world today is all about the here and now, social media, and what/who is known as being hot today, like James, Brady, and Trout. Not everyone knows, or ever cared, about the history of the game, and the people that played back in the day. It demonstrates a similar modern bias, much like modern statistics, IMO.

"That last one in some ways makes WAR pointless as it's typically figured.
If it was done based on comparing not to the league overall, but to other pitchers in a similar position - like only including first or first and second starters- it would probably be much lower."

People have looked into starter matchups, and have found that once you're more than a few weeks into the season, aces don't match up against aces with any regularity any more. (Nor 2nd starters with 2nd starters, etc.) Different teams have different days off, different pitchers get rested at different times, some teams have a rookie they want to see, so they slot him into the rotation for a couple weeks, and so on. Once any of those things happen, the aces don't match up with the aces any more. Once you're more than a few weeks into the season, who the opposing pitcher is, is mostly just random.

As for a recency bias in WAR for modern pitchers: totally not. Here's the all-time top 10 in pitching WAR (baseball-reference version):

Cy Young
Walter Johnson
Roger Clemens
Kid Nichols
Pete Alexander
Lefty Grove
Tom Seaver
Greg Maddox
Randy Johnson
Christy Matthewson

Give or take a player here or there, that's the list basically anyone will give you of the greatest pitchers of all time. By my estimation we've got players who peaked in the:

1890s
1910s
1990s
1890s
1920s
1930s
1970s
1990s
2000s
1910s

The next ten feature Tim Keefe, Eddie Plank, and John Clarkson, and Pud Galvin is 21st. The advantage that the old guys had is that they pitched tons of innings, and they're getting credit for all of those innings that they pitched. Basically, if a modern pitcher is pitching five innings, and an old guy was pitching nine, at the same rate of performance, the modern player is going to accumulate only 5/9ths the WAR. (Pitchers do, on average, pitch better in shorter stints, but as the list above indicates, not enough to make up for the lower workload.)

The reason that WAR allows cross-era comparisons is that it compares players to how well they performed against their contemporaries, and you can compare those comparisons against each other. For example, newly elected HOFer Jim Kaat's best season (1975) was worth 7.7 wins above replacement; this means that if you dropped him into an American League team in 1975, you could expect them to win about 8 games more than they would have had he not been on the team. This is a pretty good match for Tim Lincecum's 2008. What that means is that you should expect Kaat's pitching in 1975 to win as many games for a team as Lincecum's pitching would have won for a team in 2008.

That is, you're comparing Kaat against other pitchers in 1975, and Lincecum against other pitchers in 2008. You find that in their respective contexts they were each worth about 8 wins to a team. And looking at that, you can see that, in their respective contexts, they were about equally valuable.

It doesn't tell you what would happen if you put Kaat in a time machine and sent him to 2008. You really can't know that with any certainty, and that's the kind of "cross era comparison" that WAR can't (and doesn't try) to do. When people talk about modern players being so much better than the old guys, this is what they have in mind. In Honus Wagner's day players often didn't have proper nutrition, they certainly didn't have kinesiologists plotting out optimum workout routines, and medical care didn't compare. Wagner was probably as naturally talented as any modern player, but if you put an adult Wagner in a time machine and told him to suit up for the Pirates, he wouldn't be a superstar, just because he wouldn't have the advantages of modern training and nutrition. That's what people are talking about when they say the old guys weren't as good. But that's not very interesting - it's just a remark about how science and technology have advanced, it doesn't really tell you anything about baseball players. So it's really not a weakness of WAR that it doesn't allow THAT kind of cross era comparison. The kind it DOES allow - about how much a player meant to the league he played in - is important and interesting, from a baseball perspective.

And I don't think anyone is trying to take the effect a pitcher has on his team winning "away", but taking the "pitching win or loss" away as the strongest measure of a pitchers greatness, since there's only so much a pitcher can do to control it (other than pitching a complete game shutout every time out, I suppose).

It is all part of what makes the debate fun because you can only do so much with pure statistics, and it is literally impossible to effectively measure and account for all the variables that are out there. I've just seen how modern statistics for pitchers are based, or at least seem to be skewed, on today's starting pitchers not going for complete games anymore, and disregarding wins as an important statistic. Some of today's statisticians then claim that modern pitchers are all so much better than pitchers from earlier eras because today they're all bigger, stronger, and throw faster than pitchers ever used to. I've questioned though how these modern pitchers would fare if they had to pitch complete games like their predecessors, and how well they would hold up with the added stress, wear, and tear their bodies and arms would face pitching like the old-timers did. But statisticians can't really account for that in their formulas, nor do they have a way to give more credit to old-time pitchers for their wins that they were certainly way more responsible for by pitching complete games, than their modern counterparts who may only pitch 5-6 innings before turning it over to their bullpen and defense to get them the W.

If you hadn't seen the Greatest Lefthander of All Time thread from a couple months ago, go check it out and you'll see how some some statistical experts were blatantly saying how pitchers like Grove and Spahn would barely be just a little above average compared to today's pitchers. So their point was that WAR was not a good cross-era measure at all, and Spahn being the the all-time winning-est lefty in history, by a wide margin despite losing three prime years in the service, basically didn't mean anything. That is where I'm kind of coming from.

"Almost no chance" seems a bit hyperbolic, perhaps Scott's attempt at riling up a few Mets fans. I'd agree it will be difficult and unorthodox. "Almost no chance" would be Jeurys Familia or Gary Sanchez.

Comparing across eras is noticeably harder for pitchers than hitters IMO because how much the game has changed (especially over the past 20 seasons) when it comes to the hyper specialization of pitchers nowadays.

Even as far as the 90s we were still really seeing pitchers go deep into games, not as much as the 80s or 70s, but the Complete Game leaders were still finishing in the teens.

To the argument where people say the pitchers from "x" years aren't as good as the ones now, I call BS. Yes if you grabbed Sandy Koufax from 1965 or Bob Feller from 1938 and stuck them into the game, right now, as they were back then, they wouldn't be as good. The game is entirely different, they didn't have any form of modern training, nutrition, hell most of them worked second jobs in the off-season. Give them access to all the things that the players have today and I don't see why they wouldn't be dominant.

Hyper Specilization for pitchers is one of my biggest gripes with the sport. But the more these guys get paid, the more they become an investment, and now with all the new aged analytics, and everyone throwing 100 MPH with insane breaking pitches, these guys arms are falling off their bodies. Tommy John is the norm now, and it's a damn shame. I also blame how we handle sports here, having kids play baseball year round is definitely one of the reasons we see so many injuries, but I feel I've gotten off topic, it's a different discussion, for a different day.

I think Degrom has Hall of Fame stuff, but lacks the proverbial peak of a HoF pitcher assuming his career ended today. Like I said he would need to have a few more dominant, healthy seasons, which is possible, but considering his overall track record is unlikely.

I think Degrom has Hall of Fame stuff, but lacks the proverbial peak of a HoF pitcher assuming his career ended today. Like I said he would need to have a few more dominant, healthy seasons, which is possible, but considering his overall track record is unlikely.

I don't understand the comment. Putting aside 2020, he's had one year of injuries, last year. Before that (2015-19 as a regular starter) he was averaging about 30 starts a season. What are you getting at with "track record"?

Seems to be a narrative taking hold that he's struggled within injuries his whole career. Which isn't true. That would be Steven Matz.

He won 3 Cy Youngs in a row and was well on his way to a 4th last year when he came down with injuries. So any "track record" he has of being injured started last summer.

I don't know Steve, 3 Cy Young awards in a row sounds like a pretty good peak to me. But I get the point that if these injuries pretty much shut him down and reduce his effectiveness over the remainder of his career, it really hurts his chances. Almost like a reverse-Koufax situation. Just think how differently Koufax's legacy may have ended up being viewed had he switched and started the first 5 or 6 years of his career on fire, and then ended the last 5 or 6 years of it as not overpowering and very effective at all, just like he actually started his career.

Cory Kluber is another pitcher in recent years to have stellar seasons and win the CYA, but injuries and wear and tear to his body and pitching arm have made him mostly forgotten now as well. And when he finally had a chance to come back after a long injury layoff, his return didn't last for long, and he went right back out with injuries, and likely will never be what he once was as a pitcher. Same type of situation seems to be looming before DeGrom now. If DeGrom can rebound and get back to pitching at least near the level of where he was while winning those three CYAs, and stay there for at least a full season or two, that should really change his chances in a very positive way. We'll just have to wait and see how he does going forward.

When did he win 3 Cy Youngs in a row?

i just took what Steve said and ran with it. I didn't look it up till now, but I think Steve was referring to the two Cy Youngs he did win back-to-back, and maybe that he was on pace to win a third in-a-row, had he not gone down with injuries. But you are correct, he's only a two-time CYA winner.

Stand corrected. Two.

I am not doubting for a moment that if he doesn’t regain his form he almost certainly won’t be a hall of famer. Agree with that. Too limited a body of work.

But I do think if he puts together 4 or so very strong years and win another CY he’s on pretty good footing.

Honestly have no idea what to expect in 2022. If the Mets announced in January that he had some kind of surgery Id hardly be surprised. A strange situation where he seemed to be at odds with the team about what was going on.

Steve,

I was basing what I said off of his history.Track record might have been the wrong term, but Degrom early on in his career, had Tommy John (I want to say around 2010 or 2011, the date escapes me at the moment) the UCL issues have been around for a bit. With him being on the wrong side of his thirties, compounding with the fact he was experiencing some issues with it again this year, makes me skeptical when it comes to how the rest of his career pans out. A slightly different situation, but we saw what happened with Tim Lincecum. Burned Bright, burned early, won his two Cy Youngs and now he's out of the league. Will never reach the Hall.

Degrom, when healthy, is an absolute force. He's incredible, I don't think there's really a pitcher you would choose over him, if you needed someone in a do or die game. I want him to stay healthy, pitch another great 3-4 seasons, put together a Hall of Fame Resume. But I don't think it's likely. I hope I'm wrong.

You may well be right. But I hope not. His career trajectory has certainly been very unusual. Not many shortstops from Stetson University enter into a discussion for HOF pitchers.

Linsecum is an interesting point of comparison. I hope he doesn't go the same route. But there certainly a lot of similarities.

deGrom was well on his way to having a historic season in 2021. Without injuries, he would have won his 3rd CY award in a row. I'm guessing that the competition between Jacob & Scherzer this year will result in another CY award between the two.