Article: Future Hall-Of-Famer Cards: Sure Thing Hitters

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Of that list I think Garvey and Carter didn't so much drop off as history came to take a dimmer view of their status with the advent of metrics.

Yes, that's a fair point...player performance is one variable, but there are others. The rise of analytics changed the way we look at the game. The steroid era blew up the old standards - 500 HR, 3,000 hits, etc. The game has changed a lot, too...and changes constantly.

I'm only 45, but the baseball I watched as a kid was different than the baseball of the mid-90's-mid-2000's, which was different than the baseball of the mid 2000's to mid-2010's, which is different than the baseball of today.

Lots of variables, for sure...and it all makes prediction difficult. Plus, hamstrings, elbow ligaments, and eyeballs all can go bad at rates that are tough to figure out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Yes, that's a fair point...player performance is one variable, but there are others. The rise of analytics changed the way we look at the game. The steroid era blew up the old standards - 500 HR, 3,000 hits, etc. The game has changed a lot, too...and changes constantly.

I'm only 45, but the baseball I watched as a kid was different than the baseball of the mid-90's-mid-2000's, which was different than the baseball of the mid 2000's to mid-2010's, which is different than the baseball of today.

Lots of variables, for sure...and it all makes prediction difficult. Plus, hamstrings, elbow ligaments, and eyeballs all can go bad at rates that are tough to figure out.

Speaking of which, Mike Trout and his strained calf muscle. I mean, is he EVER coming back?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Yes, that's a fair point...player performance is one variable, but there are others. The rise of analytics changed the way we look at the game. The steroid era blew up the old standards - 500 HR, 3,000 hits, etc. The game has changed a lot, too...and changes constantly.

I'm only 45, but the baseball I watched as a kid was different than the baseball of the mid-90's-mid-2000's, which was different than the baseball of the mid 2000's to mid-2010's, which is different than the baseball of today.

Lots of variables, for sure...and it all makes prediction difficult. Plus, hamstrings, elbow ligaments, and eyeballs all can go bad at rates that are tough to figure out.

I personally think we've gone too far in the direction of 4 hour games with 8 pitching changes on each side, and a lifetime between pitches. There was a lot to be said for the pitcher getting the ball back, looking in for the sign, and serving up the next pitch.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I personally think we've gone too far in the direction of 4 hour games with 8 pitching changes on each side, and a lifetime between pitches. There was a lot to be said for the pitcher getting the ball back, looking in for the sign, and serving up the next pitch.

I don't disagree...in particular, I find slow working pitchers painful.

The reduced workload of starting pitchers along with the recent trend of de-emphasizing closers (no 40 save seasons in 2021) and I wonder how we'll define a hall of fame pitcher in 20 years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I don't disagree...in particular, I find slow working pitchers painful.

The reduced workload of starting pitchers along with the recent trend of de-emphasizing closers (no 40 save seasons in 2021) and I wonder how we'll define a hall of fame pitcher in 20 years.

Don't get Burkett started again.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I don't disagree...in particular, I find slow working pitchers painful.

The reduced workload of starting pitchers along with the recent trend of de-emphasizing closers (no 40 save seasons in 2021) and I wonder how we'll define a hall of fame pitcher in 20 years.

I was stunned to see how many times during the playoffs all star and even Hall of Fame caliber starting pitchers who looked pretty strong still were yanked early in the game in favor of a cast of journeymen. Dave Roberts seems especially prone to this, but by no means was he the only one. I really did not get it, and more often than not it seemed to backfire. To me, a first principle of baseball has always been that by definition your starters are better pitchers than your relievers (POSSIBLE exception of superstar quality closer but even then not necessarily) and therefore if a starting pitcher is in command you leave him alone.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I was stunned to see how many times during the playoffs all star and even Hall of Fame caliber starting pitchers who looked pretty strong still were yanked early in the game in favor of a cast of journeymen. Dave Roberts seems especially prone to this, but by no means was he the only one. I really did not get it, and more often than not it seemed to backfire. To me, a first principle of baseball has always been that by definition your starters are better pitchers than your relievers (POSSIBLE exception of superstar quality closer but even then not necessarily) and therefore if a starting pitcher is in command you leave him alone.

I must be getting old, because when I was a kid in the 80's, looking at pitching lines from prior decades made them seem so....unreal. I mean even stuff from the 60's with 300 IP were crazy, but looking at the early pre-war stuff was even more nuts.

A kid today watching today's game would think the same about the baseball I grew up...200-275 IP seasons? 20 game winners? Jack Morris (and John Smoltz!) in Game 7 in 1991. It must seem like a different age!

[Peter_Spaeth]

I just don't get the thinking. You have the likely #1 or 2 guy for NL Cy Young and lock HOFer in Scherzer, who's pitching a reasonably good game and has good stuff, and you yank him in the 4th or 5th inning for some fungible guy who's pitched undistinguished middle relief for 5 teams in 8 years or whatever. I mean what is that?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I just don't get the thinking. You have the likely #1 or 2 guy for NL Cy Young and lock HOFer in Scherzer, who's pitching a reasonably good game and has good stuff, and you yank him in the 4th or 5th inning for some fungible guy who's pitched undistinguished middle relief for 5 teams in 8 years or whatever. I mean what is that?

The thinking is that the third time through a lineup, a starting pitcher gives up significantly higher OPS than the first two.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the thinking...especially if you have an ace pitcher who's dealing. An ace pitcher doing worse, even significantly worse, than his normal self, still could be better than a mediocre reliever.

Of course, back in the day, middle relievers were mediocre. Now they all throw 100 mph for 20 pitches, then fall apart.