Cooperstown Notebook: The Incredible Shrinking Crop of Enshrined Starters

During the 2022 Hall of Fame election cycle, I introduced S-JAWS, an experimental version of my starting pitcher metric, in the service of evaluating candidates on the Golden Days and BBWAA ballots. I promised to return to the topic for a broader look at pitchers from other periods, but before doing so took a little detour related to the representation rates and demographics of the players elected to the Hall. This larger exploration helps to illustrate the importance of looking at the situation in a new light.
Like JAWS, S-JAWS is a Hall of Fame fitness metric based upon Baseball Reference’s version of WAR, though those shouldn’t be the only factors under consideration in a Hall of Fame case, whether we’re discussing pitchers or position players. They’re nonetheless critical to my analysis, a useful first-cut mechanism to tell me, “Is this a candidate worthy of consideration for a spot on a ballot?” but as I’ve stressed through my annual series and elsewhere, other factors such as awards, postseason play, and historical importance are germane as well. Whether we’re using JAWS or S-JAWS — both of which you can see on the Starting Pitchers page at Baseball Reference — that doesn’t change. In fact, that page now defaults to sorting by S-JAWS, though you can see rankings by JAWS or any other category you choose, whether it’s WAR or innings pitched or ERA+ or some other stat.
Like JAWS, S-JAWS uses an average of a pitcher’s career and peak WAR (best seven seasons at large) for comparisons to the averages of all Hall of Fame pitchers. The idea behind S-JAWS is to reduce the skewing caused by the impact of 19th century and dead-ball era pitchers, some of whom topped 400, 500, or even 600 innings in a season on multiple occasions. The way I’ve chosen to do this is by prorating the peak-component credit for any heavy-workload season to a maximum of 250 innings. I chose 250 because it’s a level that the current and recent BBWAA candidates rarely reached, and only one active pitcher (Justin Verlander) has, albeit by a single inning a decade ago. Over the past 22 162-game seasons — in other words, every one since 1999, save for the pandemic-shortened 2020 campaign — only eight out of 44 league leaders topped 250 innings, with Hall of Famers Roy Halladay, Randy Johnson, and Mike Mussina accounting for five of those eight seasons. Only two of the past 32 league leaders topped 250 inning, Halladay in 2010 and Verlander the following year, and between them they were a grand total of five outs over the threshold. The various emphases on pitch counts, innings limits, and times through the order make it unlikely we’ll see such levels again, at least on a consistent basis, and while we can debate, lament, and discuss whether it’s worth trying to reverse that trend, that’s not my focus here. Given the current trends in the game regarding starting pitcher usage, five or 10 years from now, looking at candidates on a 200- or 225-inning basis might make more sense, but I think this is a reasonable place to start the adjustments (I’ll have a look at a 200-inning basis at some point).
As to how this plays out, Cy Young’s 453-inning 1892 season, which produced 11.2 pitching WAR and -0.9 hitting WAR, thus counts for about 5.7 WAR towards his peak score; he still gets credit for the full 10.3 WAR for his career total. Old Hoss Radbourn’s record-setting 678.2-inning 1884 season, the one in which he notched 59 or 60 wins (depending upon the source), scales from 19.2 pitching WAR and 0.3 hitting WAR to a total of 7.2 WAR towards his peak score, but again, his original 19.5 WAR is still part of his career total.
As noted in my roundup of the candidacies of Mark Buehrle, Tim Hudson, and Andy Pettitte, 12 of the 26 pitchers with the largest gaps between their JAWS and S-JAWS had careers that finished before 1893, the year that the pitching distance was extended from 50 feet to 60-foot-6, and four more barely made it into the new era, with careers that were done by the end of 1894. Only six of the 26 (including Young) even pitched into the 20th century, and only Walter Johnson and Pete Alexander pitched into the live ball era. Here’s that table again, with apologies if it feels like old news:
| Pitcher | Years | Career WAR | Peak WAR | Peak WAR Adj. | JAWS | S-JAWS | Dif |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Clarkson+ | 1882-1894 | 83.2 | 74.7 | 36.9 | 78.9 | 60.1 | -18.8 |
| Jim McCormick | 1878-1887 | 76.2 | 68.7 | 34.2 | 72.5 | 55.2 | -17.3 |
| Pud Galvin+ | 1875-1892 | 73.4 | 61.9 | 28.5 | 67.6 | 51 | -16.6 |
| Old Hoss Radbourn+ | 1880-1891 | 75.4 | 67.3 | 34.7 | 71.4 | 55 | -16.4 |
| Tim Keefe+ | 1880-1893 | 86.9 | 66.4 | 35.2 | 76.7 | 61.1 | -15.6 |
| Al Spalding+ | 1871-1878 | 60.3 | 60.4 | 31.3 | 60.4 | 45.8 | -14.6 |
| Tommy Bond | 1874-1884 | 60.9 | 62.7 | 33.6 | 61.8 | 47.2 | -14.6 |
| Amos Rusie+ | 1889-1901 | 65.8 | 63.3 | 35.3 | 64.6 | 50.5 | -14.1 |
| Kid Nichols+ | 1890-1906 | 116.3 | 74.5 | 47.4 | 95.4 | 81.8 | -13.6 |
| Cy Young+ | 1890-1911 | 163.6 | 78.0 | 50.8 | 120.8 | 107.2 | -13.6 |
| Charlie Buffinton | 1882-1892 | 60.7 | 60.2 | 35.8 | 60.4 | 48.3 | -12.1 |
| Walter Johnson+ | 1907-1927 | 164.8 | 89.3 | 65.0 | 127.0 | 114.9 | -12.1 |
| Jim Whitney | 1881-1890 | 56.0 | 54.7 | 31.4 | 55.4 | 43.7 | -11.7 |
| Mickey Welch+ | 1880-1892 | 62.3 | 54.1 | 31.2 | 58.2 | 46.8 | -11.4 |
| Bobby Mathews | 1871-1887 | 55.1 | 50.3 | 27.4 | 52.7 | 41.3 | -11.4 |
| Silver King | 1886-1897 | 50.4 | 50.0 | 27.1 | 50.2 | 38.8 | -11.4 |
| Pete Alexander+ | 1911-1930 | 119.0 | 69.6 | 49.9 | 94.3 | 84.5 | -9.8 |
| Ed Walsh+ | 1904-1917 | 65.9 | 62.3 | 42.7 | 64.1 | 54.3 | -9.8 |
| Bob Caruthers | 1884-1893 | 59.5 | 55.7 | 36.5 | 57.6 | 48 | -9.6 |
| Ed Morris | 1884-1890 | 38.4 | 38.4 | 19.2 | 38.4 | 28.8 | -9.6 |
| Guy Hecker | 1882-1890 | 37.3 | 39.5 | 20.5 | 38.4 | 28.9 | -9.5 |
| Joe McGinnity+ | 1899-1908 | 59.0 | 54.1 | 35.6 | 56.6 | 47.3 | -9.3 |
| Tony Mullane | 1881-1894 | 66.6 | 49.7 | 31.7 | 58.2 | 49.2 | -9.0 |
| Bill Hutchison | 1884-1897 | 38.9 | 39.3 | 21.5 | 39.1 | 30.2 | -8.9 |
| Christy Mathewson+ | 1900-1916 | 106.5 | 70.2 | 53.0 | 88.4 | 79.7 | -8.7 |
| Will White | 1877-1886 | 34.9 | 35.5 | 18.1 | 35.2 | 26.5 | -8.7 |
These guys are ancient history, and while that history is fascinating — I loved learning and writing about Clarkson, Galvin, Keefe, Radbourn, and Welch for The Cooperstown Casebook — arguably they should be less of a factor when we hold up our yardstick to measure current candidates. While I’ve debated ways to tamp down the enshrined pitchers’ impact within JAWS, removing the oldest of them (that aforementioned quintet) outright would only lower the JAWS standard by about a point, and I’ve always been hesitant to completely remove any players from our data set. S-JAWS does a better job of reducing their impact when judging late 20th and 21st century hurlers.
As a group, the Hall of Fame pitchers lose an average of 9.1 WAR in the adjustment of their peak WARs and an average of 4.6 points in the conversion from JAWS to S-JAWS. But as you’d expect, it’s the older pitchers who see the greater drops. Here’s the breakdown by birth decade:
| Birth Decade | HOF SP | Career WAR | Peak WAR | Peak WAR Adj. | JAWS | S-JAWS | Change | Peak Adj.% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <1870 | 7 | 94.4 | 68.1 | 37.8 | 81.3 | 66.1 | -15.1 | 56% |
| 1870-1879 | 7 | 62.6 | 50.3 | 37.3 | 56.5 | 49.9 | -6.5 | 74% |
| 1880-1889 | 9 | 78.6 | 54.0 | 42.5 | 66.3 | 60.5 | -6.9 | 79% |
| 1890-1899 | 6 | 49.9 | 36.4 | 33.4 | 43.2 | 41.7 | -1.5 | 92% |
| 1900-1909 | 5 | 70.6 | 46.0 | 42.1 | 58.3 | 56.3 | -2.0 | 92% |
| 1910-1919 | 2 | 54.9 | 47.9 | 39.3 | 51.3 | 47.0 | -4.3 | 82% |
| 1920-1929 | 6 | 69.2 | 45.2 | 39.8 | 57.2 | 54.5 | -2.7 | 88% |
| 1930-1939 | 8 | 70.5 | 49.7 | 42.4 | 60.1 | 56.4 | -3.7 | 85% |
| 1940-1949 | 7 | 77.4 | 46.3 | 40.4 | 61.9 | 58.9 | -3.0 | 87% |
| 1950-1959 | 2 | 69.0 | 41.4 | 38.0 | 55.2 | 53.5 | -1.7 | 92% |
| 1960-1969 | 5 | 88.0 | 49.0 | 48.6 | 68.5 | 68.3 | -0.2 | 99% |
| 1970-1979 | 2 | 74.1 | 54.4 | 54.2 | 64.3 | 64.2 | -0.1 | 100% |
| Total | 66 | 73.0 | 49.8 | 40.7 | 61.4 | 56.8 | -4.6 | 82% |
The table includes only players from the National League, American League, and bygone white major leagues (National Association, American Association, Union Association, Player League, and Federal League), not the Negro Leagues classified as majors. The shorter seasons for the Negro Leagues pitchers make direct comparisons using JAWS ill-advised. Of the enshrined pitchers from Black baseball, José Mendéz and Smoky Joe Willams were born in the 1880s, Andy Cooper and two-way star Bullet Rogan in the ’90s, Ray Brown, Bill Foster, Satchel Paige, and Hilton Smith in the 1900s, and Leon Day in the ’10s — the last of those a decade that’s already lacking in Hall of Fame hurlers, a point to which I’ll return.
The oldest group represented by the table, which consists of Old Hoss and the other war horses plus Young and Kid Nichols, is by far the hardest hit by the change to S-JAWS, but those pitchers as a group had the highest seasonal pitching WARs to begin with thanks to their monster innings totals, led by Galvin’s 20.5 in 1884 (though that drops to 18.5 with offense thrown in, leaving Keefe’s 20.2 — 0.3 from offense — as the champ). Even with the peak adjustment, they collectively have a higher S-JAWS than every group but the 1960s one.
The average reductions for the 1870s and ’80s groups are less than half those of the pre-1870 group. Those two younger groups are unequal in quality, a pattern we see repeated in various adjacent decades; given the small samples and arbitrary cutoffs (a decade that starts with a year ending in zero is no more important than one ending with a three or a seven), a couple particularly strong or weak members can skew things one way or the other. The 1870s group has just one pitcher with a career WAR above 65.8, namely Eddie Plank (90.9), but the ’80s group has Alexander, Johnson, and Mathewson all with at least 106.5 WAR, and Ed Walsh at 65.9 as well.
The reductions for the pitchers born in the 1890s or later are comparatively smaller, and those for the pitchers born in 1960 or later are almost negligible. This is the effect I was aiming for when I came up with S-JAWS, something that wouldn’t unduly penalize starting pitchers for the industry-wide limitations in workload, which, if we’re looking backwards across longer periods, also include the moves to standardized four- and five-man rotations.
We can aggregate these groups a number of ways. Here’s my attempt to divide the pitchers up into three groups of roughly equal size, sticking with the conventional decade cutoffs:
| Birth Decade | Qual | HOF SP | Pct | WAR | Peak | Peak Adj. | JAWS | S-JAWS | Change | Peak Adj.% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <1890 | 115 | 23 | 20.0% | 78.6 | 57.2 | 39.5 | 67.9 | 59.0 | -8.9 | 69% |
| 1890-1929 | 106 | 19 | 17.9% | 62.0 | 42.9 | 38.3 | 52.5 | 50.1 | -2.3 | 89% |
| 1930-1979 | 204 | 24 | 11.8% | 76.3 | 48.3 | 43.7 | 62.3 | 60.0 | -2.3 | 91% |
| Total | 425 | 66 | 15.5% | 73.0 | 49.8 | 40.7 | 61.4 | 56.8 | -4.6 | 82% |
I’ve also included some data on representation rates, namely the number of Hall of Famers as a percentage of pitchers in each decade who reached 2,000 innings pitched, a tally that includes every enshrined pitcher from the NL, AL, and bygone white leagues except Dizzy Dean (who fell 32.2 innings short), plus relievers Hoyt Wilhelm and Dennis Eckersley, who aren’t included in the counts of enshrined starters. For as much as I would prefer a count that also included the Negro Leagues and their predecessors, the leaders for the major league years (1920-48) top out with only five pitchers above 1,000: Cooper at 1,603.1; Rogan, Foster, and Brown around 1,500; and Paige with a combined total of 1,695, including his post-integration years in the AL. The others made their bones earlier with the exception of Day, who lost time to World War II and injuries.
What stands out via this grouping are two points. First, the peak reductions for the two groups born from 1890 onward are virtually identical, and second, those reductions put the post-1930 group on a level with the pre-1890 group in terms of S-JAWS. Both are about nine or 10 points ahead of the pitchers born from 1890-1929, which ranges from pitchers who may have debuted in the dead-ball era (pre-1920) to those who debuted in the 1950s, a decade that did not feature as much sustained greatness in pitching, at least as reflected by WAR, as the one that followed. It’s worth remembering that the 1890-1929 group did lose some productive years to World War II and, in the case of Whitey Ford (born 1928), even the Korean War; don’t judge them too harshly.
Note the drop in Hall of Fame representation rate from the first two groups to the third. By including the 1930s group in the latter set, that actually camouflages the even steeper drop-off that was apparent in the breakdown from my previous installment. Going by the split I used in that article, 20.6% of pitching qualifiers born during the 1900-39 period are enshrined, but just 9.2% of those born in the 1940-79 period, a 2.23 ratio that’s still better than the 3.11 ratio among qualified position players (5,000 plate appearances or more) within those two groups.
The representation drop is particularly steep for the 1950s and ’70s birth groups. Here’s a look in graphic form:

Here you can get a better handle on the extent to which World War II cut into the number of qualifying pitchers born in the 1910s and ’20s while also seeing the fall in representation rates for those born in later decades. From among the starters born in the 1950s, only Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris — forever linked in this scribe’s mind — are enshrined, though four relievers (Eckersley, Rich Gossage, Lee Smith, and Bruce Sutter) are as well, a weird anomaly. More pitchers born in the 1960s (Mussina, Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux,and John Smoltz) are in the Hall than starters from either adjacent decade; from the 1970s, only Halladay and Pedro Martinez have been elected thus far, and the landscape beyond them doesn’t look particularly promising.
Here’s a breakdown into four age groups that I think does a better job of illustrating the fall-off:
| Birth Decade | Qual | HOF SP | Pct | WAR | Peak | Peak Adj. | JAWS | S-JAWS | Change | Peak Adj.% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <1900 | 151 | 29 | 19.2% | 73.5 | 53.6 | 38.4 | 63.6 | 56.0 | -7.6 | 72% |
| 1900-1929 | 71 | 13 | 18.3% | 67.5 | 45.9 | 40.6 | 56.7 | 54.0 | -2.7 | 88% |
| 1930-1949 | 82 | 15 | 18.3% | 73.7 | 48.1 | 41.4 | 60.9 | 57.6 | -3.4 | 86% |
| 1950-1979 | 122 | 9 | 7.4% | 80.7 | 48.5 | 47.5 | 64.6 | 64.1 | -0.5 | 98% |
| Total | 425 | 66 | 15.5% | 73.0 | 49.8 | 40.7 | 61.4 | 56.8 | -4.6 | 82% |
What I like about this grouping is that both the percentages of Hall of Famers across the first three groups and the resulting S-JAWS averages are in fairly narrow ranges; the newer metric cuts the gap from the lowest average to the highest roughly in half, from 6.9 points to 3.6. What stands out here beyond that isn’t just the low share of qualifiers who are enshrined — the ratio of the 1930-49 group to the later one is 2.48 — but how much higher the S-JAWS average is for that last group. On one level this makes sense, as the cream of the crop was elected by the BBWAA (Roger Clemens and Curt Schilling aside, for reasons) and the average hasn’t been pulled down by committee elections, Morris and his 37.4 S-JAWS aside. Additionally, these pitchers were generally excelling in a higher-offense era and striking out an increasing proportion of hitters, which means less value shared with the fielders behind them. Even if Clemens and Schilling had been elected, the resultant rate (9.0%) would still be less than half that of the 1930-1949 group.
It seems clear that we need more pitchers in the Hall of Fame from the recent past, and it’s fair to wonder if the BBWAA voters have dropped the ball by letting Hudson (born 1975, 48.1 S-JAWS) fall off the ballot with just 3.0% in the most recent election, with Buehrle (born 1979, 47.4 S-JAWS) barely hanging on at 5.8% and Pettitte (born 1972, 47.2 S-JAWS) 10.7% only slightly better supported. I didn’t have any of the three on my ballot, and wasn’t strongly compelled to include them when I took my first look at the trio through the lens of S-JAWS. In my next installment, I’ll place them within the larger context of the pitchers from the post-1949 group.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
I personally would include Pettitte, Tommy John, Luis Tiant, Rick Reuschel, David Cone, and Kevin Brown. Roger Clemens and Curt Schilling too, although I understand and respect why some would vote no for them.
For me Hudson, Buehrle, Dwight Gooden, Bret Saberhagen, Orel Hershiser, Cole Hamels, Roy Oswalt, Felix Hernandez, and Johan Santana, and Dave Stieb are all a tier below, although none of them would be terrible selections.
Agree. Easy yes on Hamels. Santana, Saberhagen and Stieb before a single reliever. I’d add CC Sabathia and Kevin Appier to the yes column. John seems like Kaat without the lifetime in the game but he’s not objectionable.
I do believe starting pitchers have been undervalued by BBWAA voters in the age of expansion. Frankly, I’ve struggled with it myself, but my vote doesn’t matter. Is the Hall about the best players, or is it about a subset, meaning the best players by position or role? So the top closers get in even though the majority are less valuable than starters? If GMs knew the careers that David Cone, Tommy John, Luis Tiant and Lee Smith would have in advance, would any of them draft Lee Smith ahead of them? I’d take all the starters before Smith, yet Smith is the only one in the HOF.
Steib I’d say belongs in the top list if going by peak. He averaged 7.3 rWAR over a four-year period. He certainly was a more dominant pitcher than Pettitte, to pick one example, but Pettitte had a longer career, and a fine postseason resume, which should be included. Maybe there’s room for both, one on peak, one on longevity. The two most popular versions of WAR don’t help clarify. Stieb’s at 56.5 career rWAR to Pettitte’s 60.2, but fWAR has Stieb at 43.8 to Pettitte’s 68.2. We can do this same exercise for Hudson and Buehrle, too. I’d put Cone and Tiant in ahead of all of them, not including Clemens and Schilling.
The Hall voters do a good job on the truly elite-level pitchers, but it’s the notch down that’s unclear. What would JAW’s say if a list was created of the greatest starting pitchers from 1961 forward? It eliminates the crazy WAR totals of the early years and also incorporates the age of expansion and by that point the full integration of the game. (I’m not arguing against early pitchers at all, but trying to recognize the game has changed significantly as it relates to starters.)
I agree with most of your starter selections, however Schilling is an avowed white supremacist and avid collector of Nazi memorabilia, who also defrauded the state of Rhode Island of tens of millions of dollars. You can’t put somebody like that in the hall regardless of how well they pitched, it sends a bad message.
Avowed? Did I miss that?
well you might be dense, Trump’s whole brand is white supremacy and bigotry. His grandfather was not just in the KKK, but was a very openly racist landlord.
Looking at the list of starters by S-JAWS, there’s not a long list of pitchers who “should” have been elected but haven’t.
Of the top 59 in S-Jaws, 45 of them have been elected to the Hall. The 14 who haven’t been elected include 3 “problematic pitchers” – Schilling, Clemens, and Kevin Brown – and 5 who aren’t yet eligible for the Hall – Verlander, Kershaw, Greinke, Scherzer, and Sabathia. So that leaves 6 pitchers who have been “left out”:
Rick Reuschel, Jim McCormick, Wes Ferrell, Luis Tiant, David Cone, Bret Saberhagen
Of those 6 only Cone and Saberhagen were born post 1950.
Once you get past the top 59 in S-JAWS, the chances of getting elected to the Hall fall dramatically. Of the pitchers ranked 60-79, only 5 have been elected to the Hall. Same thing with those between 80-99: only 5 have been elected to the Hall.
Of course, almost all of the pitchers ranked below position 60 on S-JAWS who have been elected to the Hall were born before 1950 (Morris appears to be the only exception). But while some of them were good selections (Wynn, Koufax, Ford) many of them weren’t.
So I don’t know. I’m sympathetic to Jay’s argument. But if we’re going to support, for example, Andy Pettitte for the Hall, do we also need to support Tommy Bond who has the exact same S-JAWS and also isn’t in the Hall? I guess I’m just not sure where we draw the line and decide who deserves election among those who are ranked below position #60 on S-JAWS.
Honest question: What was problematic about Kevin Brown?
I have a vague memory of people not liking him very much, but I don’t remember scandal beyond that.
In addition to his prickly personality, he was named in the Mitchell Report.
He was named in the Mitchell Report and there’s a photocopy of a receipt to back up the allegations. Even the Dodgers’ GM speculated that he was on steroids.
thx!
Isn’t that the point of S-JAWS, though? To capture the guys who should be in?
Sabathia goes from 72nd under JAWS and a 50/50 shot to 55th and surrounded by Hall of Famers.
Hamels and Santana for from 81 and 83 and likely out to 69 and 71 and at least borderline.
It seems to be working to me.
Guess I don’t understand your comment. I’m not asking whether or not S-JAWS is working properly. And I’m not aware of any tool that can tell us who “should” be in the Hall. That’s always a judgment call.
But Jay seems to be arguing that there aren’t enough starters who were born post-1950 who are in the Hall. And maybe he’s right about that. But S-JAWS doesn’t show us large swaths of obviously qualified starters who have been overlooked.
So sure you elect (or advocate for) Pettitte or Buerle or Hudson if you want to make some sort of “era-balance”. But why those three instead of Finley and Stieb and Hershiser for example? And why not Urban Shocker and Tony Mullane who are higher than all of those guys on S-JAWS?
I think you are missing the point a bit. The obvious choices are still obvious in the eras that Jay is reviewing (as innings totals continue to drop, the generation that follows Kershaw/Verlander/Scherzer may have greater problems in this area). But as the poster above notes, it accurately identifies a number of pitchers who go from non-candidates who should fall off the ballot after their first appearance to borderline candidates deserving of more debate and discussion (like Sabathia, Hamels, etc). What this tool does is help us identify people who should not simply be disposed of in a single ballot, which has been quite common. And a process for how to do this analysis is going to be necessary because the trend is only accelerating. While we’re looking now at people who pitched in an era where 250 innings became a rarity but 200 or 210 or 220 still happened regularly, we’re not far away from guys who will have pitched in an era where only a handful of pitchers per season even qualify for the ERA title, and 200 inning pitchers are a rarity. If we do not adjust our frame of reference and come up with tools to address this going forward, we will reach a point where, due to usage changes, there simply are no longer Hall of Fame pitchers, or where that status is reserved only for 1 or 2 generational unicorns like Kershaw or Pedro.
Makes me wonder it’s even appropriate to develop a tool that encompasses all eras.
I think we’re all comfortable with the notion that the standards that were used to select enshrinees 100 (or even 75) years ago are not the standards we find appropriate today. So why force them into the dataset as comparitors?
Yes. Relates to my question above. Maybe for starting pitchers, Jay can create a version of JAW’s from 1961 forward. Could be 1947 forward, or whatever, but I believe the game has changed significantly enough since expansion as it relates to starting pitchers and their usage.
Couldn’t agree more. It seems wildly obvious that the standards of Cy Young’s era should have nothing at all to do with the standards of Kershaw’s era.
I’m pretty sure I’m not the one missing the point. 🙂
Yes, it makes more recent starters look better. Obviously. But it’s not clear that it puts them up to the HOF level or anywhere near it. Look at BenZobrist4MVP’s comment above. He says that most of the guys recent guys who are ranked below position #60 on S-JAWS aren’t HOFers. That comment is currently at +11 which means that the majority of people on this site agree with him.
BTW, here’s what Jay says:
“It seems clear that we need more pitchers in the Hall of Fame from the recent past…”.
Again, it doesn’t seem that a lot of the people on this site agree with him. And even for those that agree with Jay, I doubt there’s any consensus on who should get elected. And it’s also not clear why they should be preferred over equally qualified candidates who came from earlier eras.
Going forward…I’m not sure. I was thinking the other day about NFL running backs. They’re being asked to do less and their careers seem to be ending sooner. So we may reach a point where few, if any, of them are elected to the HOF. But maybe that’s okay if their contribution to their team’s success has decreased. Maybe. I’m not sure.
I think we just need a willingness to change our definition of what greatness means at a position as the position itself evolves.
We may reach a day where the optimal strategy for winning baseball games is for starting pitchers to “max out” and throw fewer innings at max velocity. This will probably increase injury and shorten careers.
Right now, Corey Kluber doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of making the hall. But maybe the Kluber of 25 or 50 years from now delivers a 5 year stretch where he averages 6 WAR and wins a couple CY Youngs and that’s enough.
Who knows?
I disagree with some of your claims.
1) 11 upvotes definitely doesn’t mean “the majority of people on this site agree with him.” That’s just not how upvotes work on this site (or maybe any). Unless you are certain that the people upvoting are a representative sample of all the readers.
2) The only way it makes sense for there to be fewer starting pitchers enshrined from now (or none), is if you think the pitchers today are having worse careers than the pitchers from the past. One way to attempt to answer that is to compare today’s pitchers to their peers. Otherwise, you’ll have to say that anyone with less than 3000 innings pitched should never be a Hall of Famer.
I bet you could get most readers to agree with the notion that there should be at least 4-5 starting pitchers from each generation in the Hall of Fame.
If so, this generation has Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer, maybe Greinke?
Maybe that’s enough. But who are the borderline guys? Sabathia, Pettitte, Santana, Hamels? Shouldn’t we at least be discussing them, even if we ultimately rule them unworthy?
More importantly, who will get in from the next generation, the guys whose careers are mostly after, say, 2012?
Sale, DeGrom, Strasburg, Cole? Kluber?
Obviously they all have several years left, but if you won’t even consider anyone with less than 60 fWAR, none of them are probably getting in (maybe Sale). And no one after, either.
I guess you imply that you are ok with that, which is a bold statement, but I think an unpopular one.
I don’t know if NFL RBs are being asked ‘to do less’ – after all, being able to run routes is almost required for RBs today. Rather, what happened is that teams realized that RBs weren’t as important as they thought they were (with very few exceptions). That in fact most RBs were fungible and what really made the difference was the offensive line.
Rick Ferrell over Wes Ferrell seems like a typo that was never corrected
I want to see starting pitchers included in the Hall so I think there needs to be an effort to look at how the current standards will look going forward. The position is at the point where essentially noone whos debuted in the last 5-10 years will meet the backward looking standard. I dont think anyone thinks the current day pitchers are “worse” or less talented, more likely the opposite. S-Jaws is a good attempt to do this but I still think it doesnt go far enough, when looking forward.
Mr. Jaffe,
I admit that I haven’t yet read the full article when I’m asking this question, but the section after your thought process on an innings threshold for heavy workload seasons seemed to be heading toward analysis of players so I thought I’d ask what may be a dumb something you address later or have done so elsewhere – if so I apologize for the redundancy (and/or ignorance of the ramifications; I haven’t fully thought this through).
Rather than set an innings threshold, why not look at how many innings they pitched relative to the league average for the duration of their careers? It seems to me that doing so would capture a good portrait of where they stood without having to periodically make adjustments in the calculation.
yes, like IP+ (100 being league average)! i love this. IP+ on a stat line next to ERA+ and FIP+ would give you a very quick a dirty look at how much quality pitching was done, and in what quantity. great suggestion!
I think a league average for IP would be difficult to constitute. There are 9 innings in a game, regardless of how they’re pitched. If a pitcher only starts one game and lasts 5 innings, is he included in the count? If so, how? I think league average for a capped statistic like innings pitched (extra innings aside, of course) wouldn’t be all that helpful.
To clarify, I meant starters, not all pitchers.
But hell, why not average all pitchers out? Starting pitcher is edging towards becoming a title rather than an entity, so why not see who was healthy and trustworthy? If we want to really acknowledge how well someone played, shouldn’t we hold players to their peers rather than standards that were going or went extinct while they played?
There should be one more in right now – Schilling. It’s a joke for him not to be in. Baseball writers need to put politics aside.
Advocating for murder is beyond politics.
I completely disagree with Schilling’s positions, AND I think he’s just an oaf and a boor. That being said, I would vote for him if I had a ballot.
But the fact that he is shocked that the very people he cheered violence towards (writers and journalists) aren’t willing to vote for him is just the height of ignorance.
to induct Shilling would be an insult to the brave players that risked their lives to fight white supremacists in World War II, only for a white supremacist like him to be elected.
I was curious to see which specific pitchers benefit the most and the least from this change, in terms of JAWS ranking vs. S-JAWS ranking:
Biggest Climbers:
– Bullet Rogan and John Smoltz both jump 22 spots (already HOF)
– Kenny Rogers, Bartolo (!), Bruce Hurst, Kevin Gross all jump 21 spots
– Some other notable climbs – Reuschel and Brown jump to 32 and 33 and virtually meet the S-JAWS standard. David Cone jumps from 66 to 48, CC jumps from 73 to 55, Tiant jumps from 60 to 44
Biggest Fallers:
– 6 different 19th Century pitchers with S-JAWS between 20 and 30 fall over 100 spots
– Addie Joss, Ed Walsh, and Dizzy Dean are the only HOF members to debut in the 20th Century who fall 10 or more spots
Starters are similar to catchers in that they are keystones of the game, bearing the burden of so much of the action, yet so vulnerable to breaking down, in part because they are keystones of the game. You don’t need to find new value for post-1985 starters to make your case for putting more of them in the HoF. You can just lower your HoF threshold value expectation to reflect the changing game. Catchers get that handicap. And relievers *really* get that handicap. The catcher handicap is more than justified, the reliever handicap much less so. But the starter handicap needs to happen. Maybe lower the threshold into the 55-60 WAR range for starters from the 1980s onward, depending on the candidate, with an even lower threshold for the higher-peak folks like Santana. It’s just ridiculous how few starters are getting elected or getting serious voter consideration given their central place in how fans connect to baseball.
Then again, this is the first time I’ve seen Chuck Finley show up in these discussions. And that gives me pause.
The only active pitcher (aside from the Verlander-Scherzer-Greinke-Kershaw quartet) who has any sort of shot to get to Cooperstown is Gerrit Cole, and that’s about it. I think Buehler and Bieber have HOF ability, but the chances of them being consistent 200 inning guys for a decade are extremely slim to say the least, and nobody else is even close to HOF trajectory. Giolito? No. Burnes? No. Woodruff? No. Urías? Too soon to say, but I’d say no. Fried? No, obviously. Alcántara might be a wild card, but he needs to confirm his improvements (he has the stamina and durability, so far).
Wainwright? Had he not lost roughly 4-5 seasons of his career to injuries and underperformance, he’d be in, but he won’t get there, seeing as he’s gonna retire after 2022.
deGrom? I think he’s still got a long ways to go before he’s in. He just hasn’t pitched a lot of innings. Cole aside… nobody is on that path, really.
And, honestly, this doesn’t bother me that much. The starting pitcher has been losing relevance for decades, and we’ve finally gotten to the point where they just don’t impact the game enough to be considered Hall of Famers. Cooperstown is supposed to reflect the game itself, so a lack of starters in the Hall seems perfectly logical to me. Rooting for Cole to get to 200 wins so I can feel confident about his chances.
This is kind of where I’m at. If starters pitch less & less innings, they’re contributing less & less, so less of them should get in.
I don’t know if we’ll get down to where it should be zero, but, if they’re pitching less % of the innings, less SP’s should get in.
Sale has a decent shot still.
I disagree. I think voters need to realize that modern pitchers just aren’t going to be throwing 250-300 innings a season anymore or win 300 career games. The HOF needs to reflect that and still honor the game’s best players.
I think we’ll get fewer relievers in the HOF than we have seen in the past as modern relievers rarely pitch more than one inning. In fact, their career total for games pitched will likely top their career innings totals.
If we have fewer starters and relievers in the HOF, does that meanthat pitching doesn’t matter? If I am wrong about relievers and you are right about starters, does that mean that relievers are more important than starters? Both ideas are hard to justify.
I occasionally hear about the 3-3-3 idea, where games are pitched by a trio of pitchers, each one handling 3 innings. The starters get a thankless job with no wins or saves. The middle guys can really rack up the wins or losses. If baseball moved into that direction, any pitcher would have less impact than any starter now, and I wouldn’t have a problem with electing such a person to the HOF. Just select the best. In that scenario, judging pitchers becomes really easy as they all do the same thing.
This sounds just right to me. You elect the best pitchers of the era, no matter how those pitchers are used. Yes, you would expect fewer to be elected in an era in which no one stood out much from the rest, a theoretical possibility in the future, I guess. But since the 80s and until very recently, starters regularly pitched 6+ innings — most of the game. They didn’t pitch complete games every fourth day like a previous generation, but they were also pitching with much greater velocity. We should have different expectations of these pitchers than of pitchers in previous eras.
The discussion about what to do with the pitchers of today when they come up for consideration 15-20 years from now is different than the conversation to be had right now about the overlooked contributions of pitchers from Stieb to Cone to Buehrle.
Baltimore, Murrayland:
Yes. The Baby Boomer HOF pitchers: Ryan, Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Jenkins, Sutton, Blyleven, Perry, Niekro, pitched far more innings than subsequent pitchers, but they in turn pitched far fewer innings than previous pitchers. Hmmmm, this point is harder to make when one remembers that 6 of those 9 reached 300 wins.
I just looked up that Kenley Jansen has 701 games pitched and 705 innings. I am surprised he has more IP than GP. However, I suspect that by the time his career is over, that will not be the case. I wonder how HOF voters will respond to relievers who average slightly less than one IP per GP.
“If we have fewer starters and relievers in the HOF, does that mean that pitching doesn’t matter? ”
Correct, sort of. It means that INDIVIDUAL pitchers have never mattered less in baseball history. 1/3 of the innings the aces used to pitch are now tossed by a random mix of regular, nameless relievers and Quad-A guys, reducing the impact of that individual.
It’s actually always been like that. You just don’t remember the Bob Kneppers and Mark Gardners and Richard Dotsons from the 1980s and 1990s who racked up tons of innings but were mostly mediocre.
I’d argue yes on Buehler and Bieber, assuming they stay healthy. Same thing with Burnes/Urias. These guys have shoved in recent years, and they are still young enough to keep shoving for 7-10 more seasons and could rack up hall-worthy stats. Burnes pitched out of the bullpen during his first 2+ seasons of service time, and was almost as dominant during his first real crack as a starter in 2020 as he was last year. Won’t turn 28 until late October. Urias has yo-yo’d in the Dodgers system since he made his debut at age 19 (not entirely his fault, the Dodgers pitching staff has been very deep for a long time and they’ve been in win-now mode for at least a decade), but once they let him loose last year, he showed just how awesome he is by putting up 5 WAR. Only 25 too. Buehler has been on a ~5 WAR/year pace since he took the reins in the middle of 2018. 2020 being the only exception as he only made 8 starts during the short season. Turns 28 at the end of July. Bieber has some questionable health now, but when he does pitch, he usually dominates. He’s never had his K/9 dip below 10.8 since his rookie season. He won’t turn 27 until 5/31.
Burnes has also never tossed more than 167 innings in a season. He’s pitched one barely full season and has 313.2 IP and 23 wins through his age-26 season, so he’s gonna need some incredible production into his mid-30s to have a real shot.
I just can’t see wins having any presence in voting by the time Corbin Burnes is up for HOF election in the year 2040
They should to some extent. Wins are somewhat a measure of durability and volume.
Cole only has 200 more innings than deGrom, and we’re talking about a substantial gap in quality of the those innings (2.50 ERA for deGrom, 3.20 for Cole. deGrom has a massive WAR advantage at 40 to 31)
I have no issue with your statement about Cole being a possible HOF, but deGrom is very much ahead of him at the moment, and it’s really not particularly close.
Now, it’s fair to question how well deGrom is going to age going forward given the injuries he dealt with last year, whereas Cole has been as durable as they come
DeGrom is also 2+ years older.
“The only active pitcher (aside from the Verlander-Scherzer-Greinke-Kershaw quartet) who has any sort of shot to get to Cooperstown is Gerrit Cole, and that’s about it.”
When did deGrom retire? 🙁
First off, thanks Jay for another great read.
Second, the Hall of Fame is a joke.
Third, Kevin Goldstein said on his podcast recently that innings pitched is a massively underrated stat for starting pitchers. Perhaps there’s an argument to be made for changing WAR to reflect how important even a decently-pitched inning is, even in an era of reduced workloads? Buehrle’s accomplishments would look differently, if we took this perspective.
you’re a joke
I think the proper and fair way to evaluate pitchers is to compare them to the others in their eras. Given how IP have dropped significantly over the years, you can’t compare WAR to pitchers from the past. Even S-JAWS doesn’t seem to go far enough.
I think a good thing example of the difficulty is if you compare Buehrle to Fergie Jenkins. WAR and JAWS would show a big difference between the two. However, if you look at their “black ink” and compare their ERA+ figures for their individual seasons, they are remarkably similar. FJ had one over 140. Buehrle had two. FJ had two over 130. MB had three. FJ had nine over 120. MB had eight.
Both were very good, durable, consistent pitchers who threw a ton of IP. However, because Jenkins had seven 20 win seasons and high WAR totals, he’s still considered dominant. If we consider Buehrle the Jenkins of his generation, it’s easier for people to understand his strong case.
But he isn’t. It’s a lot easier to keep an ERA+ in the 130-150 range when you’re throwing far less innings.
Says who? Please give me some data to support this.
I’ll give you data to support my point. Jenkins was in the top five in ERA+ once in his career. Six times in the top ten in his league. Buehrle had two top fives and five top tens. If it was much tougher to be in the 130-150 range with more innings, it would show up in the rankings. Also, keep in mind Buehrle pitched in post-expansion with more starters pitching.
This is not to downplay Jenkins’s career. I think he is very much a deserving HOFer. I’m just putting a perspective on the current guys, including Hudson and Pettitte.
On one hand, that is true. Jacob deGrom has an ERA+ of 373 (!) in 92IP last year. Had he not gotten hurt, and pitched a full season, I doubt, as amazing as deGrom is, he would have sustained that level of performance.
However, in Jenkins era, the bad pitchers also threw more innings – in 1971 to pick a peak Jenkins year, Jerry Reuss had 211IP with an ERA+ of 76 and Carl Morton has 213,2IP with an ERA+ of 74. (In 1971 there were 18 pitchers with an ERA+ of 100 or less who threw over 200 innings. In 2021 there were 4 pitchers in total who threw 200IP – all of them substantially better than average.)
I wonder if there’s a better way to make sure S-JAWS scales across time. If a pitcher were to pitch 300 innings while other pitchers in the era were barely pitching 180 innings, I’m not sure it would make sense to scale down that peak season to 250 innings.
Maybe looking at the average innings of say the top 25 pitchers in a year, or maybe the top 50, top 5% of pitchers or something like that, and then set this as the baseline. Then, you can compute every pitcher’s innings relative to that baseline, and scale the WAR value down while giving players credit for dominating and eating innings. If the top 5% of pitchers in 1884 pitched 400 innings on average, Old Hoss could get credit for being 50% more workhorse-y than the top pitchers. Similarly if Justin Verlander comes back next year deciding he never wants to leave a game and throws 270 innings while the top pitchers are throwing 180 innings on average, he would also get a 50% bonus. The question then is what to give that bonus to, which I don’t have a great answer — maybe scale all pitcher WAR to 150 innings and tack on the bonus that way?
There’s a good deal of math and playing around with thresholds left to see what works so it’s very impressive S-JAWS does seem to work as well as it does, but something about having a fixed cutoff seems off to me, especially as we look forward. It would be great to reduce the impact of an era’s philosophy on workload, while also giving credit to players who bucked the trends of an era.
One contributor I think may be that the group of Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, and Martinez were just so insanely great that it might have raised the bar on what we consider HOF worthy.
Starting pitcher innings have been declining since the beginning of baseball history. Starters in the 1960-70s pitched significantly less innings than starters in the 1920s.
It just seems so odd to me that today’s pitchers are criticized in comparison to past generations because they don’t pitch as many innings, when that’s something that applies to every generation. A pitcher today that throws 190 innings is frowned upon because Bob Gibson threw 275 innings, but no one frowned upon Gibson’s 275 when compared to Christy Mathewson’s 350 innings
I assume the difference is that Gibson was likely getting lesser innings because of fewer starts not fewer innings per start. Today, guys are going about 6 innings per start so it feels different.
Cooperstown means nothing until they put Wander Javier i
As fewer and fewer innings are pitched by starting pitchers, fewer deserve to go into the hall of fame.
You say that as if it’s the pitchers’ faults.
You all probably should have stuck up for Schilling when it mattered. Cucks. It was fun watching your subscriptions dip after that though.
I can tell you’re a white dude
Because I think Schilling’s body of work was Hall worthy? Okay.
“Cucks?” I guess this was cross-posted to News Max…you do you, Q, you do you.
What in the world. That seems unnecessary.
Schilling had nothing to do with losing subscribers. I was a paying member. For years. I stopped. 0% to do with Schilling.
I stopped because Appelman promised communication then disappeared for a year. I stopped because MLB plucked many of the people that made FG, FG. You can’t lose Cameron, Sullivan, Cistulli and a dozen others and expect there to be no impact to the product. I stopped because they spent a year talking about how there is nothing to write about when there was an absolute ton to write about. I haven’t started subscribing again because of the hostile comments (used to be my favorite part of the community) and the lingering sentiment of “nothing to write about”. I guess the hostile comments do have a connection to Schilling, but no article is immune to them at this point so it’s not specific to him.
Schilling is a scumbag. He’s not an “avowed” white supremacist as mentioned above, because you can’t be “avowed” when you come out and deny allegations and say “I don’t have a racist bone in my body”, but he does plenty of scummy things. I don’t believe any of those things are why a small percentage of subscribers stopped subscribing. You certainly don’t speak for me.
I think the idea of workload adjustment for pitchers from different eras is a great idea, and I think you’ve gone for the correct implementation here, but I can’t help but think how cartoonish some of the numbers would be if we adjusted workloads the other way. Let’s extrapolate everyone’s numbers out to 680 IP and melt our brains with the peak WARs. Picking one year at random: Pedro’s 2000 translates to 36.4 WAR. Useless to help build HOF cases, but lord almighty that’s a big number.