I'd keep him out just for bailing on his team during a playoff run to go to rehab. He couldn't stay on the sauce for a few extra weeks?

I'm still right on this and all other posts pro HOF are irrelevant.

So if we're not going to look at a rate stat, and instead are going to look at the actual number of wins, then Feller (266) and Maddux (355) must be better pitchers than Pedro Martinez (219) Sandy Koufax (165), right? You can switch the perspective all you want, but the win stat isn't that descriptive of a pitcher's quality. All it means is that Maddux and Feller were able to stick around longer than Martinez and Koufax, it doesn't necessarily make them better. If we're talking about a pitcher's ability to compete against another pitcher, I'd take Martinez and Koufax in their prime over about 80% to 90% of all the other pitcher's in the Hall of Fame.

We're not looking at just the number of wins. We're looking at the W/L record. I assume you can figure the percentage pretty easily. That's exactly why, if we could only see one single stat to judge a starting pitcher, career W/L record is by far the best choice. If you pick ERA you have no idea if the guy pitched two innings or 2000. If you pick strikeouts you have no idea how many walks the guy had to offset that (Nolan Ryan). A career W/L record gives you at least a rough idea of how many innings a guy pitched.

Baseball is a game of time and repetition. Anyone can get on base five times in a game like John Paciorek did (although no one else ever did just that and ended his career). You can't tell the difference between Babe Ruth and Daniel Palka in four- or even 400- at-bats. There can be a twenty game stretch where Ronald Acuna is better than Lou Gehrig. (That goes to my point that the difference between two big league offenses in the minute space of nine innings is immeasurable.)

Regarding Pedro Martinez and Koufax, Martinez has enough of a body of work at a brilliant level to make his induction in the Hall unquestionable. Koufax is a little different- a short career guy who burned very bright. The comp for him would be Dizzy Dean. But an argument cold easily be made that Dwight Gooden's first eight seasons were at least the equal of those two guys. So in effect, Gooden may have pitched his way out of the Hall of Fame. That doesn't seem right, does it?

There's obviously some line in there where a guy has enough of a body of work for consideration. Guys like Gullett and Guidry fall short. If you're going to have a minimal amount of wins you better be utterly brilliant like Koufax or Dean.

I don't like James's list at all. On my list Gibson is somewhere in the 20s right near Marichal and Jenkins. Great as he was, Gibson is probably the most overrated pitcher, probably because of 1968. Whitey Ford is criminally underrated. Lower ERA and better winning percentage than Gibson.

Also, your "short leash" argument is a modern concern. It doesn't really apply to guys in the last century.

You can say the same about any stat across eras though. Bob Gibson wasn't going to post a 1.12 ERA in the 30s.

Anyway, up until relatively recently a reliever was just that- a guy who relieved the starter when necessary rather than as part of a game plan. If your argument is that a starter's W/L record is less important when starters only go 5-6 innings, I agree.

But I'll say this- in the era of the 6 inning starter we should expect the top pitchers to have higher winning percentages because they should exit with the lead most of the time and unlike Spahn or Ford, etc., they aren't going to lose one late.

Sure, if we're talking about a season or a half season, but over the course of a career W/L record tells you a lot about a starting pitcher that other things don't. In fact, it tells you the most important thing- how he actually competed in the games he pitched.

Also, I don't want to hear about how a guy who lead the league in ERA and went 8-16 was some poor victim. That completely ignores the fact that opposing pitchers were competing under the same conditions he was and pitching better in most cases. And the guy in question didn't have some feeble offense either. They simply played half their games in a ballpark where scoring was difficult which is precisely the same factor that caused him to be able to lead the league in ERA while losing so many games.

8-16 is NEVER a good year for a starting pitcher regardless of any other numbers.

the baseball writers signaled their willingness to look beyond W-L records when voting on player honors when they awarded 13-12 King Felix the AL Cy Young in 2010. Felix Hernández demotion to the bullpen doesn't bode well for his HoF chances.

Kluber wins any more Cy Young awards and he'll probably get in--every eligible pitcher with 3 or more Cy Young wins is in the HoF. Scherzer and Kershaw are the only active players with 3 Cy Young awards.

In 2015 Kluber went 9-16(leading the league in losses) for the Indians. He led the AL in complete games, was top 5 in K’s, top 10 in hits per 9IP, top 5 in BB per 9IP, 2nd in the league in IP. He finished in the top 10 in Cy voting. He’s also got a career winning percentage north of .600. The year prior to 2015 he had a winning percentage of .667, the year after of .667. Do you think he just didn’t compete or give shit in 2015? Not likely, he had a good year. It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen where a sp has a good year with a poor W/L record.

King Felix was great.. I empathize with him..it be like Sale being stuck in White Sox Shit show for his whole career.

I think he got outpitched in 2015. Why is that difficult to admit? The other guys are big league pitchers too. I'm pretty sure Kluber himself would tell you he didn't have a great year in 2015. By definition, 9-16 is a bad season.

It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen where a sp has a good year with a poor W/L record.

Yes, during a season it happens. A guy who is near .500 for his career is likely not going to have really good across the board stats. It goes back to the question Jorr posed initially- can you name a HOF starting pitcher with a .500 career record?

Ted Lyons and Nolan Ryan are the only ones I can think of who are close.

He still had a decent year for a contemporary starter. He also seems to have learned something, as he became dominant after that season. I realize that he had a good season the year before, but maybe losing those games in 2015 taught him something. I have no idea if he mastered a pitch (or worked to master a pitch) that year. Looks like they had the AL Central in interleague that year.

Joel Horlen may be the best starter with a losing career record.

He may be the best if you chose to ignore guys like Matt Cain, Jon Matlak, Mark Gubiscza, Bobo Newsom and a dozen or so more guys.

A “good season” the year before?

He won the Cy Young fuckhead.

Even those two guys are 32 games and 30 games over for their career. Lyons also had nearly 100 relief appearances and 25 career saves. He also started 5 games, going 1-4, at 45 years old after missing three seasons in WWII.

Bobo Newsom was the perennial loss leader in the AL. Murry Dickson is his NL counterpart. Yeah, they played on shitty teams- partly because Newsom and Dickson were their best pitchers.

Matt Cain. 104-118 with a 3.68 ERA. He must have been a great pitcher! Yeah, put him in the Hall of Fame.

I saw Gubiscza's [sic] entire career and he was the very definition of ordinary.

You can make an argument for Matlack. I wouldn't say he was better than Horlen, but I'm not going to argue too much if you insist he was.

I have to agree that I am a "fuckhead." That word--well, it's just so damn descriptive.

Kluber became dominant the year after his 9-16 campaign. That was my point. I think I mentioned it in another post.

I wonder if any HoF starters have less than 30 wins above .500?

You also stated that he had a “good season” the year before, that is just flat out disingenuous. He won the Cy Young award, and it wasn’t some bullshit Mark Davis/ Steve Bedrosian 1980s junk.

It was a great season, Kluber’s 2014 campaign. It is just disingenuous to state anything less.