Why The Class Of 2015 MLB Hall of Fame Pitchers Represent The End Of An Era

Several weeks ago I was watching a show where some scientists were studying layers of sedimentary rock and trying to reconstruct what things were like millions of years ago in that particular part of the world. It was pretty interesting. They were able to determine quite a bit of information by studying the types of rock in the layers, the thickness, and any fossils the layers may have contained. With that information it was possible to figure out when a certain time period ended and another began. Then over the weekend, I watched a recap of the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremonies. When I saw the three pitchers who were honored that day, I thought back to that show that I watched on television, and I came to the realization that we may have just seen the end of an era when it comes to major league pitching.

 I began playing baseball when I was seven and continued until I finished high school. And even though I couldn't hit off speed pitches consistently enough to make it to the next level, I have always remained close to the game as a fan. So I always pay particular attention when a new class is voted into the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. This year, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Randy Johnson were selected along with Craig Biggio. Martinez, Smoltz and Johnson were arguably the three most dominant pitchers of the past 25 years. In this week's post, I wanted take a brief look at their careers and discuss the changes that we will probably see when it comes to evaluating future pitchers for the Hall of Fame. All the numbers come from the baseball reference.com website.

Pedro Martinez

At 5'11" and 170 lbs, Pedro Martinez was the smallest of the trio, but that never stopped him. It always amazed me that he could throw in the mid-90 mph range with that frame. From 1997 to 2003, Martinez was virtually unhittable. During that time, his ERA was never higher than 3.00 and only once was it more than 2.50. He won two Cy Young Awards and was a big reason why the Boston Red Sox were finally able to reverse the curse of Babe Ruth in 2004 and bring home their first World Series Championship in 86 years,

John Smoltz

John Smoltz had the more traditional power pitcher's build at 6'3", 210 lbs. Not only did he throw hard, he had excellent location. Smoltz was positively clutch in the post season, sporting an impressive 15-4 record and an ERA of 2.67. He was also remarkably resilient. Smoltz missed the entire 2000 season while recovering from Tommy John surgery. Without skipping a beat, he transitioned to the role of closer in the Atlanta Braves bullpen the following year. From 2001-2004, he racked up 154 saves for the perennial division champs, making him the only pitcher inducted into the Hall of Fame with over 200 wins and 150 saves.

Randy Johnson

Randy Johnson was just a freak of nature, plain and simple. He stood at 6'10", 210 lbs; nearly a foot taller than Martinez. Standing on the mound, he looked closer to eight feet tall. I can't imagine a more intimidating sight for hitters when they stepped into the batter's box than seeing The Big Unit glaring down at them over the top of his glove as he awaited the sign from his catcher. To make matters worse, Johnson's long frame made it seem like by the time he released his fastball, it only had to travel about 45 feet to get to home plate. That's just not fair. Some of you may also remember a wild pitch he uncorked that absolutely vaporized a bird that had the misfortune of trying to occupy the same point in space between home plate and the backstop. The poor thing never stood a chance against a 99 mph fastball. Take a look. Over his 22 year career, Johnson struck out 4,875 batters, which is second only to Nolan Ryan. And in 2004 at age 39, he became the oldest pitcher in Major League Baseball to throw a perfect game.

Martinez, Smoltz, and Johnson represent the last generation of pitchers making the trip to Cooperstown whose greatness can be evaluated using traditional statistics.  Others who pitched during the same period may also earn induction later, but the point is that these three began their careers when baseball was starting to become more specialized, particularly when it came to pitching.  When they took the mound, the goal was to throw a complete game or at the very least get to the eighth inning. If they ran out of gas, a reliever from the bullpen would come and get the last handful of outs to save the game. That is rarely the case now. And because baseball has become more specialized, it's going to change how pitchers will be evaluated for induction into Hall of Fame from this point forward. It will no longer be possible to rely as heavily on the traditional statistics to see how they stack up against previous Hall of Fame pitchers.  The numbers simply won't be there. Let me show you what I mean. I will compare some key statistics from our most recent Hall of Fame inductees to two previous members and also to two of today's pitchers who are having outstanding careers so far and could be on the road to Cooperstown if they they continue to perform at their current high levels.

Bob Gibson

Jim Palmer

The two previous Hall of Fame pitchers we will take a look at are Bob Gibson and Jim Palmer. Gibson spent his entire career with the St. Louis Cardinals. He was the ace of their staff throughout the '60s and '70s and led them to two World Series Championships in three appearances. Gibson holds the modern day record for the lowest ERA among starting pitchers in a single season with a microscopic 1.12 in  1968. Jim Palmer played for the Baltimore Orioles for nineteen years. He was a six time 20 game winner and picked up three Cy Young Awards along the way. Palmer holds the distinction of winning a World Series game in three different decades (60's, '70s and '80s).  In his first World Series start in 1966, he shut out the Los Angeles Dodgers 6-0, beating Sandy Koufax in what turned out to be the great left-hander's last major league appearance. Koufax would retire later that year due to an arthritic left elbow. The Orioles swept the Dodgers in that series, and Palmer helped them win two more Fall Classics in 1970 and again in 1983.

Clayton Kershaw

Zack Greinke

The two current pitchers we will look at are Zack Greinke and Clayton Kershaw. Both have been pitching for at least eight years, and they have clearly established strong reputations as two of the premier pitchers in the major leagues today. The metrics we will compare in the following table will be  the number of years played, won-loss record, innings pitched, complete games and shutouts thrown. The players are listed in chronological order by career to make it easier to pick up on the trends.  Let's see what we've got:

Name	Year Played	W-L	Innings Pitched	Complete Games	Shutouts
Bob Gibson	17	251-174	3,884.1	255	56
Jim Palmer	19	268-152	3,948.0	211	53
Randy Johnson	22	303-166	4135.1	100	37
John Smoltz	21	213-155	3,473.0	53	16
Pedro Martinez	18	219-100	2827.1	46	17
Zack Greinke	12	132-92	2,010.1	14	4
Clayton Kershaw	8	106-55	1519.1	15	11

First of all, take a good look at Randy Johnson's 303 wins. It's not likely that we are going to see another career 300 win pitcher any time soon. The closest right now is Tim Hudson with 220 and he's 39 years old. Clayton Kershaw may have a shot, but he would have to average over 16 wins each year for the next 12 years to make it. That's assuming he has a 20 year pitching career. The only problem is he is only averaging a little over 13 wins each year right now, meaning he would need to perform at an even higher level in order to reach 300 wins. I'm not saying he can't do it, but the odds are not in his favor. 

Now let's break down the number of innings pitched. Johnson has more innings than Jim Palmer and Bob Gibson, But he only averaged 187 innings pitched per year compared to over 200 for Palmer and Gibson. The average numbers for Martinez and Smoltz are in the 160 inning range. The same goes for Greinke. Kershaw is currently averaging about 190 innings per year. It will be interesting to see if this number holds up as his career progresses. The biggest reason for the drop in these averages is the more specialized nature of pitching. The development of the closer and set up man has effectively shortened the game for the starters. It used to be that the relief pitchers were those who didn't quite have what it took to break into or stay in the starting rotation. This was more true with the middle relievers than it was with those that closed out the game. Then there was a concerted effort to develop the "set-up man"; a pitcher who could take the ball in the 7th inning and get his team to the 9th before handing the ball to the closer. So instead of being asked to go the distance, today's starting pitchers only need to make it to the 7th inning before turning the game over to the bullpen. This definitely impacts the number of innings pitched over a career, and potentially affects the pitcher's won-loss record, depending on how good the relievers are at closing out the game. An argument can be made that this will help extend a pitcher's career. It's a fair point, but until more data is available, I don't know that we can make that assertion right now. We'd have to wait until this generation of pitcher's retires before drawing any meaningful conclusions. 

 From there, what we have is a cascading effect. Less innings pitched leads to less complete games. The numbers bear this out. Johnson had 100 complete games, which was less than half of the total for Gibson and Palmer who both had over 200. Then there is a significant drop to Smoltz and Martinez who sit at 53 and 46 respectively. Now take a look at Greinke and Kershaw. They are currently have 14 and 15 complete games respectively. That's less than two per season compared to the double digit complete games Gibson and Palmer averaged each year for their careers. As a result, the number of shutouts are also shrinking. Eight years into his career, Clayton Kershaw has a total of 11 shutouts. Gibson had 23 durng his first eight years. Then he threw a mind-blowing 13 shutouts in 1968. Palmer was right there with him. He had tossed 24 shutouts in his first eight years and then rang up 10 alone in 1975. Moving forward, pitchers will be throwing far fewer shutouts because  many of them are limited by pitch counts. The only time managers are inclined to leave them in longer is if they have a no-hitter or perfect game going. Even if they lose the no-hitter, they are given the chance to finish the game if they still have good stuff. That explains Kershaw's 11 shutouts in only 15 complete games.

Based on today's trends, pitchers will not be able to post the same kinds of numbers as the ones who came before them. In fact, we start to see that drop off when Martinez, Smoltz, and Johnson were pitching from the early 1990s until they retired in 2009. The game just isn't the same. That's why I referred to them earlier as the last of their kind in the modern era. Up until now, statistics like won- loss record, innings pitched, ERA, complete games and shutouts, were what the baseball world used to determine a pitcher's greatness. But now the only one that has any significant weight is the ERA. Total strikeouts are impacted by the starters coming out the game earlier. The pitcher's record is something he has less control over for the same reason. The outcome is totally in the hands of the relievers. And let's face it, there are plenty of them out there who have trouble hanging onto a lead.

Starting now, the baseball writers will have to look more closely at the current analytics to figure out where today's pitchers stand. Using the old methods described above, Greinke and Kershaw would not likely achieve Hall of Fame numbers even when you project them out over an 18-20 year career. Never mind the 300 wins; 250 might be a stretch for either one of them. And forget about innings pitched, complete games and shutouts. They wouldn't come anywhere near those numbers posted by Gibson, Palmer and Johnson. So instead of  the traditional statistics, the focus will be more on today's analytics like wins above replacement (WAR), walks plus hits per innings pitched (WHIP), and defense independent pitching statistics (DIPS). Believe me, those three numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. When I began looking into all the different metrics that are used to evaluate pitchers, there were so many acronyms, it would have made any government agency proud. And whatever you do, please don't ask me how to figure some of them out.  The DIPS calculation alone requires 14 separate steps, and you need seven different pieces of information before you can even get started. Who would have thought that things would have gotten so complex?

As a fan, I need to get a lot smarter on these new analytics so I can carry on an intelligent conversation whenever it turns to potential Hall of Fame pitchers. That's what I think makes the induction of Martinez, Smoltz, and Johnson so significant. It marks the end of one period and the beginning of another. Within the modern baseball era, there is the traditional period, which corresponds to the application of pitching statistics like won-loss record, total strikeouts, ERA, innings pitched, complete games and shutouts to assess Hall of Fame status.  The induction of Martinez, Smoltz and Johnson marks a transition from the traditional period to the sabermetric period, which uses statistics that some say require an advanced degree in mathematics to even understand. For every pitcher who has entered the league since 2000, sabermetrics will likely be the standard that will be used to decide whether or not they are worthy of the Hall of Fame.

Fifty years from now, it's not going to be hard for baseball historians to look back at past decades (the metaphoric layers of sedimentary rock) and identify the specific point in time when the transition to sabermetrics occurred. That would be with the induction of Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Randy Johnson into Cooperstown in 2015; three pitchers who each dominated opposing batters in their own way. Today's pitchers like Greinke and Kershaw will do the same. It's just that now we all need to adjust to a new way of measuring that greatness to truly appreciate their accomplishments.

Until next time . . .

Karl

Greatness . . . How Do You Measure It?

I have spent the past two weeks watching a player who many consider to be the greatest in the world nearly pull off the impossible. LeBron James put a totally depleted Cleveland Cavaliers team on his back and got them within two games of winning the NBA Championship. In the end, the Golden State Warriors walked off basketball's biggest stage holding the trophy. They put away James and the Cavs in six games to win their first championship in forty years.

Almost immediately, the discussions began on what another finals loss (the fourth in six appearances) means for LeBron James' legacy; his greatness. And as I heard the pundits go back and forth on national sports talk radio about James' performance and how he stacks up against  past NBA legends, I kept coming back to the question, "What is the best way to measure this greatness?" Essentially, you have the athlete's body of work, but there are so many different ways to look at it. That's what makes these "greatest ever"conversations so interesting to me.

Do you want to create a little more excitement in your life? Walk into a sports bar in Chicago with Bulls memorabilia covering the walls and say to anyone who will listen, "Michael Jordan was a great player, but LeBron James is so much better." Depending on the level of civility in the bar, your fate probably lies somewhere between enduring an onslaught of verbal insults and being run out of there by an angry mob of Jordan supporters. In any case, that's not the discussion I want to have right now. I am more interested in focusing on how people arrive at their conclusions when they say that someone is the greatest of all time in his/her sport. There are so many factors to consider, so here are some I would like to put out there to see how much importance you place on them.

1. Individual Sport vs. Team Sport
Clearly, someone like a golfer or tennis player has far more control over the final outcome when a championship is on the line. This makes it possible to whittle down the field of the greatest ever faster, but there will still be serious debate over who is actually the greatest. With team sports, things become even more challenging. Winning championships means having to depend on other teammates. How often do the great ones have enough of a supporting cast to get the job done? I think this is where criticism can be a little over the top sometimes when trying to judge the greatness of athletes playing sports like football, basketball, baseball, or hockey. Since the NBA Finals just wrapped up, let's use basketball for our working example as we look at the next three factors.

2. Number of Opportunities to Win A Championship

This is something that I don't hear discussed all that often, and I find that surprising.  Considering how difficult it is in professional sports to become a champion, I would think it would get little more play. But that usually doesn't happen unless the player in question loses and the pundits chalk it up to another failed effort. Here is a partial list of Hall of Fame players and the number of NBA Finals appearances they have made compared to the number of years they played in the league (all numbers come from the nba.com website):

	Playoff Appearances	# of Years Played
Bill Russell (Celtics)	12	13
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Bucks/Lakers)	10	20
Magic Johnson (Lakers)	9	13
Michael Jordan (Bulls)	6	15
Larry Bird (Celtics)	5	13

Bill Russell spent practically his whole career playing in the NBA Finals. Twelve appearances in thirteen years is pretty impressive.  The others spent roughly a third of their careers or more competing for a championship. Does that make Russell the greatest? Not necessarily. This is just one piece of the puzzle. Let's look at another one.

3.  Number of Championships Won

This is the one we hear about the most. After all, we sports fans are all about results aren't we? So let's look at the same players and compare their records in the finals.

	NBA Finals Record
Russell	11 - 1
Jabbar	6 - 4
Johnson	5 - 4
Jordan	6 - 0
Bird	3 - 2

Again, Russell leads the way with 11 rings. Some would argue that the competition level wasn't the same in his era due to the fewer number of teams. I don't disagree, but you have to admit, it's a pretty remarkable accomplishment. Jordan clearly made the most of his appearances to the finals, having never lost in six trips. Many feel it's this fact that cements his place as the greatest player ever. Then you have Jabbar, who has just as many rings as MJ and also got his teams in a position to win four more. Likewise, Magic was a solid 5 for 9. What kind of consideration is given to that kind of consistency, especially when they may have led an overachieving team into the finals only to lose to a one that was clearly better? As good as some of these Hall of Fame players were, some things were just beyond their control. Now let's see what they can control directly.

4. Career Statistics

On its face, this seems like the most clear cut way to determine the greatest player. In the case of basketball, we fans look at things like like total points, rebounds, assists and scoring average over the course of a career including the playoffs. In this modern age of analytics, there are also new metrics such as winning share (an estimate of the number of wins a player produces for his team) to consider. But even among the greats, there can be a significant amount of variance in their statistics. For example, Jabbar and Russell were both centers. Jabbar was a prolific scorer, and he still ranks first in career points. Russell is a distant 143rd. On the other hand Russell is widely recognized as the best defensive center ever to play the game due to his incredible  rebounding skills and shot blocking ability.

Jordan ranks 4th overall in points scored. Magic Johnson comes in at number 72. Johnson, who revolutionized the point guard position, is 5th overall in assists. Jordan is 42nd. Magic is ranked 2nd with 138 triple doubles (number of games achieving double figures in three of the following statistical categories - points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocked shots). Jordan's 28 triple doubles places him at 10th. Larry Bird ranks 31st in overall points and is slightly ahead of Jordan in assists. He also has over 2,000 more rebounds than both Magic and Jordan.

It doesn't take a genius to see my point. If we look hard enough (and we fans always do), we will eventually come up with the combination of numbers that strengthens our position when making our case for the best player ever.  This leads me to what is probably the single most important factor in determining a player's greatness.

5.  Pure, Unadulterated Fan Bias

Ah, yes . . . fan bias; the foundation upon which virtually every sports debate is based. Fan bias trumps all logical and rational thinking. Fan bias is king! We've all played the fan bias card at one time or another. Anyone who tells you different is lying to you. Here's my quick story. In 1982, Washington defeated Miami 27-17 in Super Bowl XVII. The Dolphins were my favorite team, and I was not a big fan of  Wahsington's quarterback, Joe Theismann. In short, I was pretty ticked off. So, I just went into my fan bias arsenal and came up with this little gem to get over my hurt feelings: Washingtion's Super Bowl win doesn't matter as much because they won it during a strike shortened football season.  They didn't have to endure the grueling 16 game schedule. Therefore, their Super Bowl win is far less meaningful." Yeah, that sounded good. So that's what I kept telling myself. I may even have expressed that thought whenever the subject of Super Bowl winners came up.

Now let's jump to 1999. The San Antonio Spurs had just won their first NBA Championship. A couple of days later, Phil Jackson, who had recently left the Bulls after winning his 6th championship was asked his opinion on the Spurs' win.  The Zen Master was quoted as saying that San Antonio's title should have an asterisk next to it because they won it playing a truncated 50 game regular season due to the NBA lockout. Now, I happen to like the Spurs, especially since David Robinson (who graduated three years after me at the Naval Academy) was one of the team's stars.  I was very happy that he had finally gotten his ring. When I heard Jackson's comments, I went absolutely bananas. I called him a jerk (among other things), then went on to point out that all the teams can do is play the schedule in front of them. The last one standing when all the dust settles has earned the championship, regardless of the circumstances. What a moronic thing for Jackson to say.

Isn't it interesting how fan bias works? You can feel perfectly justified taking a particular position to support your favorite team. Then when someone uses the same argument to devalue one of your team's accomplishments, you practically lose your mind. My position in '82 was just as ridiculous as Jackson's was 17 years later. When I came to that realization, I felt like I had taken a giant leap forward in my evolution as a sports fan. I am happy to say that I am in a better place now.

So what's the big takeaway here?  For the record, I like engaging in these "greatest ever" conversations, if for nothing else just to play devil's advocate. But with rare exception, it is really hard for me to acknowledge one athlete as being the greatest ever in a team sport. There are just way too many variables to consider. I prefer to think in slightly broader terms. Since we are going with a basketball theme for this post, here are the players that to me, represent the best ones at their position during my lifetime. All the players are in the Hall of Fame with one exception. I'll explain that one in a minute. I will also provide some justification based on the criteria above. And yes, there will be some fan bias that figures into this. I also wanted to recognize and credit the sources for the player images. They are noted in the captions.  Here goes:

Magic Johnson (Basketballphoto.com)

1. Point Guard - Magic Johnson.  Magic Johnson brought a completely new dimension to the point guard position. His court vision was unmatched, as was his ability to deliver a pass to a teammate from virtually anywhere on the court. The first three-quarter court bounce pass I ever saw was one Magic threw to James Worthy that split two defenders over 30 feet away.  He could make the most difficult pass look routine. Johnson was also an underrated shooter, especially in the clutch. I was surprised to find out that his career field goal percentage was over 53%. He carried the Lakers to an upset of the top seeded Portland Trailblazers in the Western Conference Finals before losing the 1991 championship to a stronger Chicago Bulls team. So he gets a few points for consistently getting his teams in a position to win it all, even if they came up short at times.

Michael Jordan (AllExpress.com)

2. Shooting Guard - Michael Jordan. MJ was as tough a competitor as you will ever find. Many of us knew he was capable of going off for 50 - 60 points every time he took the court. Jordan's ability to get to the rim gave defenses nightmares. And if teams tried to beat the crap out of him whenever he got into the paint (like Boston and Detroit did early on),  he killed them with a consistent mid-range jump shot. MJ was at his best in the playoffs. He is still ranked first in playoff scoring average, and he was pretty deadly in the clutch.  Jordan shot a rather pedestrian 32% from the three point line, but his teams had several sharpshooters to carry that load. Besides, he wouldn't need to shoot three pointers that much on my team because of this next guy.

Larry Bird (CBSSports.com/Getty Images)

3.) Small Forward - Larry Bird. As a Lakers fan, Bird scared the living daylights out of me. You want to talk about impact? The year before the Celtics drafted him, they lost over 60 games. During his rookie year, they won 60 games. Bird wasn't blessed with a lot of speed, but he had uncanny quickness and terrific footwork. And there weren't many players that could get their shot off faster than he could. Larry Legend was a threat from practically anywhere on the court. He was also the best passing small forward I have ever seen.  He shot nearly 40% from the three point line. That was impressive enough, but at crunch time, it seemed more like 95%.

Tim Duncan (Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)

4.) Power Forward - Tim Duncan. Sorry, but I just had to make an exception to my Hall of Fame rule here. Duncan's resume is a model of consistency. He has achieved such a high level of excellence that it can't be ignored. Since Duncan has been with the Spurs, they have won at least 50 games every year except 1999 when the season was only 50 games long.  They even won 50 during the 2012 lockout season when it was only a 66 game schedule. He also has five championships in six trips to the finals. Statistically, Duncan ranks 14th overall in total points and 8th in rebounds. And he is still not finished playing.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (nba.com)

5.) Center - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.  This one was a little tough. Wilt Chamberlain and Russell had more rebounds (Jabbar was 3rd behind them). Russell was also a better defender. However, Jabbar was ranked higher than either of the other two in assists. He's also going to be the career scoring leader for the foreseeable future. I went with Jabbar because he was more of an offensive threat than Russell, and he helped his team win more championships than Chamberlain. I am not going to deny that my fan bias played into this to some degree. If you want to throw rocks at me, give me a second to don my protective gear.

So that's my five. Just so you all know, as some of today's stars retire, I reserve the right to amend this list. How does it square with  your best five? What factors did you consider when making your choices?  Heavily weighted fan bias is more than welcome as long as a reasonable case can be made. I look forward to reading what you all think.

Until next time . . .

Karl