Jacob deGrom is still Jacob deGrom

[rbirules]

Is Billy Wagner or Lee Smith a better pitcher than deGrom? If I had my pick starting a team i take deGrom every time, injuries and all.

Mariano Rivera is the only pitcher in baseball history to have a better adjusted ERA+ than Wagner’s 187.

Smith’s was 132.

deGrom has a 156 ERA+ in 1425 IP. Wagner pitched 903 innings.

Yeah, but with deGrom, you’ve already thrown out the importance of innings. Wagner, inning for inning, is obviously one of the best ever.

I'm saying the position is pitcher. If you let in dominant pitchers with very few innings (closers), slightly less dominant players with shortened careers (koufax), then why not a pitcher that splits that difference? I think pitching in general is heading this way.

I think it immensely lowers the bar if we’re talking about inducting a starting pitcher who hasn’t even won 100 games in his career.

Pat Hentgen has the same number of 5+ bWAR seasons as deGrom and 40+ more wins. Brady Anderson, too, and he had a 50 HR season. And Luis Gonzalez, also owner of 3 5+ bWAR seasons and a 57 HR banger.

Again, the position is "pitcher" not "starting pitcher" or "reliever", those are roles, not positions.

We've already accepted that many pitchers who are failed starting pitchers turned into relievers and do very well in that role are allowed into the hall of fame. Why can't we allow dominant starting pitchers that had trouble staying healthy but still pitched more innings than those relievers into the hall?

Once we get past Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer and Grienke we're probably not going to see any more workhorse SPs. Maybe Cole.

fWAR:
Hentgen - 23.7
deGrom - 44.3

ERA:
Hentgen - 4.32
deGrom - 2.51

FIP:
Hentgen - 4.73
deGrom - 2.62

K%:
Hentgen - 14.5%
deGrom - 30.9%

SPs barely go 5-6 IP any more, which makes it very difficult to rack up win totals, and wins was already a pretty bad stat to use to judge SPs about 10 years before deGrom started his career.

deGrom will likely be around 47 fWAR at the end of this season. If he sticks around a few more years he likely gets to 50-55 fWAR, with an outside shot of getting 55-60 which would be enough to get him into consideration anyway. If he has one of the best ERA+s in history and is around 55 fWAR for his career, I think he has a strong case.

Hentgen has one 4+ fWAR season, 6.0 fWAR in 1996. deGrom has seasons of 4.1, 4.9, 4.9, 6.9, and 9.0 fWAR.

Using RA9-WAR Hentgen has seasons of 4.9, 8.5, and 6.2. While deGrom has seasons of 5.2 ,9.5, 7.5, 5.0, and 2.2 thus far this year (on pace for 6.6).

Hentgen wasn't intended as a serious comp, sorry to send you down that rabbit hole. I thought you'd pick up that my argument was that even a bum like Pat Hentgen has as many 5+ bWAR seasons as Jacob deGrom.

I'm NOT arguing that deGrom isn't elite. I'm saying he hasn't put together a career resume worthy of enshrinement.

I gather your argument is more so that no relievers should be in the hall of fame even as their role has gained immensely in importance over the last few decades.

Disclosure: I'm pretty tired of the devaluation of wins when looking at starting pitchers. deGrom is just 45th in baseball in wins in the past 15 seasons. Guys immediately ahead of him in wins include Ivan Nova, Mike Leake, Bartolo Colon, Jordan Zimmerman, Jose Berrios... Stephen Strasburg has TWENTY more wins in less innings pitched than deGrom. He might not catch Wade Miley or JA Happ.

I wish we'd stop pretending that wins don't matter.

. . . and I wish people stopped pretending that wins tell us much compared to a laundry list of stats that are much better.

When SPs completed most of their games, or at least pitched very deep into game, wins had some relevance (though still impacted greatly by their teammates), but you can't have it both ways. If you are going to reward relievers with enshrinement because they now have an "immensely important role" the last few decades then you can't also scoff at the down turn in wins because more of the game is out of the SPs' hands now. 300 wins used to be the threshold. Nobody is coming close to that ever again. Wainwright might be one of the last 200 game winners we ever see (Sale and Cole might get there).

I wouldn't be shocked if in the next decade or two the lines between "starter" and "reliever" are almost completely blurred and we just have a team of 13 "pitchers".

[An Old Friend]

Is Billy Wagner or Lee Smith a better pitcher than deGrom? If I had my pick starting a team i take deGrom every time, injuries and all.

Mariano Rivera is the only pitcher in baseball history to have a better adjusted ERA+ than Wagner’s 187.

Smith’s was 132.

deGrom has a 156 ERA+ in 1425 IP. Wagner pitched 903 innings.

Yeah, but with deGrom, you’ve already thrown out the importance of innings. Wagner, inning for inning, is obviously one of the best ever.

I'm saying the position is pitcher. If you let in dominant pitchers with very few innings (closers), slightly less dominant players with shortened careers (koufax), then why not a pitcher that splits that difference? I think pitching in general is heading this way.

I think it immensely lowers the bar if we’re talking about inducting a starting pitcher who hasn’t even won 100 games in his career.

Pat Hentgen has the same number of 5+ bWAR seasons as deGrom and 40+ more wins. Brady Anderson, too, and he had a 50 HR season. And Luis Gonzalez, also owner of 3 5+ bWAR seasons and a 57 HR banger.

Again, the position is "pitcher" not "starting pitcher" or "reliever", those are roles, not positions.

We've already accepted that many pitchers who are failed starting pitchers turned into relievers and do very well in that role are allowed into the hall of fame. Why can't we allow dominant starting pitchers that had trouble staying healthy but still pitched more innings than those relievers into the hall?

Once we get past Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer and Grienke we're probably not going to see any more workhorse SPs. Maybe Cole.

fWAR:
Hentgen - 23.7
deGrom - 44.3

ERA:
Hentgen - 4.32
deGrom - 2.51

FIP:
Hentgen - 4.73
deGrom - 2.62

K%:
Hentgen - 14.5%
deGrom - 30.9%

SPs barely go 5-6 IP any more, which makes it very difficult to rack up win totals, and wins was already a pretty bad stat to use to judge SPs about 10 years before deGrom started his career.

deGrom will likely be around 47 fWAR at the end of this season. If he sticks around a few more years he likely gets to 50-55 fWAR, with an outside shot of getting 55-60 which would be enough to get him into consideration anyway. If he has one of the best ERA+s in history and is around 55 fWAR for his career, I think he has a strong case.

Hentgen has one 4+ fWAR season, 6.0 fWAR in 1996. deGrom has seasons of 4.1, 4.9, 4.9, 6.9, and 9.0 fWAR.

Using RA9-WAR Hentgen has seasons of 4.9, 8.5, and 6.2. While deGrom has seasons of 5.2 ,9.5, 7.5, 5.0, and 2.2 thus far this year (on pace for 6.6).

Hentgen wasn't intended as a serious comp, sorry to send you down that rabbit hole. I thought you'd pick up that my argument was that even a bum like Pat Hentgen has as many 5+ bWAR seasons as Jacob deGrom.

I'm NOT arguing that deGrom isn't elite. I'm saying he hasn't put together a career resume worthy of enshrinement.

I gather your argument is more so that no relievers should be in the hall of fame even as their role has gained immensely in importance over the last few decades.

Disclosure: I'm pretty tired of the devaluation of wins when looking at starting pitchers. deGrom is just 45th in baseball in wins in the past 15 seasons. Guys immediately ahead of him in wins include Ivan Nova, Mike Leake, Bartolo Colon, Jordan Zimmerman, Jose Berrios... Stephen Strasburg has TWENTY more wins in less innings pitched than deGrom. He might not catch Wade Miley or JA Happ.

I wish we'd stop pretending that wins don't matter.

. . . and I wish people stopped pretending that wins tell us much compared to a laundry list of stats that are much better.

When SPs completed most of their games, or at least pitched very deep into game, wins had some relevance (though still impacted greatly by their teammates), but you can't have it both ways. If you are going to reward relievers with enshrinement because they now have an "immensely important role" the last few decades then you can't also scoff at the down turn in wins because more of the game is out of the SPs' hands now. 300 wins used to be the threshold. Nobody is coming close to that ever again. Wainwright might be one of the last 200 game winners we ever see (Sale and Cole might get there).

I wouldn't be shocked if in the next decade or two the lines between "starter" and "reliever" are almost completely blurred and we just have a team of 13 "pitchers".

I'm not scoffing at the overall downturn in wins, I'm saying that we're really lowering the bar if we just get to "wins don't matter".

In sport, winning matters. Starting pitchers still win plenty of games. deGrom hasn't.

[ScotchMIrish]

Hall of Famer ala the Sandy Koufax route?

43.9 WAR

228 GS
88 - 58
2.51 ERA
2.62 FiP
0.99 WHiP

ROY
2 CY's (6 top 10 finishes)
4 time all -star

I say "Yes"

88 wins gets you into the HOF? They would have to put about 1,000 other pitchers in too.

[rbirules]

Is Billy Wagner or Lee Smith a better pitcher than deGrom? If I had my pick starting a team i take deGrom every time, injuries and all.

Mariano Rivera is the only pitcher in baseball history to have a better adjusted ERA+ than Wagner’s 187.

Smith’s was 132.

deGrom has a 156 ERA+ in 1425 IP. Wagner pitched 903 innings.

Yeah, but with deGrom, you’ve already thrown out the importance of innings. Wagner, inning for inning, is obviously one of the best ever.

I'm saying the position is pitcher. If you let in dominant pitchers with very few innings (closers), slightly less dominant players with shortened careers (koufax), then why not a pitcher that splits that difference? I think pitching in general is heading this way.

I think it immensely lowers the bar if we’re talking about inducting a starting pitcher who hasn’t even won 100 games in his career.

Pat Hentgen has the same number of 5+ bWAR seasons as deGrom and 40+ more wins. Brady Anderson, too, and he had a 50 HR season. And Luis Gonzalez, also owner of 3 5+ bWAR seasons and a 57 HR banger.

Again, the position is "pitcher" not "starting pitcher" or "reliever", those are roles, not positions.

We've already accepted that many pitchers who are failed starting pitchers turned into relievers and do very well in that role are allowed into the hall of fame. Why can't we allow dominant starting pitchers that had trouble staying healthy but still pitched more innings than those relievers into the hall?

Once we get past Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer and Grienke we're probably not going to see any more workhorse SPs. Maybe Cole.

fWAR:
Hentgen - 23.7
deGrom - 44.3

ERA:
Hentgen - 4.32
deGrom - 2.51

FIP:
Hentgen - 4.73
deGrom - 2.62

K%:
Hentgen - 14.5%
deGrom - 30.9%

SPs barely go 5-6 IP any more, which makes it very difficult to rack up win totals, and wins was already a pretty bad stat to use to judge SPs about 10 years before deGrom started his career.

deGrom will likely be around 47 fWAR at the end of this season. If he sticks around a few more years he likely gets to 50-55 fWAR, with an outside shot of getting 55-60 which would be enough to get him into consideration anyway. If he has one of the best ERA+s in history and is around 55 fWAR for his career, I think he has a strong case.

Hentgen has one 4+ fWAR season, 6.0 fWAR in 1996. deGrom has seasons of 4.1, 4.9, 4.9, 6.9, and 9.0 fWAR.

Using RA9-WAR Hentgen has seasons of 4.9, 8.5, and 6.2. While deGrom has seasons of 5.2 ,9.5, 7.5, 5.0, and 2.2 thus far this year (on pace for 6.6).

Hentgen wasn't intended as a serious comp, sorry to send you down that rabbit hole. I thought you'd pick up that my argument was that even a bum like Pat Hentgen has as many 5+ bWAR seasons as Jacob deGrom.

I'm NOT arguing that deGrom isn't elite. I'm saying he hasn't put together a career resume worthy of enshrinement.

I gather your argument is more so that no relievers should be in the hall of fame even as their role has gained immensely in importance over the last few decades.

Disclosure: I'm pretty tired of the devaluation of wins when looking at starting pitchers. deGrom is just 45th in baseball in wins in the past 15 seasons. Guys immediately ahead of him in wins include Ivan Nova, Mike Leake, Bartolo Colon, Jordan Zimmerman, Jose Berrios... Stephen Strasburg has TWENTY more wins in less innings pitched than deGrom. He might not catch Wade Miley or JA Happ.

I wish we'd stop pretending that wins don't matter.

. . . and I wish people stopped pretending that wins tell us much compared to a laundry list of stats that are much better.

When SPs completed most of their games, or at least pitched very deep into game, wins had some relevance (though still impacted greatly by their teammates), but you can't have it both ways. If you are going to reward relievers with enshrinement because they now have an "immensely important role" the last few decades then you can't also scoff at the down turn in wins because more of the game is out of the SPs' hands now. 300 wins used to be the threshold. Nobody is coming close to that ever again. Wainwright might be one of the last 200 game winners we ever see (Sale and Cole might get there).

I wouldn't be shocked if in the next decade or two the lines between "starter" and "reliever" are almost completely blurred and we just have a team of 13 "pitchers".

I'm not scoffing at the overall downturn in wins, I'm saying that we're really lowering the bar if we just get to "wins don't matter".

In sport, winning matters. Starting pitchers still win plenty of games. deGrom hasn't.

Baseball is a team sport. Teams win and lose, not players. Period.

Assigning wins and losses to individual players (pitchers, QBs, goalies) in teams sports is really dumb to put it nicely.

ERA last 15 seasons:
deGrom - 2.51 (by far the lowest)
Strasburg - 3.26
Leake - 4.04
Colon - 4.15
Berrios - 4.08
Nova - 4.38

Run support/9 last 15 seasons:
deGrom - 4.50 (lowest)
Strasburg - 5.15
Leake - 4.75
Colon - 4.82
Berrios - 5.22
Nova - 4.89

RS/9 - ERA last 15 seasons:
deGrom - 1.99
Strasburg - 1.89
Leake - 0.71
Colon - 0.67
Berrios - 1.14
Nova - 0.51

So deGrom did the best job at preventing runs. His teammates did the worst job of scoring runs while he was in the game, yet he still managed to create the biggest run differential per 9 innings while in the game. At that point it's up to the offense and bullpen not to squander the lead.

I think we're raising the bar by not just lazily looking at win totals to determine yay or nay for a pitcher's candidacy.

[rbirules]

Hall of Famer ala the Sandy Koufax route?

43.9 WAR

228 GS
88 - 58
2.51 ERA
2.62 FiP
0.99 WHiP

ROY
2 CY's (6 top 10 finishes)
4 time all -star

I say "Yes"

88 wins gets you into the HOF? They would have to put about 1,000 other pitchers in too.

If that was the sole criteria, sure. But as is being pointed out, that's a terrible stat that should carry almost no weight. Find me pitchers with 44-50 fWAR, an ERA+ of 150 or better, and if they have less than 100 wins I'm willing to consider them for the HOF as well.

[rockondlouie]

Hall of Famer ala the Sandy Koufax route?

43.9 WAR

228 GS
88 - 58
2.51 ERA
2.62 FiP
0.99 WHiP

ROY
2 CY's (6 top 10 finishes)
4 time all -star

I say "Yes"

88 wins gets you into the HOF? They would have to put about 1,000 other pitchers in too.

Wins really isn't the stat to look at SM, out of his hands and not the relevant stat to evaluate him on.

Look at the ERA............the FiP.............the WHiP.........the awards......they scream HALL OF FAME!

[Ozziesfan41]

Hall of Famer ala the Sandy Koufax route?

43.9 WAR

228 GS
88 - 58
2.51 ERA
2.62 FiP
0.99 WHiP

ROY
2 CY's (6 top 10 finishes)
4 time all -star

I say "Yes"

88 wins gets you into the HOF? They would have to put about 1,000 other pitchers in too.

Wins really isn't the stat to look at SM, out of his hands and not the relevant stat to evaluate him on.

Look at the ERA............the FiP.............the WHiP.........the awards......they scream HALL OF FAME!

They scream hall of fame if you have very low standards. Of course people say don’t look at wins with him lol 15 starts in 2021 11 in 2022 6 in 2023 and 3 in 2024 you aren’t winning many games if you don’t start many games but man you can have a good ERA in a small number of starts. If I could have a starter who matches wainos career or degroms career I’m taking waino every time because he was actually dependable and pitched

[Futuregm2]

Is Billy Wagner or Lee Smith a better pitcher than deGrom? If I had my pick starting a team i take deGrom every time, injuries and all.

Mariano Rivera is the only pitcher in baseball history to have a better adjusted ERA+ than Wagner’s 187.

Smith’s was 132.

deGrom has a 156 ERA+ in 1425 IP. Wagner pitched 903 innings.

Yeah, but with deGrom, you’ve already thrown out the importance of innings. Wagner, inning for inning, is obviously one of the best ever.

I'm saying the position is pitcher. If you let in dominant pitchers with very few innings (closers), slightly less dominant players with shortened careers (koufax), then why not a pitcher that splits that difference? I think pitching in general is heading this way.

I think it immensely lowers the bar if we’re talking about inducting a starting pitcher who hasn’t even won 100 games in his career.

Pat Hentgen has the same number of 5+ bWAR seasons as deGrom and 40+ more wins. Brady Anderson, too, and he had a 50 HR season. And Luis Gonzalez, also owner of 3 5+ bWAR seasons and a 57 HR banger.

Again, the position is "pitcher" not "starting pitcher" or "reliever", those are roles, not positions.

We've already accepted that many pitchers who are failed starting pitchers turned into relievers and do very well in that role are allowed into the hall of fame. Why can't we allow dominant starting pitchers that had trouble staying healthy but still pitched more innings than those relievers into the hall?

Once we get past Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer and Grienke we're probably not going to see any more workhorse SPs. Maybe Cole.

fWAR:
Hentgen - 23.7
deGrom - 44.3

ERA:
Hentgen - 4.32
deGrom - 2.51

FIP:
Hentgen - 4.73
deGrom - 2.62

K%:
Hentgen - 14.5%
deGrom - 30.9%

SPs barely go 5-6 IP any more, which makes it very difficult to rack up win totals, and wins was already a pretty bad stat to use to judge SPs about 10 years before deGrom started his career.

deGrom will likely be around 47 fWAR at the end of this season. If he sticks around a few more years he likely gets to 50-55 fWAR, with an outside shot of getting 55-60 which would be enough to get him into consideration anyway. If he has one of the best ERA+s in history and is around 55 fWAR for his career, I think he has a strong case.

Hentgen has one 4+ fWAR season, 6.0 fWAR in 1996. deGrom has seasons of 4.1, 4.9, 4.9, 6.9, and 9.0 fWAR.

Using RA9-WAR Hentgen has seasons of 4.9, 8.5, and 6.2. While deGrom has seasons of 5.2 ,9.5, 7.5, 5.0, and 2.2 thus far this year (on pace for 6.6).

Hentgen wasn't intended as a serious comp, sorry to send you down that rabbit hole. I thought you'd pick up that my argument was that even a bum like Pat Hentgen has as many 5+ bWAR seasons as Jacob deGrom.

I'm NOT arguing that deGrom isn't elite. I'm saying he hasn't put together a career resume worthy of enshrinement.

I gather your argument is more so that no relievers should be in the hall of fame even as their role has gained immensely in importance over the last few decades.

Disclosure: I'm pretty tired of the devaluation of wins when looking at starting pitchers. deGrom is just 45th in baseball in wins in the past 15 seasons. Guys immediately ahead of him in wins include Ivan Nova, Mike Leake, Bartolo Colon, Jordan Zimmerman, Jose Berrios... Stephen Strasburg has TWENTY more wins in less innings pitched than deGrom. He might not catch Wade Miley or JA Happ.

I wish we'd stop pretending that wins don't matter.

. . . and I wish people stopped pretending that wins tell us much compared to a laundry list of stats that are much better.

When SPs completed most of their games, or at least pitched very deep into game, wins had some relevance (though still impacted greatly by their teammates), but you can't have it both ways. If you are going to reward relievers with enshrinement because they now have an "immensely important role" the last few decades then you can't also scoff at the down turn in wins because more of the game is out of the SPs' hands now. 300 wins used to be the threshold. Nobody is coming close to that ever again. Wainwright might be one of the last 200 game winners we ever see (Sale and Cole might get there).

I wouldn't be shocked if in the next decade or two the lines between "starter" and "reliever" are almost completely blurred and we just have a team of 13 "pitchers".

I'm not scoffing at the overall downturn in wins, I'm saying that we're really lowering the bar if we just get to "wins don't matter".

In sport, winning matters. Starting pitchers still win plenty of games. deGrom hasn't.

Baseball is a team sport. Teams win and lose, not players. Period.

Assigning wins and losses to individual players (pitchers, QBs, goalies) in teams sports is really dumb to put it nicely.

ERA last 15 seasons:
deGrom - 2.51 (by far the lowest)
Strasburg - 3.26
Leake - 4.04
Colon - 4.15
Berrios - 4.08
Nova - 4.38

Run support/9 last 15 seasons:
deGrom - 4.50 (lowest)
Strasburg - 5.15
Leake - 4.75
Colon - 4.82
Berrios - 5.22
Nova - 4.89

RS/9 - ERA last 15 seasons:
deGrom - 1.99
Strasburg - 1.89
Leake - 0.71
Colon - 0.67
Berrios - 1.14
Nova - 0.51

So deGrom did the best job at preventing runs. His teammates did the worst job of scoring runs while he was in the game, yet he still managed to create the biggest run differential per 9 innings while in the game. At that point it's up to the offense and bullpen not to squander the lead.

I think we're raising the bar by not just lazily looking at win totals to determine yay or nay for a pitcher's candidacy.

And the main reason his win total isn’t high is because of starts missed. His ranking of wins over the last 15 years is better than his rank of games started.

[rbirules]

Is Billy Wagner or Lee Smith a better pitcher than deGrom? If I had my pick starting a team i take deGrom every time, injuries and all.

Mariano Rivera is the only pitcher in baseball history to have a better adjusted ERA+ than Wagner’s 187.

Smith’s was 132.

deGrom has a 156 ERA+ in 1425 IP. Wagner pitched 903 innings.

Yeah, but with deGrom, you’ve already thrown out the importance of innings. Wagner, inning for inning, is obviously one of the best ever.

I'm saying the position is pitcher. If you let in dominant pitchers with very few innings (closers), slightly less dominant players with shortened careers (koufax), then why not a pitcher that splits that difference? I think pitching in general is heading this way.

I think it immensely lowers the bar if we’re talking about inducting a starting pitcher who hasn’t even won 100 games in his career.

Pat Hentgen has the same number of 5+ bWAR seasons as deGrom and 40+ more wins. Brady Anderson, too, and he had a 50 HR season. And Luis Gonzalez, also owner of 3 5+ bWAR seasons and a 57 HR banger.

Again, the position is "pitcher" not "starting pitcher" or "reliever", those are roles, not positions.

We've already accepted that many pitchers who are failed starting pitchers turned into relievers and do very well in that role are allowed into the hall of fame. Why can't we allow dominant starting pitchers that had trouble staying healthy but still pitched more innings than those relievers into the hall?

Once we get past Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer and Grienke we're probably not going to see any more workhorse SPs. Maybe Cole.

fWAR:
Hentgen - 23.7
deGrom - 44.3

ERA:
Hentgen - 4.32
deGrom - 2.51

FIP:
Hentgen - 4.73
deGrom - 2.62

K%:
Hentgen - 14.5%
deGrom - 30.9%

SPs barely go 5-6 IP any more, which makes it very difficult to rack up win totals, and wins was already a pretty bad stat to use to judge SPs about 10 years before deGrom started his career.

deGrom will likely be around 47 fWAR at the end of this season. If he sticks around a few more years he likely gets to 50-55 fWAR, with an outside shot of getting 55-60 which would be enough to get him into consideration anyway. If he has one of the best ERA+s in history and is around 55 fWAR for his career, I think he has a strong case.

Hentgen has one 4+ fWAR season, 6.0 fWAR in 1996. deGrom has seasons of 4.1, 4.9, 4.9, 6.9, and 9.0 fWAR.

Using RA9-WAR Hentgen has seasons of 4.9, 8.5, and 6.2. While deGrom has seasons of 5.2 ,9.5, 7.5, 5.0, and 2.2 thus far this year (on pace for 6.6).

Hentgen wasn't intended as a serious comp, sorry to send you down that rabbit hole. I thought you'd pick up that my argument was that even a bum like Pat Hentgen has as many 5+ bWAR seasons as Jacob deGrom.

I'm NOT arguing that deGrom isn't elite. I'm saying he hasn't put together a career resume worthy of enshrinement.

I gather your argument is more so that no relievers should be in the hall of fame even as their role has gained immensely in importance over the last few decades.

Disclosure: I'm pretty tired of the devaluation of wins when looking at starting pitchers. deGrom is just 45th in baseball in wins in the past 15 seasons. Guys immediately ahead of him in wins include Ivan Nova, Mike Leake, Bartolo Colon, Jordan Zimmerman, Jose Berrios... Stephen Strasburg has TWENTY more wins in less innings pitched than deGrom. He might not catch Wade Miley or JA Happ.

I wish we'd stop pretending that wins don't matter.

. . . and I wish people stopped pretending that wins tell us much compared to a laundry list of stats that are much better.

When SPs completed most of their games, or at least pitched very deep into game, wins had some relevance (though still impacted greatly by their teammates), but you can't have it both ways. If you are going to reward relievers with enshrinement because they now have an "immensely important role" the last few decades then you can't also scoff at the down turn in wins because more of the game is out of the SPs' hands now. 300 wins used to be the threshold. Nobody is coming close to that ever again. Wainwright might be one of the last 200 game winners we ever see (Sale and Cole might get there).

I wouldn't be shocked if in the next decade or two the lines between "starter" and "reliever" are almost completely blurred and we just have a team of 13 "pitchers".

I'm not scoffing at the overall downturn in wins, I'm saying that we're really lowering the bar if we just get to "wins don't matter".

In sport, winning matters. Starting pitchers still win plenty of games. deGrom hasn't.

Baseball is a team sport. Teams win and lose, not players. Period.

Assigning wins and losses to individual players (pitchers, QBs, goalies) in teams sports is really dumb to put it nicely.

ERA last 15 seasons:
deGrom - 2.51 (by far the lowest)
Strasburg - 3.26
Leake - 4.04
Colon - 4.15
Berrios - 4.08
Nova - 4.38

Run support/9 last 15 seasons:
deGrom - 4.50 (lowest)
Strasburg - 5.15
Leake - 4.75
Colon - 4.82
Berrios - 5.22
Nova - 4.89

RS/9 - ERA last 15 seasons:
deGrom - 1.99
Strasburg - 1.89
Leake - 0.71
Colon - 0.67
Berrios - 1.14
Nova - 0.51

So deGrom did the best job at preventing runs. His teammates did the worst job of scoring runs while he was in the game, yet he still managed to create the biggest run differential per 9 innings while in the game. At that point it's up to the offense and bullpen not to squander the lead.

I think we're raising the bar by not just lazily looking at win totals to determine yay or nay for a pitcher's candidacy.

And the main reason his win total isn’t high is because of starts missed. His ranking of wins over the last 15 years is better than his rank of games started.

That's part of it, certainly the last few years, but it's not all of it.

In 2018 he had a 1.70 ERA across 32 starts. deGrom was 10-9.
In 2019 he had a 2.43 ERA across 32 starts. deGrom was 11-8.
2018-2019, had a 2.05 ERA across 64 starts, he went 21-17. That's not on him. He allowed 96 ERs in those two seasons, his team scored 86, and 92 runs while he was in the game, respectively. 178 runs combined in 64 starts, less than 3 runs of support per game by the time he was removed, while averaging 1.5 earned runs allowed per start (96 ERs in 64 starts). His offense didn't support him and thus gave his bullpen very little margin for error when he came out of the game.

A pitcher with a 2.05 ERA across two full seasons in that day and age should be getting easily 20 wins a season. The Mets gave him 21 wins in those two seasons combined.

[rockondlouie]

Hall of Famer ala the Sandy Koufax route?

43.9 WAR

228 GS
88 - 58
2.51 ERA
2.62 FiP
0.99 WHiP

ROY
2 CY's (6 top 10 finishes)
4 time all -star

I say "Yes"

88 wins gets you into the HOF? They would have to put about 1,000 other pitchers in too.

Wins really isn't the stat to look at SM, out of his hands and not the relevant stat to evaluate him on.

Look at the ERA............the FiP.............the WHiP.........the awards......they scream HALL OF FAME!

They scream hall of fame if you have very low standards. Of course people say don’t look at wins with him lol 15 starts in 2021 11 in 2022 6 in 2023 and 3 in 2024 you aren’t winning many games if you don’t start many games but man you can have a good ERA in a small number of starts. If I could have a starter who matches wainos career or degroms career I’m taking waino every time because he was actually dependable and pitched

Stupid comment ozzie, you're starting to make a lot of them.

[An Old Friend]

I wouldn't be shocked if in the next decade or two the lines between "starter" and "reliever" are almost completely blurred and we just have a team of 13 "pitchers".

I meant to address this separately.

Baseball knows they can’t let this happen. If they do, they’re signing their own death certificate.

Every story needs a hero. In baseball, the starting pitcher has long been the hero.

[An Old Friend]

Is Billy Wagner or Lee Smith a better pitcher than deGrom? If I had my pick starting a team i take deGrom every time, injuries and all.

Mariano Rivera is the only pitcher in baseball history to have a better adjusted ERA+ than Wagner’s 187.

Smith’s was 132.

deGrom has a 156 ERA+ in 1425 IP. Wagner pitched 903 innings.

Yeah, but with deGrom, you’ve already thrown out the importance of innings. Wagner, inning for inning, is obviously one of the best ever.

I'm saying the position is pitcher. If you let in dominant pitchers with very few innings (closers), slightly less dominant players with shortened careers (koufax), then why not a pitcher that splits that difference? I think pitching in general is heading this way.

I think it immensely lowers the bar if we’re talking about inducting a starting pitcher who hasn’t even won 100 games in his career.

Pat Hentgen has the same number of 5+ bWAR seasons as deGrom and 40+ more wins. Brady Anderson, too, and he had a 50 HR season. And Luis Gonzalez, also owner of 3 5+ bWAR seasons and a 57 HR banger.

Again, the position is "pitcher" not "starting pitcher" or "reliever", those are roles, not positions.

We've already accepted that many pitchers who are failed starting pitchers turned into relievers and do very well in that role are allowed into the hall of fame. Why can't we allow dominant starting pitchers that had trouble staying healthy but still pitched more innings than those relievers into the hall?

Once we get past Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer and Grienke we're probably not going to see any more workhorse SPs. Maybe Cole.

fWAR:
Hentgen - 23.7
deGrom - 44.3

ERA:
Hentgen - 4.32
deGrom - 2.51

FIP:
Hentgen - 4.73
deGrom - 2.62

K%:
Hentgen - 14.5%
deGrom - 30.9%

SPs barely go 5-6 IP any more, which makes it very difficult to rack up win totals, and wins was already a pretty bad stat to use to judge SPs about 10 years before deGrom started his career.

deGrom will likely be around 47 fWAR at the end of this season. If he sticks around a few more years he likely gets to 50-55 fWAR, with an outside shot of getting 55-60 which would be enough to get him into consideration anyway. If he has one of the best ERA+s in history and is around 55 fWAR for his career, I think he has a strong case.

Hentgen has one 4+ fWAR season, 6.0 fWAR in 1996. deGrom has seasons of 4.1, 4.9, 4.9, 6.9, and 9.0 fWAR.

Using RA9-WAR Hentgen has seasons of 4.9, 8.5, and 6.2. While deGrom has seasons of 5.2 ,9.5, 7.5, 5.0, and 2.2 thus far this year (on pace for 6.6).

Hentgen wasn't intended as a serious comp, sorry to send you down that rabbit hole. I thought you'd pick up that my argument was that even a bum like Pat Hentgen has as many 5+ bWAR seasons as Jacob deGrom.

I'm NOT arguing that deGrom isn't elite. I'm saying he hasn't put together a career resume worthy of enshrinement.

I gather your argument is more so that no relievers should be in the hall of fame even as their role has gained immensely in importance over the last few decades.

Disclosure: I'm pretty tired of the devaluation of wins when looking at starting pitchers. deGrom is just 45th in baseball in wins in the past 15 seasons. Guys immediately ahead of him in wins include Ivan Nova, Mike Leake, Bartolo Colon, Jordan Zimmerman, Jose Berrios... Stephen Strasburg has TWENTY more wins in less innings pitched than deGrom. He might not catch Wade Miley or JA Happ.

I wish we'd stop pretending that wins don't matter.

. . . and I wish people stopped pretending that wins tell us much compared to a laundry list of stats that are much better.

When SPs completed most of their games, or at least pitched very deep into game, wins had some relevance (though still impacted greatly by their teammates), but you can't have it both ways. If you are going to reward relievers with enshrinement because they now have an "immensely important role" the last few decades then you can't also scoff at the down turn in wins because more of the game is out of the SPs' hands now. 300 wins used to be the threshold. Nobody is coming close to that ever again. Wainwright might be one of the last 200 game winners we ever see (Sale and Cole might get there).

I wouldn't be shocked if in the next decade or two the lines between "starter" and "reliever" are almost completely blurred and we just have a team of 13 "pitchers".

I'm not scoffing at the overall downturn in wins, I'm saying that we're really lowering the bar if we just get to "wins don't matter".

In sport, winning matters. Starting pitchers still win plenty of games. deGrom hasn't.

Baseball is a team sport. Teams win and lose, not players. Period.

Assigning wins and losses to individual players (pitchers, QBs, goalies) in teams sports is really dumb to put it nicely.

ERA last 15 seasons:
deGrom - 2.51 (by far the lowest)
Strasburg - 3.26
Leake - 4.04
Colon - 4.15
Berrios - 4.08
Nova - 4.38

Run support/9 last 15 seasons:
deGrom - 4.50 (lowest)
Strasburg - 5.15
Leake - 4.75
Colon - 4.82
Berrios - 5.22
Nova - 4.89

RS/9 - ERA last 15 seasons:
deGrom - 1.99
Strasburg - 1.89
Leake - 0.71
Colon - 0.67
Berrios - 1.14
Nova - 0.51

So deGrom did the best job at preventing runs. His teammates did the worst job of scoring runs while he was in the game, yet he still managed to create the biggest run differential per 9 innings while in the game. At that point it's up to the offense and bullpen not to squander the lead.

I think we're raising the bar by not just lazily looking at win totals to determine yay or nay for a pitcher's candidacy.

So… longevity and health means nothing?

I’m kind of surprised to see you arguing this guy barely played, and rarely won, and that we should ignore all of that because of his talent that we infrequently saw showcased.

[rbirules]

I wouldn't be shocked if in the next decade or two the lines between "starter" and "reliever" are almost completely blurred and we just have a team of 13 "pitchers".

I meant to address this separately.

Baseball knows they can’t let this happen. If they do, they’re signing their own death certificate.

Every story needs a hero. In baseball, the starting pitcher has long been the hero.

Can't let it happen? It's happening right in front of our eyes, and has been for 10-15 years now. Really longer than that, but once we started using "openers" that really was the beginning of the end.

I forgot where I read this but a writer looked back at random box scores from the late 80s and most of them the SPs went deep into the game and on many occasions still completed it. It was truly still a time when the SP matchup really mattered in determining the outcome of the game. They are still the most impactful player in a single game, but that impact has gone way down.

You'll still see teams use traditional starters when they have an elite talent, but more and more we'll start to see variations of "bullpen games".

[rockondlouie]

Jacob deGrom Hall of Fame doubters just got proved wrong with Rangers accomplishment

While the Rangers made headlines with staff changes, their ace quietly reached a milestone that proves he’s still one of the best to ever do it.
By
Oliver Vandervoort
May 5, 2025

Just how big a deal was that 1,700th K? Jacob deGrom did it in just 225 games, which is five games faster than anyone has done it since at least 1901. The previously fastest to reach that mark were Randy Johnson and Yu Darvish who, oddly enough; each did it in 230 games pitched.

https://nolanwritin.com/jacob-degrom-ha ... jtgcakc2kt

[Ozziesfan41]

Jacob deGrom Hall of Fame doubters just got proved wrong with Rangers accomplishment

While the Rangers made headlines with staff changes, their ace quietly reached a milestone that proves he’s still one of the best to ever do it.
By
Oliver Vandervoort
May 5, 2025

Just how big a deal was that 1,700th K? Jacob deGrom did it in just 225 games, which is five games faster than anyone has done it since at least 1901. The previously fastest to reach that mark were Randy Johnson and Yu Darvish who, oddly enough; each did it in 230 games pitched.

https://nolanwritin.com/jacob-degrom-ha ... jtgcakc2kt

Darvish shouldn’t be in the hall of fame either and to compare degroms career to Johnson’s is a complete joke

[rbirules]

So… longevity and health means nothing?

I’m kind of surprised to see you arguing this guy barely played, and rarely won, and that we should ignore all of that because of his talent that we infrequently saw showcased.

Of course they do, and the hall is already filled with SPs that did that. But does dominance of the sport also mean nothing? Yes, deGrom has terrible longevity. He's around 1500 IP, might be around 1600 by the end of the year. By the end of his career if he's fortunate he might get close to 2000 IP.

A 2.51 ERA, 156 ERA+ over 1500 IP is nothing to sneeze at, that's an incredible accomplishment. If we're going to celebrate pitchers who threw a lot fewer innings than that with enshrinement, then I don't see any logical argument for why we can't do it for pitchers like deGrom.

What are we going to do in 15-20 years when there are no 200 game winners? There's already no 300 game winners and the last 250 game winners are getting close to retirement. Are we only going to enshrine closers?

A role player is the only player in MLB history to get 100% of the votes for the HOF. Not Maddux, or Griffey, or Jeter but a failed SP who found his niche in the bullpen.

I'm not saying deGrom should be in because of his talent. A 2.51 ERA is results, not talent. A 156 ERA+ is results, not talent. Being dominant for 1500 IP is results.

I can think of a lot of pitchers I'd take Chris Carpenter or Jacob deGrom over even if they miss a significant amount of time over a span of 8-10 years. Longevity and health are great, if you combine it with performance. If it's combined with mediocre or just slightly above average performance that's not as impressive to me as greatness even if it is frequently interrupted.