Jump to content

RedRamage

Verlander: " arguably the best pitcher in franchise history"?

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Verlander's WHIP is 1.14 compared to Scherzer's 1.09.

Verlander's K% is 24.5% compared to Scherzer's 28.9%.

 

Those two at least are probably a smaller difference than between facing DH's vs pitchers.

But I will give you one reason I would prefer JV for one must win game against unknown competition. Look at the two pitcher's platoon splits. JV is a more equal opportunity dominator. Being more of a cross breaking slider guy than JV, in most years you can give Max at least a little trouble by overloading your line-up with lefties. LHB have pretty much never bothered Verlander at all, despite  teams always attempting to overload against him. JVs curve and the greater spin on his FB seem to eliminate any advantage for LHB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bobrob2004 said:

Also interesting, here's a list of random pitchers.

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2019&month=0&season1=1930&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=1303,3137,8700,1007124,200,1004821,1943,2036&startdate=1930-01-01&enddate=2019-12-31

# Name Team W L SV G GS IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP LOB% GB% HR/FB ERA FIP xFIP WAR
 
1
 
Page size:
 
 8 items in 1 pages
1 Pedro Martinez - - - 219 100 3 476 409 2827.1 10.04 2.42 0.76 .279 75.9 % 38.8 % 8.9 % 2.93 2.91 3.44 84.4
2 Justin Verlander - - - 219 128 0 446 446 2937.2 9.02 2.58 0.93 .281 75.0 % 37.9 % 9.1 % 3.35 3.43 3.74 70.0
3 Roy Halladay - - - 203 105 1 416 390 2749.1 6.93 1.94 0.77 .292 73.1 % 54.1 % 10.3 % 3.38 3.39 3.23 65.4
4 Clayton Kershaw Dodgers 166 71 0 340 338 2239.1 9.73 2.28 0.66 .270 79.2 % 46.5 % 8.6 % 2.41 2.70 2.97 64.5
5 Zack Greinke - - - 200 122 1 481 440 2828.1 8.22 2.12 0.92 .293 75.2 % 43.9 % 10.2 % 3.35 3.39 3.51 59.3
6 Max Scherzer - - - 168 87 0 358 349 2252.0 10.54 2.44 0.98 .289 76.7 % 37.5 % 10.2 % 3.17 3.12 3.28 57.6
7 Sandy Koufax Dodgers 165 87 9 397 314 2324.1 9.28 3.16 0.79 .256 77.4 %     2.76 2.69   54.5
8 Lefty Gomez - - - 189 102 9 368 320 2503.0 5.28 3.94 0.50 .269 72.0 %     3.34 3.88   34.6

Verlander and Greinke might already be Hall of Famers while Scherzer and Kershaw may need a few more years.  

What?  Kershaw is one of the all time greats.  Verlander and Greinke aren't even in the same class as Kershaw.

Don't let the accumulation of stats fool you.  Greinke and Verlander have around 100 more starts than Kershaw or Scherzer.  Just using ERA, for instance, Kershaw has the lowest ERA (by a huge stretch) for any starter over the last 80 years.

Kershaw has been the best pitcher in the league over his career.  He is so much better than Verlander or Greinke that it is not even a question.  Kershaw is a top 5-10 pitcher of all time.  He has 3 Cy Young awards.  Finished 2nd 2x (should have won it in 2012).  Kershaw has never had a season where he wasn't a top pitcher in the league.  Verlander and Greinke have had a lot of seasons where they have been average to not very good.  There is absolutely nothing that Verlander or Greinke does better than Kershaw.

Scherzer has been the 1st or 2nd best pitcher in the league over the last 7 years.  He has 3 Cy Young awards and possibly should have won it last year too.  Greinke and Verlander have been dominant for a few years and then mixed that with mediocre seasons.

 

Is the HOF about being the absolute best at your position for an extended amount or time or being the Phil Neikro/Don Sutton type of guy that have some nice seasons and then just hang around with a bunch of mediocre/below average seasons and rack up stats?  I'm not saying Verlander and Greinke are that, but they haven't been the absolute best in the league for the same amount of time that Kershaw and Scherzer have.  

Would Mike Trout make the HOF if he decided to retire this season?  Of course he would.  Kershaw has been every bit as impressive as Trout has in his career up to this point.  And Scherzer's stretch of age 28 to 34 matches up well with any other HOF stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gmoney said:

 

Would Mike Trout make the HOF if he decided to retire this season?  Of course he would.  Kershaw has been every bit as impressive as Trout has in his career up to this point. 

No, he would not. For one thing, he is not yet eligible for the Hall of Fame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your rant is unwarranted.  I believe that all those pitchers listed are or will be Hall of Famers.  Kershaw has the least amount of innings and therefore I believe he will need a few more years to solidify it.  I don't think it's a slam dunk if he were to retire today.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gmoney said:

Kershaw has the lowest ERA (by a huge stretch) for any starter over the last 80 years

Keshaw is a fabulous pitcher, just don't base too much of the comparison on ERA. Dodger stadium is very consistently an ERA friendly park. (Note that the other pitcher with crazy ERA also pitched there -Koufax). Kershaw's career home/away ERA split is 2.1/2.76. If you look at component ERA for instance, JVs is as good or better than Kershaw's comparing a good year for each of them - for instance Kershaw's 2017 (2.27) vs Verlander's 2018 (2.16)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, cmu97 said:

No, he would not. For one thing, he is not yet eligible for the Hall of Fame.

Technically correct, but if waiving the 10-year requirement to allow entry into the Hall because his career was cut short for any god-forbid reason were a consideration for just one player, it would be for Mike Trout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I still need to see two or three more seasons out of Trout for me to be convinced he is all that.

He's thick and will likely have trouble avoiding getting fat and slow- at least according to one poster here a number of years ago.

:wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another criterion that could be considered is the number of Top 50 seasons the pitcher had for the Tigers. Of the best 50 (actually 53, because of ties) seasons in history, by bWAR, Justin has five of them, Newhouser four, and Bridges two. So Justin wins on that count.

Other notables with two apiece: Lolich; Scherzer; McLain; Dizzy Trout; Bunning; Newsom; Lary; Ed Killian.

Oh, and Hall of Famer Jack Morris, Winningest Pitcher of the 1980s™? One. And his was ranked in a tie for 36th best with other one-timers like Vic Sorrell and Herman Pillette.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

He's thick and will likely have trouble avoiding getting fat and slow- at least according to one poster here a number of years ago.

:wink:

He's from the Northeast and didn't play long seasons against top competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

Keshaw is a fabulous pitcher, just don't base too much of the comparison on ERA. Dodger stadium is very consistently an ERA friendly park. (Note that the other pitcher with crazy ERA also pitched there -Koufax). Kershaw's career home/away ERA split is 2.1/2.76. If you look at component ERA for instance, JVs is as good or better than Kershaw's comparing a good year for each of them - for instance Kershaw's 2017 (2.27) vs Verlander's 2018 (2.16)

Kershaw has been the best pitcher of the post-Clemens-and-Pedro era.  At his peak, Pedro was the best pitcher I've ever seen, and Clemens, factoring in both his quality and the size of his career, is a legitimate contender for the title of Greatest Pitcher Ever.

But Kershaw is no slouch.  In fact, he has the highest career ERA+ ever for a starting pitcher (and the second-highest period, after Mariano Rivera).  He took over those spots from Pedro, and there is a fair chance that he'll fall behind Pedro if he pitches quite a bit longer, but at the moment Kershaw has a five-point lead (159 to 154).

Also, although Kershaw's stats have benefited significantly from having Dodger Stadium as his home park, he has been danm good on the road, too.

His Home and Away Opponents' slash lines:

Home:  .201 / .254 / .305 / .558

Away:  .217 / .271 / .327 / .598.

I'd hate to have to live on the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given his Astros surge and Kershaw's recent injuries, I think Verlander has become a legitimate contender for best pitcher of the post-Pedro era. If trajectories keep going as is, it's going to be close by their careers' ends.

Max is certainly up there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I still need to see two or three more seasons out of Trout for me to be convinced he is all that.

Al Avila botched this too.   Think how much better this rebuild would have went with Trout in the lineup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Given his Astros surge and Kershaw's recent injuries, I think Verlander has become a legitimate contender for best pitcher of the post-Pedro era. If trajectories keep going as is, it's going to be close by their careers' ends.

what you can say about JV, is that regardless of whether he has been the best pitcher, he has had the best starter's arm in baseball since Ryan. Whether that means it will hold for him for anything like as long as it did for Ryan is the question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

what you can say about JV, is that regardless of whether he has been the best pitcher, he has had the best starter's arm in baseball since Ryan. Whether that means it will hold for him for anything like as long as it did for Ryan is the question. 

I don't think you have to go all the way back to Ryan. There's Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, and Roger Clemens that are in the same class. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I still need to see two or three more seasons out of Trout for me to be convinced he is all that.

While everyone has an opinion, I read yours as being tongue-in-cheek.  I'm sure Trout's first 8 full seasons in the MLB meet or exceed any Hall of Famers'.  Kirby Puckett has played only 3 more seasons and is in the Hall of Fame and nobody would say Kirby is better than Mike Trout.

You really think that Mike Trout isn't "all that"?  He isn't Bryce Harper!

~K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LooseGoose said:

Al Avila botched this too.   Think how much better this rebuild would have went with Trout in the lineup.

The Tigers (as well as every other team) actually passed on Trout twice. It's an example I use when saying baseball talent is very, very hard to judge.

With that being said? The Tigers would have traded Trout by now in hopes of contending someday. At least,  we wouldn't have signed him to a long term contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kari Smith said:

While everyone has an opinion, I read yours as being tongue-in-cheek.  I'm sure Trout's first 8 full seasons in the MLB meet or exceed any Hall of Famers'.  Kirby Puckett has played only 3 more seasons and is in the Hall of Fame and nobody would say Kirby is better than Mike Trout.

You really think that Mike Trout isn't "all that"?  He isn't Bryce Harper!

~K

Biggs was joking. Very dry sense of humor. At least, that's how I read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, RedRamage said:

I was reading the DetNews story on Verlander shutting out the Freep writer from the clubhouse (which is probably another thread worthy discussion), 

 

 

 

Yes, it IS thread worthy. I never got the impression that JV was so petty. I would really like to see or read the article that was written that got him so upset. If there's any sports writer he shouldn't talk to, it's the idiot in Tampa that left him off the Cy Young ballot a couple years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trout retires after ten years in the Majors (the minimum for Hall of Fame eligibility), he will be a first ballot Hall of Famer.

And his first eight years do stand up quite well against some of the best starts in baseball history, but even so, in OPS+ terms Ty Cobb and Ted Williams had hotter starts, and so did Babe Ruth if you start counting from the time that he became a regular in the batting order.

Trout's first eight years in OPS+:  168, 179, 168, 176, 172, 166, 196, 187.  Career OPS+ 176

Cobb's first 12 years:  167, 170, 193, 205, 196, 200, 194, 190, 185, 178, 209, 194.  Career OPS+ (22 years) 168

Ruth's first 14 years as a regular:  192, 217, 255, 238, 182, 231, 220, 137, 225, 225, 206, 193, 211, 218.  Career OPS+ (22 years) 206

(the highest all-time)

Williams's entire career:  160, 161, 235, 216, 215, 205, 189, 191, 168, 164, 273, 268, 201, 201, 172, 233, 179, 114, 190.  Career OPS+ (19 years) 190.  Note that in Williams's last season, in which he turned 42, he had a higher OPS+ than Trout has had in any season but one, and higher than Trout's Career OPS+ to date.

If Williams hadn't lost all of those prime years to military service, he might well have finished ahead of Ruth in Career OPS+.

Barry Bonds didn't have as quick a start, but he had a L of a finish, and is third all-time in Career OPS+ (182 over 22 seasons).

None of this is to suggest that Mike Trout isn't insanely great.  Bonds is by far the greatest hitter I've seen play, and at least arguably the greatest all-around player of all time.  And Trout is probably the second-best all-around player in my lifetime.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Kari Smith said:

While everyone has an opinion, I read yours as being tongue-in-cheek.  I'm sure Trout's first 8 full seasons in the MLB meet or exceed any Hall of Famers'.  Kirby Puckett has played only 3 more seasons and is in the Hall of Fame and nobody would say Kirby is better than Mike Trout.

You really think that Mike Trout isn't "all that"?  He isn't Bryce Harper!

~K

It was a tongue planted firmly in cheek harkening back to arguments made here on whether Trout was really better than Cabrera back in 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want an example of a pitcher missing the Hall of Fame due to lack of innings, look no further than Johan Santana.  He has all the stats required plus 2 Cy Young Awards, but he's not in due to only having 2,025 innings.  

He also has a 5 year stretch where he can claim to be the best pitcher in all of baseball (2004-2008):

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2008&month=0&season1=2004&ind=0&team=&rost=&age=&filter=&players=&startdate=&enddate=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love to see Max win the CY this year with 10 wins after losing to a 10 game winner last year only to have Max at the top of all the NL best pitcher lists going into '19.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...