Click here to read the transcript of tonight’s live baseball chat
MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com
scroll to topBy Mark Polishuk | at
Click here to read the transcript of tonight’s live baseball chat
MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com
hide arrows scroll to top
Him being the first to have ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction, is not a basis for inducting Tommy John into the HoF. If he hadn’t been first, someone else would have. For John to be inducted he needed better numbers. He was good, and over a 5 year span at his peak. very good, and he had incredible longevity, though the last few years were weak to very weak (92 ERA+ over his last 7).
But the numbers just aren’t good enough. In his best full season he had an ERA+ of 161, which appears to be an outlier since his next best was 138. Over his best 5 year span he averaged only a 125 ERA+. If they start inducting guys with that ERA+, .a 9.1 H/9, a 3.9 SO/9, and a 1.85 SO/W ratio, at their peak, it would open the floodgates to a lot of mediocre pitchers getting inducted.
A) Do you think Tommy John “played himself out of the Hall of Fame”? As in, he retired after 1989 with a career record of 288-231 and a 3.34 ERA.
Had he retired two years later, he would have been 277-216 with a slightly lower ERA and a slightly higher WAR.
It might seem silly, but the 1987 career numbers do look a bit better. It might have made a slight difference.
B) I recently read Bobby Shantz’s SABR bio and in the mid 1950s he was approached about a surgery where the doctor would transplant a ligament from elsewhere in his body, and place it into his arm. He declined, and continued to pitch for ten more years. I am not sure if that was exactly Tommy John Surgery, but it sounds pretty similar.
IM – I agree, although I’m not sure why John was brought up when it was Dr. Frank Jobe that Mark was asked about. Did I miss something?
As for Jobe, I say no and here’s why: He is the Miles Dyson of MLB, what he created with good intentions has been turned into a very bad thing. Pitchers aren’t as concerned about injuries from overthrowing because they know they can just have TJS if they injure themself.
I.M. Insane, He agreed to the surgery because his career was over without it. It’s obvious that, If he hadn’t been first, someone else would have.
But, being the “pioneer recipient of a drastic and experimental surgery” is not basis for induction into the HoF. It’s no basis for inclusion to a group that are recognized for their achievements playing baseball, not agreeing to be operated on.
The only reason for his induction is, and should be, If his baseball numbers were good enough. They’re not.
truthlemonade, His win total, 288 which ranks 26th best, is the best argument. Unfortunately for him it’s really the only argument. And if you go by wins, you have to look at W/L%. He finished with W/L% of .555, that ranks him 349th. Had he retired two years earlier it would be .562, which would have ranked him 312th. Had he retired 8 years earlier, which marks the point where he went into steep decline, his W/L% was .581, which would have ranked him 210th.
Retiring two earlier earlier would have raised his bWAR from 62.1, 53rd overall, to 62.3, ranking 52th. That averages out to 2.6 WAR per year. His career ERA+ of 111 ranks him tied for 334th. Retiring two years earlier, his 113 ERA+ would have moved him into a tie for 273rd. Eight years earlier, his 118 ERA+ would have him tied for 162nd. There’s just no way his numbers are even close to HoF standards
That’s interesting about Bobby Shantz. We could be referring to the procedure as Bobby Shantz surgery, using BSS, instead of TJS.
Tommy John’s numbers, especially if after 1987 look similar and sometimes better than Don Sutton’s, except that Sutton hit 300 wins.
Don Sutton is a good comparison. Over their 10 year peak their numbers are very similar. The thing is though that Sutton is a marginal HoFer. His induction was controversial, and a lot of people felt it wasn’t deserved. Voters look at 10 year peaks, and over theirs, their ERA+ over that span are both 120. But Sutton has a better FIP, H/9, WHIP, SO/9, BB/9, and SO/W, making him slightly better than John. Maybe if John had reached 300 wins, he probably would have gotten more consideration, because Sutton’s 324 wins were probably what got him in.
“Help settle an argument. I believe an 8 pitch at bat that results in an out is ultimately better for your overall offensive output than a first pitch single, but my buddies told me I’m wrong. Who is right?”
Yeah, a hit is better than an out.
But context matters. Imagine the leadoff hitter in the first pitch does:
A) 8 pitch battle which results in an out. That has value as it tires the starter, and the guys on the bench can see what the starter is throwing.
B) First pitch single, but the hitter is out trying to stretch it into a double.
B helps the hitter’s stats and the team stats, but A is more valuable toward winning that game.
There should be no argument to this. A hit also produces an additional plate appearance of indefinite outcome, of which 7 or 8 or 12 pitches could be thrown. A hit is always better in every situation.
Do you understand scenario (B) which I presented?
You presented 2 different B’s though.
At first you said…. “I believe an 8 pitch at bat that results in an out is ultimately better for your overall offensive output than a first pitch single, but my buddies told me I’m wrong. Who is right?” and in that scenario the hit is better.
Then you turn around and toss in the ” First pitch single, but the hitter is out trying to stretch it into a double” caveat. What point are you trying to make? A hit is always better than an out but if you change it to…”Yeah he got a hit but was also immediately out”….SMH…. Never mind. This is basically futile. Have a nice day.
A hit is always better than an out, but truthlemonade has a point about context. One advantage of a hit is that it puts the pitcher into the stretch. But the problem comparing an 8 pitch out to a one pitch hit is that you’re comparing results, which aren’t guaranteed.
The guy swinging at the first pitch has no guarantee that the result will be a hit. What if the first two batters make outs on a total of 3 pitches. Do you really want that next guy swinging at the first pitch, even if it looks hittable? If I’m the manager I want to see that 8 pitch AB, even if it results in an out.
It really comes down to the philosophy of swinging at the first pitch in any situation. How effective can a team be if most of the team is always looking to swing at the first pitch?
So back to my scenario; 2 outs, 3 pitches thrown, and the next batter swings at the first pitch. Excluding foul balls or misses, the outcomes are a single or an out. The out means a 4 pitch inning for the opposing pitcher.
A single is a good result, but what if the next guy swings at the first pitch and makes an out? How happy is the manager knowing his team let the opposing pitcher have a 5 pitch inning?
What about a 20 pitch at bat? Would that be more valuable than a hit? Belt had a 21 pitch at bat, if he could repeat that, it’d be valuable to deploy that talent to tire a guy out.
Manfred – This isn’t the 2000’s anymore. Regardless of pitch count, most starting pitchers get pulled before facing a lineup for the 3rd time and most relievers get pulled after just one inning even if they throw just 10 pitches. So let’s say Chris Martin has to throw 20 pitches before retiring Zach Remillard, it doesn’t really matter because he wasn’t gonna pitch more than one inning anyway.
Fever, It’s true that pitchers get pulled before the 3rd time through, but no team wants that to happen in the 3rd or 4th inning. At least, not on a regular basis. If pitchers routinely get pulled early from having thrown a bunch of pitches in the first few innings. it takes a toll on the bullpen. It’s not uncommon to see pitchers left in a game with a lopsided score, despite them not doing that well, as a way to save the pen.
Jean – You’re not grasping what I’m saying.
These days pitchers are usually not allowed to throw very many pitches because of analytics, matchups, etc.
I”ll give another specific example, Blake Snell in Game 6.
It was the 6th inning.
He was absolutely dominant up to that point, with just 2 hits allowed while striking out 9 and not allowing any runs.
He was still pulled after just 73 pitches!!!
He was NOT pulled because of his pitch count, obviously.
If theoretically he had needed 20 pitches instead of 5 to retire Mookie in the first inning, then he would have STILL been at only 88 pitches in the 6th and NOTHING would have been different for the remainder of the game. He wouldn’t have been pulled any earlier or later.
Again, 15 years ago I would have agreed with you. And if you’re talking about several 20-pitch plate appearances in the same game, then I’d agree with you. But one 20-pitch plate appearance doesn’t make a difference in today’s game with pitchers being babied so much.
I understood exactly what you meant. I think it’s you that didn’t understand my post. The Snell example is not at all germane to my point, plus games are managed differently in the PS. And remember, we were discussing the value of a 20-pitch AB.
Your original post suggested that a 20 pitch AB was no big deal because pitchers are pulled before they see the lineup a 3rd time. But a 20 pitch AB does have a big impact.
If a pitcher, say in the third inning, has already had 20 pitch and 18 pitch innings, then has a guy have a 20 pitch AB, he’s thrown 58 pitches in 2 1/3 innings. Say he finishes the third having thrown 70 pitches, or more. That means the manager has to go to the bullpen early. Having to do that on a regular basis is unsustainable.
Pitchers are pulled because of pitch counts, if that pitch count is significantly higher than it should be. If that happens early, because of a 20-pitch AB, that AB has an impact.
Jean – Perhaps you’re not seeing what I am saying because of your last paragraph. What do you consider a high enough pitch count for a starter to be pulled?
More than 15 years ago decent SP’s would throw at least 110 pitches, with the average being at least 100 pitches depending on the year.
Now? It’s in the 80’s …. and even the best rotation in MLB at the moment (Red Sox) with all their strikeouts are STILL at 89 pitches per start with other teams like the Pirates at 84 pitches per start.
All I’m saying, if you add another 15 pitches to that 84 or 89 it’s STILL not enough extra pitches to have a pitcher pulled earlier than they would have normally.
The numbers are there, you can see for yourself. Red Sox starting pitchers are averaging only 5.24 IP per game. They are NOT getting pulled so early because their pitch count is over 110 or even over 100.
I see what you’re saying, but I think there’s a disconnect in terms of the negative impact of a 20-pitch AB. There’s no set number of pitches for a SP to be pulled. It depends on the pitcher. There’s a big different between Logan Webb, and his 216 IP in 33 GS, and Dylan Cease and his 177 IP in 33 GS last season.
I heard a former pitcher on a broadcast talk about pitch counts, and he said that 100 pitches today equals 130 pitches from not that long ago. Pitchers do get pulled earlier, because it’s a lot of max effort compared to how a SP used to pace themselves to go 7, 8, or even have a complete game.
So a pitcher that routinely gets pulled at 80 pitches, faces a guy that lays a 20-pitch AB on him, and he is not going to go as far as he usually does in terms of innings.
If that pitcher is maxing out, as is typical today, the manager can’t ask him to go much beyond that 80 pitch normal. The 20-pitch AB forces the manager to pull the guy earlier.
Again. that is not sustainable for a bullpen, should that happen on a regular basis, which I think, was the point of Manfred’s post
Fever you’re one of the most clueless posters here and it’s every damn day.
All of you said is true but like Jean pointed out, you’re still wrong in thinking getting to the bullpen early is bad. This is even more so true for teams with elite SP. like the ones who usually make the postseason
Manfred – I’m not familiar with your postings so I’ll let the unnecessary insult in your first sentence slide …. this time.
Where did I say getting to the bullpen early is bad? Show me.
You’re still living in the past. Overwhelmingly SP’s aren’t pulled based only on pitch counts anymore. They are pulled based on analytics, the inning, the bullpen usage, so many factors.
Read my response to Jean, the Snell 2020 WS game is an EXCELLENT example of what I’m saying.
Managers no longer wait until a SP reaches 120 pitches before pulling them, you’re living in the past. .
Hey fever how many years have you devoted to arguing on the internet with strangers abt a child’s game?
How old are you and are you embarrassed by spending such a large percentage of your life on this website?
I feel embarrassed for you from reading your comments all the time. Take a break and touch grass my dude
Manfred – What a punk ass response from you just because you got proven wrong. Not gonna waste any more time on ignorant juveniles like you. I warned you to stop with the childish insults, you’re muted.
To say that the Red Sox are in “quite good shape” seems like a stretch. Have you seen this team’s defense???
Curt – In fairness to Mark, he did clarify later on that he meant they are in good shape to finish dead last for the third year in a row, and 4th time in 5 years, and 7th time in 13 years.