I wrote out a 500-word response, but I don't think it's worth it. We're clearly not convincing each other. For your sake, I hope DeGrom makes the Hall of Fame.

So you think that no more starting pitchers should ever make the hall? We're just done with them?

I underestimated how attached a few posters are to the "win" stat despite pretty much the entire sport moving away from it as a value proposition.

By their logic, Kyle Gibson's 15 wins with a 4.73 ERA were just as valuable to team success as Gerrit Cole's 15 wins were with a 2.63 ERA in 2023.

Let me go check the Cy Young voting in 2023 as surely it was a close vote between these two pitchers with the same amount of wins.

https://www.mlb.com/news/2023-mlb-cy-young-award-voting-results

This article must be flawed though because somehow Cole got all 30 first place votes, and it looks like no one voted for Gibson.

Also, in the national League they must have screwed this up as well because they gave the award to Snell and his 14 wins while Strider finished 4th with his 20 wins.

ETA: Sonny Gray finished second in the 2023 AL CY voting and went 8-8 for the year.

The voters have figured out that the "win" is a very narrow way to look at a starter and their impact on winning.

AggieEP said:

---

I underestimated how attached a few posters are to the "win" stat despite pretty much the entire sport moving away from it as a value proposition.

By their logic, Kyle Gibson's 15 wins with a 4.73 ERA were just as valuable to team success as Gerrit Cole's 15 wins were with a 2.63 ERA in 2023.

Let me go check the Cy Young voting in 2023 as surely it was a close vote between these two pitchers with the same amount of wins.

https://www.mlb.com/news/2023-mlb-cy-young-award-voting-results

This article must be flawed though because somehow Cole got all 30 first place votes, and it looks like no one voted for Gibson.

Also, in the national League they must have screwed this up as well because they gave the award to Snell and his 14 wins while Strider finished 4th with his 20 wins.

ETA: Sonny Gray finished second in the 2023 AL CY voting and went 8-8 for the year.

The voters have figured out that the "win" is a very narrow way to look at a starter and their impact on winning.

---

A win is a win is a win.

If a pitcher gives up 5 runs on 8 H with just 4 Ks over 7 IP and his offense puts up 7 runs so he leaves with a lead and the bullpen protects that 2-run lead for the final 2 innings it counts the same as a pitcher throwing 8 shutout innings with 11 Ks and the offense scoring 1 run.

Obviously the second pitcher was more dominant but the first still had his team in position to win the game.

There's always nuance but ultimately wins matter.

Agreed

Bradford Doolittle wrote this story a couple of days ago trying to brainstorm a way to still have a "win" to assign to a starter, but to use Bill James's game score metric and then basically make the win stat a duel between the two starters. Essentially if you out pitch the opposing team's starter you get a win no matter what the final outcome is.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45575126/2025-mlb-pitcher-wins-paul-skenes-new-formula-game-scores-analytics

Chipotlemonger said:

---

So you think that no more starting pitchers should ever make the hall? We're just done with them?

---

I just lived most of my life seeing starters able to finish.

You also lived seeing most RBs in the NFL be true bell cow backs and get the ball 25+ times a game. Just because the game has changed for both doesn't mean you can fully discount the position going forward. Same reason you can't just throw all the golden era QBs into the hall from these past 20 years. Their stats pretty much blow the QB stats of yesteryear out of the water.

I guess my point is you hardly see full outings from pitchers like you used to more often. It's asinine to use that as a reason to never let another pitcher into the HOF going forward.

AggieEP said:

---

Agreed

Bradford Doolittle wrote this story a couple of days ago trying to brainstorm a way to still have a "win" to assign to a starter, but to use Bill James's game score metric and then basically make the win stat a duel between the two starters. Essentially if you out pitch the opposing team's starter you get a win no matter what the final outcome is.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45575126/2025-mlb-pitcher-wins-paul-skenes-new-formula-game-scores-analytics

---

What happens if they both give up 10 runs in the first inning, get taken out, and then one team scores a run in the bottom of the 35th inning to win 11-10?

Teams are maximizing the data they have to try and win games. What you saw earlier in your life was bad strategy for the majority of teams. Yes there were some horses who could go 9 without a noticeable drop on effectiveness, but for the vast majority of guys, once you get to 100... and then 115.... and then 130 pitches there is a noticeable drop at each level in effectiveness.

A starter gives you 7 clean innings, now you can deploy your 2 best bullpen arms and lock down the game. Much better chance of winning rather than sending the starter back out there with 115 pitches to start the 8th.

There's no going back to the days of 10+ complete games because it's a losing strategy taken in the aggregate.

One thing though that I think you will like is that MLB is actively looking at ways to reinvigorate the position and get a bit of additional length from the position. I've seen things like a 5IP minimum for a starter (gets rid of the opener strategy) with exceptions carved out for injury or if they've given up 6 or more runs then you could take them out earlier. So MLB knows there are fans like you that long for what we saw in the past and is brainstorming ways to at least make a step in that direction.

However, step one is figuring out how to get guys to not maximize their velo and spin to the detriment of their arm health. We can't have it both ways, the electric stuff some of these guys have right now is predicated on turning their arms into ticking time bombs.

A bit of a rare situation, but game score credits you for innings pitched and striking guys out and punishes you for walks, hits and runs allowed.

So you'd need more data to know who had the better game score.

If we ever went to something like this though, there'd probably still be a 5 inning minimum for a pitcher to earn the win.

The real conundrum you missed here though is that we could have this.

Pitcher A

6IP, 2 hits, 2 BBs 16ks but allows 5 runs (3 unearned) in the 2nd inning after some bad defense behind him

Pitcher B

5 IP 8 hits 3BB 2ks but only allows 3 runs

Pitcher A would have the better game score and be awarded the win despite leaving the game trailing.

This is relevant here:

Fine, I’ll say it:

By and large, starting pitchers in today’s game simply aren’t doing enough to earn plaques in Cooperstown. They throw harder than ever, but their elbows are fragile and the five-and-dive formula is susceptible to bullpens blowing it. Very few marquee matchups. https://t.co/CoArTdfKfO

— Not Gaetti (@notgaetti) July 2, 2025

AggieEP said:

---

A bit of a rare situation, but game score credits you for innings pitched and striking guys out and punishes you for walks, hits and runs allowed.

So you'd need more data to know who had the better game score.

If we ever went to something like this though, there'd probably still be a 5 inning minimum for a pitcher to earn the win.

The real conundrum you missed here though is that we could have this.

Pitcher A

6IP, 2 hits, 2 BBs 16ks but allows 5 runs (3 unearned) in the 2nd inning after some bad defense behind him

Pitcher B

5 IP 8 hits 3BB 2ks but only allows 3 runs

Pitcher A would have the better game score and be awarded the win despite leaving the game trailing.

---

Extra points for strikeouts? That really make no sense.

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/advanced-stats/game-score

In case anyone is interested in how to compute game score.

I agree that there are elements of game score that are a bit silly, but when you look at a list of greatest games ever pitched, game score does a pretty good job of reflecting that.

Do you agree with the response to the tweet?

After Scherzer no starters get in ever again? We've already opened up the doors to relievers who impact a game WAY less than a starter does, so how could you be in favor of shutting out starters?

Just for a quick example, Rivera (greatest reliever ever) had a career WAR of 56. Meanwhile CC Sabathia who I saw as a really borderline guy for the hall had a 62 WAR.

AggieEP said:

---

Do you agree with the response to the tweet?

After Scherzer no starters get in ever again? We've already opened up the doors to relievers who impact a game WAY less than a starter does, so how could you be in favor of shutting out starters?

Just for a quick example, Rivera (greatest reliever ever) had a career WAR of 56. Meanwhile CC Sabathia who I saw as a really borderline guy for the hall had a 62 WAR.

---

Well, first of all WAR is a made-up statistic that is total nonsense and has zero grounding in reality. The examples of how ridiculous it is are legion. Your Rivera-Sabathia comparison is a great example.

I don't think Sabathia deserved to be in. He's a perfect "compiler" example as he was solidly above-average for a long, long time and rang up a lot of numbers over his 19 years in the bigs. But he was never really dominant. Meanwhile Rivera was absolutely dominant in his role for his 19 years.

DeGrom's case is interesting in that when healthy he's been dominant but he just won't compile enough stats. Attendance matters and even if the way the game is played and stats evaluated have changed he just didn't show up enough. Even though his stats are amazing on a "rate' basis he just hasn't done enough often enough.

There's a handful of guys who are young (24-27) who have potential but we'll see. I'm not in favor of shutting out starters but if you can't rack up enough starts where you go 5IP+ and exit with a lead to rack up 150+ wins then I don't really care about your other numbers.

Sandy Koufax is the perfect example of a guy who would be borderline if he hadn't been so absurdly dominant in his brief career.

https://stathead.com/tiny/O0b3Q

TarponChaser said:

---

Well, first of all WAR is a made-up statistic that is total nonsense and has zero grounding in reality.

---

AggieEP said:

---

Do you agree with the response to the tweet?

After Scherzer no starters get in ever again? We've already opened up the doors to relievers who impact a game WAY less than a starter does, so how could you be in favor of shutting out starters?

Just for a quick example, Rivera (greatest reliever ever) had a career WAR of 56. Meanwhile CC Sabathia who I saw as a really borderline guy for the hall had a 62 WAR.

---

Relievers are starting to have as big of an effect as starters. Starters now days seem to go five innings every five days, while relievers pitch one inning almost every day. Also, starters get to start with nobody on, while relievers are often brought in with men in scoring position against the best hitters. It seems like the playoff teams are often built more around strong bullpens than a strong rotation.

With the way starters are handled nowadays, I still think a starter needs to give you 7 innings a game, 25-30 times a year to really be considered worthy of the hall. That's right about 200 innings a year, which is a fraction of what the guys of yesteryear did. Anything less than that and you can barely call yourself a starter.

TarponChaser said:

---

This is relevant here:

Fine, I’ll say it:

By and large, starting pitchers in today’s game simply aren’t doing enough to earn plaques in Cooperstown. They throw harder than ever, but their elbows are fragile and the five-and-dive formula is susceptible to bullpens blowing it. Very few marquee matchups. https://t.co/CoArTdfKfO

— Not Gaetti (@notgaetti) July 2, 2025

---

Its probably best just to shut down the sport....no room for evolution.

Probably need to have the NFL ban the forward pass while we're at it.

We can all just watch futball now.

While change is inevitable it's not always good. Is the NBA better today that it was in the late-80's to mid/late-90's? I'd argue it's not.

There's a lot to love about baseball but there's also a lot that's not as good.

TarponChaser said:

---

While change is inevitable it's not always good. Is the NBA better today that it was in the late-80's to mid/late-90's? I'd argue it's not.

There's a lot to love about baseball but there's also a lot that's not as good.

---

More athleticism and overall talent since then, but less nostalgia and domestic TV ratings. There's probably some crossover for those critiques for MLB too.

On the bright side the leagues, owners, and players are absolutely crushing it compared to then as far as $ notwithstanding the smaller televised audiences.

Today’s pitchers have to be five-and-dive, max-effort guys because 1) hitters crush 89 mph fastballs, and 2) it keeps them in the league and gets them paid.

Even with elite command, if you throw 89 today, you’re not going to be good—so you wouldn’t make the Hall anyway.

The… https://t.co/9G4rHOOkS4

— Pitch Profiler (@pitchprofiler) July 2, 2025

Farmer1906 said:

---

Today’s pitchers have to be five-and-dive, max-effort guys because 1) hitters crush 89 mph fastballs, and 2) it keeps them in the league and gets them paid.

Even with elite command, if you throw 89 today, you’re not going to be good—so you wouldn’t make the Hall anyway.

The… https://t.co/9G4rHOOkS4

— Pitch Profiler (@pitchprofiler) July 2, 2025

---

Paging Greg Maddux...Greg Maddux to the white courtesy telephone please.

"Sometimes hitters can pick up differences in spin. They can identify pitches if there are different releases points or if a curveball starts with an upward hump as it leaves the pitcher's hand. But if a pitcher can change speeds, every hitter is helpless, limited by human vision. 'Except,' Maddux said, 'for that [EXPLETIVE] Tony Gwynn."


So, where would quality starts (6+ innings, 3 or fewer runs) figure in to calculations? Also, I've heard/read differing opinions on whether it's the number of pitches thrown that causes a decrease in a pitcher's effectiveness, but also that the batting average allowed goes up considerably once a pitcher starts through the opposing lineup for the third time.

(As a Giants fan, I recall about 15 or so years ago, Giants fans would refer to a start in which the pitcher went 7+ and allowed 2 or fewer runs, but still took the L, as 'getting Cained' because it happened to Matt Cain a lot. I'm pretty sure he led the league in complete game losses for a couple of years, usually because the Giants got shut out.)

Farmer1906 said:

---

Greg didn't face today's hitters and didn't pitch to today's strike zone. He was great in his era, but the point is that era is no more. The game has changed.

---

Maddux would be even more dominant today because of the way he could change speeds and impart movement. Maddux was 94mph out of HS and could have thrown harder had he trained for it but he quickly figured out movement, changing speeds, and hitting spots trumps raw power.

And as for the average fastball velos, they didn't start truly tracking pitches until 2008 and in the 90's and early-2000's (plus before) when they did measure velocity they did so about when the pitch crossed home plate, maybe a little before, which is much slower than how they do today out of the pitcher's hand. It's why Nolan Ryan's 108mph fastball was actually only 101/102 when measured and they did the math to calculate it was 108 by today's metrics. Extrapolating that info (which has been verified across other pitchers too) the average fastball velocities are much closer than claimed.

As for the hitters being better today, they have better training and scouting tools, but I'm not remotely convinced they're any better than they were in the 80's & 90's.

There's no doubt players today are, on average, far more athletic and conditioned with better training/scouting tools but seeing catchers unable to block pitches to save extra bases or runs, hitters selling out for XB vs. slapping a base hit when it's needed, and way too many low baseball IQ plays makes it hard to say the game is definitively better today.

As for pitchers, of course they're nastier when every pitch is a max effort pitch trying to get the most velo and the most spin. But that's also a huge reason why pitchers keep blowing out their arms. And who cares if a guy like DeGrom will go out and dominate in 20 starts in a row when those starts are spread out over 2 seasons.

A guy like Verlander was so durable because he didn't empty the tank on every pitch. He could run it up to 100 but he generally sat 94-95. The guy I see like that today is Skenes- his motion is so effortless and efficient. He's a guy I can see being really, really durable.

But overall, my point is that if a starting pitcher isn't going to have the sort of counting stats that a lot of HoF guys have then domination over a short period of time has to at least match Koufax.

I got into multiple “deGrom worship” battles yesterday regarding peak performance vs. work volume, and honestly I don’t know how to make my point better than this:

I sorted by who has the most strikeouts among pitchers with fewer than 100 wins and an ERA under 3. The list is… https://t.co/2R7HzTWMXY pic.twitter.com/u8TVXAEJoR

— Not Gaetti (@notgaetti) July 3, 2025

You found a few examples that worked for a little while. We have loads and loads of data. Velo is king. It's not even close.

Farmer1906 said:

---

You found a few examples that worked for a little while. We have loads and loads of data. Velo is king. It's not even close.

---

Not really. All that data is the perfect example of selection bias.

There's a fairly large number of examples to support what I posted but I don't have the time or inclination to find all of them - these were immediately accessible.

Velo allows you to make mistakes and get away with them more often but unless you can locate and change speed and/or have movement on your fastball hitters will time up even the highest velo. The reason Cristian Javier had so much success pre-injury is because he ha do much movement on his 4-seam at a relatively pedestrian 94.

Sure there are exceptions but Javier is a curious example for you. He throws max effort to get as much velo as he can while also maximizing spin. The high spin 4 seam was (is still somewhat) a major theme from 2017 thru now. He is still a 5 and dive type. Hes not getting by with control and precision. Hes throwing to get chase at the top and then with the wipeout slider.

TarponChaser said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

Greg didn't face today's hitters and didn't pitch to today's strike zone. He was great in his era, but the point is that era is no more. The game has changed.

---

I got into multiple “deGrom worship” battles yesterday regarding peak performance vs. work volume, and honestly I don’t know how to make my point better than this:

I sorted by who has the most strikeouts among pitchers with fewer than 100 wins and an ERA under 3. The list is… https://t.co/2R7HzTWMXY pic.twitter.com/u8TVXAEJoR

— Not Gaetti (@notgaetti) July 3, 2025

---

I think that tweet unintentionally makes a huge case for DeGrom. High level closers are some of the nastiest and most effective pitchers in baseball. They only go 1 inning at a time for good reason. Yet somehow DeGrom is beating them while going several as a starter. Jacob DeGrom the 5 inning closer that starts.

Except it's a different mindset and scenario as a starter beginning the game 0-0 vs being asked to come into high-leverage situations where there's almost no margin for error.

Farmer1906 said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

Greg didn't face today's hitters and didn't pitch to today's strike zone. He was great in his era, but the point is that era is no more. The game has changed.

---

I got into multiple “deGrom worship” battles yesterday regarding peak performance vs. work volume, and honestly I don’t know how to make my point better than this:

I sorted by who has the most strikeouts among pitchers with fewer than 100 wins and an ERA under 3. The list is… https://t.co/2R7HzTWMXY pic.twitter.com/u8TVXAEJoR

— Not Gaetti (@notgaetti) July 3, 2025

---

I think that tweet unintentionally makes a huge case for DeGrom. High level closers are some of the nastiest and most effective pitchers in baseball. They only go 1 inning at a time for good reason. Yet somehow DeGrom is beating them while going several as a starter. Jacob DeGrom the 5 inning closer that starts.

---

Chapman has 795 innings pitched, Kimbrel 810.2, Jansen 898, Wagner 903, etc. deGrom is beating the relievers in total strikeouts (not strikeout %) by virtue of having (only) pitched 500-600 more innings than the closers.

I was looking at ERA. Only Wagner and Mariano top him.