Comments on: Pettitte's Hall of Fame case strengthens with every win

By: Damian

Damian — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:01:11 +0000

What is the Hall of Fame about anyway? Simply the best statistics? To me, the Hall of Fame is (or should be) about excellent players who define their baseball generation (in a good way). Players who, when you look back on their era, you recognize as being great at their trade, and at being winners. Whether you love them or hate them, the Yankees have been an October fixture. Looking back in 20 years on the 1995-2009 Yankee run, people will remember Pettite as being a winner first and foremost. Most statheads will disagree, but not all wins are created equal. I’m not saying by any means that Pettite is a lock to be in, but sometimes the quality and timing of their performances means just as much as their sheer numbers.

By: Nobi Katze

Nobi Katze — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:53:52 +0000

Come on, be serious! Jamie Moyer has a better case for hall of fame enshrinement than Andy Pettitte and has more 20+ win seasons. Andy Pettitte would need 2 more 2008 Mike Mussina seasons to even be considered for the hall of fame and even so, he would still be behind Blyleven. I have never thought of Pettitte as being even one of the 10 best pitchers in baseball at any time in his career and that is proof enough that he should not be enshrined.

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:59:10 +0000

This whole argument is based on his number of wins and, a tiny little bit, on his ERA. Both are deeply flawed ways to assess the quality of a pitcher, but wins are absolutely the worst criterion I can think of. The Yankees won a ton of games while Pettitte pitched for them; if being on one of the five best teams in baseball during a dominant decade (plus) makes you “one of the best,” then the Yankees’ entire coaching staff should go into the Hall. They certainly do more, every day, than Pettitte does every fifth day, right? That’s no more absurd than saying that, because he wasn’t a terrible pitcher and he played most of his career for an offensive powerhouse team, Pettitte’s inflated win totals put him near Hall consideration. I’d like to see some numbers on his run support and also the number of wins he had against the quality AL teams vs. the bottom-dwellers. That’s just for starters.
If Andy Pettitte pitched 10 years for the San Diego Padres, he’d have a much better ERA, WHIP, and every other mainstream pitching stat except wins – but no one would ever say he deserved Hall consideration. Think about that.

By: Tonyrose

Tonyrose — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:35:56 +0000

Where am I

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:35:27 +0000

First of all, not every pitcher in the Hall of Fame is going to meet stringent criteria that people suggest here – an “All Time Great.” Historically there are a quite a few border liners in there and that’s just a fact. Some very good pitchers that probably fall short of Greats, but nevertheless are in the Hall. Don Sutton is a modern day inductee that could be placed in this category.
Secondly, pitchers in this modern era (1980′s ->) rarely reach the earlier type career numbers. You have quite a few contenders from this period that won’t finish with 300 wins. Clemens blew through it, but many of those final 50 wins are going to be looked up skeptically. Maddux made it to 300 at about age 41. If Pettite goes to age 41 expect him to be at 275 wins +.
One that has hurt Pettitte in terms of ERA is that he has been on teams that relied heavily on middle relief staffs. This is a modern era phenomenon and the Yankees had some really good “holders” such as Mike Stanton and Jeff Nelson, and Ramiro Mendoza. This meant that Pettitte would often pulled after the 6th inning and having an extra inning or two of scoreless baseball would definitely have helped his ERA. He frequently would leave a game after 6 or 6 1/3 innings with 2 or 3 earned runs scored against him and therefore his game ERA ends up being closer to 3 or 4 runs. It paints a somewhat deceptive picture of the actual effectivness of the starter. Pettitte pitching under a Billy Martin would have been going into the eighth inning a lot more – for better or worse. The Yankees had the luxury of using him for only six innings and so they did the cautious thing.
He is definitely a border line case and wouldn’t be a Hall of Famer today. He needs to pitch to age 40 and get the wins totals clearly past 250 without wrecking his very good win/loss percentage.
Mitigating in his favor is that he is a great clutch performer. Post season stats of 16 wins versus 9 losses and a 3.83 ERA is pretty impressive when you consider the elite batting orders that he was facing. simply amassing victories in the post season wouldn’t be that impressive because as noted he has the good fortune to be in a lot of play series, but stats are impressive.

By: Ray Bottorff Jr

Ray Bottorff Jr — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:49:15 +0000

Andy Pettitte in the Hall before Bert Byleven, Jack Morris, Mickey Lolich, or Luis Tiant? This is just another example of overhyped New York players, who get Hall consideration while better players languish for years on other market teams trying to get into the Hall. If any of the pitchers I just mentioned played, at their peaks, for that last 15 years for this current Yankee franchise, how many would we now be considering shoe-ins for the Hall? Lolich, the most dominant lefty strikeout pitcher before Carlton would have had a series of 20 win, 200+ strikeout, and 10+ complete game seasons for a long stretch of time instead of what he got with the up and down Tigers of the late 60 and early 70s. Byleven and Morris toughness would have been worship as the second coming in the Bronx. And Tiant would have inspired all Cuban ball players to want to become Yankees. But Byleven had to suffer with less exposure in Minnesota, Texas, and Pittsburgh. Tiant spent his best fireballing years in Cleveland. And Morris, like Lolich, had to deal with the up and down Tigers too. But any of them on this Yankee club this past 15 years and Andy would have been, Andy who?

By: CJ

CJ — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:31:18 +0000

We cannot just base everything on numbers. The intangibles is what makes a player great and Andy has done that. This article is perfect timing. He needs to sustain the Yankees with his pitching and hopefully the team can get the win for him.Maybe a consideration to the Hall of fame is realistic.

By: Fisher King

Fisher King — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:28:41 +0000

He is a good pitcher but not a great pitcher. This author apparently has a “man-crush” for Pettite. The Hall is for the great ones. Not the good ones.

By: joel Barnhart

joel Barnhart — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:11:18 +0000

Putting Pettitte in is like putting Bernie Williams in. Good player on some great teams, lots of opportunities (especially with the expanded format), but was the guy every considered an ace? Not really.
Does he get a monument in Yankee Stadium? Of course. But I don’t see how he gets any more than that.

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:55:22 +0000

To quote a player, “I was a good player. The Hall of Fame is for great players.” Despite being a postseason workhorse, you can hardly say that Andy Pettitte is one of the true greats that the game has seen. His stats certainly do not support the idea.