25 thoughts on “The Doctor is out – Roy Halladay calls it a career”

1. MikeD December 10, 2013 at 3:47 pm

   Easy HOFer in my book. I admit I lean toward players with strong peaks and who were clearly regarded as either the best or damn near. Those are the players who belong in the Hall much more so than the good to very good who stick around a long time and compile numbers.

   Many times the discussion of who is a HOFer will lead to their counting stats. Yet counting stats are generally the result of long careers, but in many cases the player is not elected because he hit certain targets: 500 HRs (in the old days), 3,000 hits, etc. Those numbers were the byproduct of greatness. If Mantle retired in 1961 after a decade (11 years) of play would he have made the HOF? Yup. He had 374 HRs. Yet we’ll hear he had to be elected because he hit over 500 HRs, and then other players who hit 500 HRs are considered likely inductees.

   Halladay is certainly not the Mantle of pitchers, but he was excellent and while his injuries kept his career counting stats down, he was great and had the peak to be a HOFer.

   Reply ↓
2. Voomo Zanzibar December 10, 2013 at 5:58 pm

   Mariano Rivera taught him that Yankee-Killer Cutter.
   _______

   Clawing at 650:

   .649 Tim Hudson
   .641 CC Sabathia

   Reply ↓
3. Darien December 10, 2013 at 10:16 pm

   I remember when Doc threw that no-no in the 2010 playoffs, and I was listening to a different game that same night, and the announcers said that would “cement” his Hall of Fame bid. My response was “if Roy Halladay isn’t a clear Hall-of-Famer, what’s the Hall of Fame for again?”

   Reply ↓
   1. birtelcom December 11, 2013 at 1:15 am

      There have been 1,408 post-season starts by NL pitchers. What are the odds that the two highest Game Scores among those 1,408 starts would occur on consecutive days? Halladay’s no-hitter on October 6, 2010 had a 94 Game Score to set the post-season record by an NL pitcher (a record previously held jointly by Bob Gibson and Josh Beckett). Doc held the record for about 24 hours — on October 7 Tim Lincecum notched a two-hit, one-walk, 14-K game for a 1-0, complete game victory and a 96 Game Score.

      Reply ↓
      1. RJ December 11, 2013 at 11:13 am

         And both performances were by pitchers making their postseason debut.

         Reply ↓
      2. Doug Post authorDecember 11, 2013 at 12:14 pm

         That reminds me of game 4 of this year’s ALDS.

         John remarked that Andy Dirks had scored twice for the Tigers without an AB, a post-season first for a substitute. Two hours later, Xander Boegarts did the same for Boston against the Rays.

         Reply ↓
   2. Michael Sullivan May 23, 2014 at 8:49 am

      If Curt Schilling and Mike Mussina aren’t hall of famers, what’s the hall of fame for? Their sabermetric resume is *much* better than Halladay’s, and Schilling has some of the accolades and fame to go with it. Yet neither one is in yet, and their bids don’t look certain.

      I think Halladay is in a better spot because he was clearly the best in the league for a couple years, while Schilling and Mussina were always second or third fiddle to one of the four obvious inner-circle guys.

      But the hall voters seem to just hate pitchers these days.

      Reply ↓
4. no statistician but December 10, 2013 at 11:28 pm

   Not to turn the discussion from Halladay, who deserves the attention, but the name Firpo Marberry shows up on a couple of your breakouts, and I wonder how much that name means to many of the younger HHS contributors. In case it doesn’t ring a bell, as Bob Rush didn’t for someone a day or two ago, Firpo Marberry was the first pitcher to be used deliberately in the role of late reliever. In 1925, for the AL champ Senators, he relieved exclusively, appearing in 55 games with 93.1 innings pitched and 15 saves, the last figure matching his save total from the previous year’s WS champion team. In 1926, he had an astounding 22 saves (and 9 relief wins), setting a record that stood for many years. He was also a pretty good starter when given that assignment. In 1930 he started 26 games. finished 19-12, and was second in the AL in ERA and ERA+ to a guy named Grove. He also managed to relieve 23 times, and led the league with 11 saves. This was for a team with a 71-81 record.

   He actually was called Fred. Couldn’t win either way when it came to names.

   Reply ↓
   1. Doug Post authorDecember 11, 2013 at 12:07 pm

      I noticed that Marberry was a swingman based on those lists. Thanks for providing the “color”.

      Marberry’s 1925 season was the 5th major-league season of at least 60 IP and no starts, all since 1921. All were similar IP but Marberry had the most appearances and GF.

      Rk	Player	Year	GS	GF	IP	Age	Tm	SV
      1	Slim Sallee	1921	0	19	96.1	36	NYG	2
      2	Lou North	1921	0	26	86.1	30	STL	7
      3	Claude Jonnard	1922	0	19	96.0	24	NYG	5
      4	Allen Russell	1924	0	18	82.1	30	WSH	8
      5	Firpo Marberry	1925	0	39	93.1	26	WSH	15

      Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
      Generated 12/11/2013.

       
      Marberry had 47 games finished in 1926, a record that would stand for 11 years until Clint Brown finished 48 in 1937. Brown was the first pitcher to specialize exclusively as a reliever. From 1937 to the end of his career (1942), Brown appeared in 207 games, all in relief, finishing 182 (88%).

      Marberry and Dizzy Dean are the only live ball pitchers with a season of 10+ CG and 10+ saves.

      Reply ↓
      1. Dr. Doom December 11, 2013 at 9:11 pm

         In terms of how they were used throughout their careers, North and Jonnard probably actually hold claim to being the first pitchers used primarily in relief. Mar Berry was definitely used that way often, but he started an awful lot of games later in his career to be considered a pure reliever. Sallee was used as a “pure” reliever in the aforementioned year; but it was his last in the majors, so it seems more like a way to squeeze some usefulness out of an arm already gone than an innovative bullpen strategy – not that those HAVE to be mutually exclusive. Russell’s usage suggests a prototypical swing man. Interesting list, Doug. Thanks for giving me a rabbit hole down which to fall!

         Reply ↓
      2. no statistician but December 11, 2013 at 11:45 pm

         I think it’s clear that North and Jonnard weren’t used in late relief in a critical way. St Louis’s record in the games North appeared was 12-27. The WS champ Giants’ record in the games Jonnard appeared was 16-29. Marberry did some mop-up work too, but the Senators were 22-14 in his relief appearances in 1924, and 29-26 in 1925. In 1926 the team went 34-25 when he relieved, with 9 wins and 22 saves. He had 3 wins as a starter, and the team won 81 games. It would surely be a long time before another relief pitcher rang up wins and saves in 42% of his teams wins. As more of a starter, though, Marberry, with 30 wins and saves in 1930, comes in again with 42% of the Senators’ 71 wins.

         It’s hard to get around the suspicion that Marberry’s career was greater than the sum of its parts.

         Reply ↓
   2. Richard Chester December 12, 2013 at 1:04 am

      Marberry’s real name was Fred. He attained his nickname Firpo due to a facial resemblance to Argentine boxer Luis Firpo who once knocked Jack Dempsey out of the ring but still lost the fight. Boxer Firpo’s nickname was “The Wild Bull of the Pampas”.

      Reply ↓
5. birtelcom December 11, 2013 at 9:38 am

   Most b-ref WAR by a player born in Colorado:
   1. Roy Halladay 64.6
   2. Goose Gossage 42.0
   3. John Stearns 19.5
   4. Chase Headley 17.7 (and counting)
   5. Dave LaRoche 15.3
   6. Johnny Frederick 15.2

   Reply ↓
6. birtelcom December 11, 2013 at 11:43 am

   The Blue Jays took Halladay with the 17th overall pick in the 1995 draft (the other most successful pick in the first round in 1995 was the Rockies’ selection of Todd Helton, who also recently retired). The second-most career WAR by a 17th overall selection has been by Cole Hamels (the 17th selection in 2002), Doc’s staff-mate the last few years. Halladay and Hamels both have career ERAs of 3.38.

   Reply ↓
7. Lawrence Azrin December 11, 2013 at 12:23 pm

   While I too agree that Halladay is a deserving HOFer, I don’t think he’ll go in right away; he’ll have to wait at least 3/4/5 ballots. Also, the ballot will probably still be badly clogged up, with a number of deserving holdovers who should’ve been already elected – though this may be sorted out somewhat by the time he hits the ballot in 2018(?).

   Reply ↓
8. Artie Z. December 11, 2013 at 1:32 pm

   On one of those charts, the 200 wins and 130 ERA+ who are NOT in the HOF I was a little bit skeptical because Halladay is right near the border (203 wins, 131 ERA+). I thought “maybe there are other guys on the other side of the cutoff,” because when I look at the list Halladay is much more comparable to Pedro because his innings are much lower than Clemens, Johnson, and Maddux.

   Adjusting the wins “lens” first, we have to drop the threshold to 130 wins to even add anyone else to the list, and then we pick up Johan Santana, Noodles Hahn, and Harry Brecheen. Basically, really good, perhaps great, pitchers who just didn’t pitch much more than 2000 innings. I think the moral of that story is: If a pitcher has an ERA+ of 130 teams are going to use him until his ERA+ is not 130 or he simply can’t physically pitch any more.

   Adjusting the ERA+ “lens” brings in more “Halladay-like” pitchers. Pitchers with 200+ wins and a 122+ ERA+ include:

   Schilling and Kevin Brown (127)
   Smoltz (125)
   Hudson (124)
   Mussina and Cicotte (123)
   Caruthers (122)

   So there are guys who are hitting the ballot soon or on the ballot (Schilling, Smoltz, Mussina), one guy who’s already done (Brown), one guy who’s still pitching (Hudson), Bob Caruthers, and a guy who certainly won’t be joining the HOF any time soon unless Rose and Joe Jackson get in (Cicotte).

   What do we get if we combine the 130+ wins and 122+ ERA+? Well, there are only 27 pitchers who are NOT HOFers in that group. 8 of those pitchers began their careers prior to 1906, 4 (Shocker, Bridges, Trout, and Brecheen) between 1915-1940, and the rest are all pitchers from the 1980s and later (with Stieb and Saberhagen joining Kevin Brown as no longer on the ballot).

   Well, 130 wins ain’t really near 200, so if we change that to 180 wins and 122 ERA+ then there are only 16 pitchers who are not in the HOF, which basically boils down to the recent guys (Clemens and later) and the guys from a century ago (Shocker and before). And Tommy Bridges. And if ERA+ is bumped up to 125 then all the old guys fall off the list – except Bridges.

   My goal really isn’t to bring Halladay down (I think he should be in the HOF), but to try to build an argument to bring him down so that I can easily dismiss that particular argument. And those 200 wins and 130 ERA+ and not a HOFer standards don’t appear to be too restrictive, though Halladay seems more like Schilling, Brown, Tim Hudson, and (to a lesser degree because of his years as a closer) Smoltz. And while those guys may or may not be elected to the HOF, there are certainly cases that can be made for them, which bodes well for Halladay, because his case seems to be about as strong as any of their cases.

   Reply ↓
   1. Doug Post authorDecember 11, 2013 at 2:44 pm

      Good thoughts, Artie.

      To me, Halladay seems very similar to Tim Hudson. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t seem to have seen much chatter about Hudson’s HOF chances. To me that’s more a case of under-valuing Hudson than over-valuing Halladay.

      Here are their career lines (Hudson, first).

      Year	Age	Tm	Lg	W	L	W-L%	ERA	G	GS	CG	SHO	IP	ERA+	WHIP	H/9	HR/9	BB/9	SO/9	SO/BB
      15 Yrs				205	111	.649	3.44	427	426	25	13	2813.2	124	1.233	8.4	0.7	2.7	6.1	2.24
      16 Yrs				203	105	.659	3.38	416	390	67	20	2749.1	131	1.178	8.7	0.8	1.9	6.9	3.58

      Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
      Generated 12/11/2013.

       
      Maybe Doc is just a bit better on the SO/BB front. But, those stats are about as close as you’re going to get for two contemporaries. Doc scores bonus points for the CGs, but Hudson has about a season’s worth more starts to compensate.

      Reply ↓
      1. Andrew December 11, 2013 at 5:42 pm

         This is my problem with using total careers to say two guys were super close in value, though. You take the first 12 years of Hudson’s career, 1999-2010, and you get a great pitcher:

         2288.1 IP, 127 ERA+, 1.247 WHIP, 2.18 K/BB

         But that doesn’t even COMPARE to Halladay’s 2002-2011 peak:

         2194.2 IP, 148 ERA+, 1.111 WHIP, 4.57 K/BB

         Yes, Hudson’s career numbers are about the same, but they were miles apart as players. And FWIW, I’m a Braves fan and love Huddy, but they’re about as close together as Koufax and Roy Oswalt.

         Reply ↓
         1. Doug Post authorDecember 11, 2013 at 6:35 pm

            You could extend Hudson’s peak years all the way to 2012 and hardly change the totals you mentioned (which is pretty impressive all by itself).

            But, your basic point is well taken that Doc lost a lot on his career line in his “book-end” years. More than I had realized, so thanks for pointing that out.

            I don’t see a lot of NL games so haven’t seen much of Hudson recently. But, whenever I’ve seen him, he’s looked great – gets the ball and goes about his business, giving you a very tidy and efficient 7 innings or so.

            BTW, Hudson and Mark Mulder, in back-to-back seasons for the As in 2000-01, are the last pitchers to win 20 in a debut or 2nd season.

            Reply ↓
            1. Artie Z. December 11, 2013 at 9:23 pm

               Halladay’s 2000 season is just about the worst 67.2 innings anyone has ever been allowed to pitch. I was looking at that earlier and he is certainly the only pitcher to put up -2.5 WAR or worse in 75 IP or less in a season and be in a HOF discussion.

               The most amazing pitcher on the list is Dave Tomlin, who went 9-1 with -3.1 WAR for the 1978 Reds (5.78 ERA, 1.893 WHIP).

               Steve Blass’ meltdown season (1973) doesn’t make that list because he pitched 88.1 innings, but he had -4.0 WAR. Halladay’s season wasn’t quite that bad, but it’s in that league of “bad season”. And then he came back and did what he did after it.
   2. Hartvig December 11, 2013 at 10:12 pm

      “I was a little bit skeptical because Halladay is right near the border ”

      I felt much the same way. You’ve done a good job of broadening the perspective and presenting the case.

      I’ve said repeatedly that I feel that any player who is every bit as good as or better than your AVERAGE Hall of Famer at their position belongs in the HOF.

      The Hall of Fame website says there are 72 pitchers that are members of the HOF. B-R.com lists 69 but they don’t include players who only played in the Negro Leagues plus they do include guys like Babe Ruth, Hank O’Day and Monte Ward who were “pitchers and…” so in reality we have 63 pitchers who’s career records we can compare to Halladay’s.

      I thought maybe using B-R.com JAWS or Adam Darowski’s Hall of Stats to see how WAR views him.

      The Hall of Stats does make an adjustment for pre-1893 pitchers which is necessary because if you don’t you end up with over a third of the top 45 or so pitchers in history pitching prior to 1900. In the Hall of Stats ranking Doc is #26 which is impressive enough on its own but 7 of the guys ahead of him are either new to the HOF ballot (Clemens & Schilling) or not yet eligible. The effectively means that of current Hall of Fame pitchers the HOS would rank Halladay in the top 20. I think that easily clears the “average Hall of Fame pitcher” level.

      JAWS ranks Halladay much lower at #42 but 1) 11 of those pitchers pitched entirely before 1893 plus 2) you have the same 7 new or not yet eligible guys as with the HOS to account for. Even if you don’t adjust for the 7 new guys that still puts Doc at around #32 which with 63 guys to compare to means he should be pretty close to the middle.

      If I were voting he would get mine.

      Reply ↓
9. TheGoof December 11, 2013 at 1:39 pm

   I remember watching Halladay pitch for Syracuse in 1997 and 1998. We knew he would become a star. He teamed with Dave Stieb for a while, and it was as if the torch was passed. I find it hard to really rank him and to fathom how he falls on the Hall of Fame spectrum, but I would certainly celebrate his election.

   One catch with the lists above: If a pitcher’s teams were normally around .500 for much of his career, I don’t think the Sept/Oct breakout really indicates big-game performance. That makes more sense for a Whitey Ford, Don Drysdale or Pedro than a Halladay, Ryan or Niekro. Of course, that will change as more “meaningful” late season games are between iffy teams battling for wild cards. Thanks, Bud Selig, for ruining September.

   Reply ↓
   1. Doug Post authorDecember 11, 2013 at 2:35 pm

      While the Sep/Oct games weren’t meaningful for Toronto, that usually wasn’t the case for their opponents as the Yankees or Red Sox (or both) were in the hunt every year (as were the Rays at the end of Halladay’s Toronto days).

      So, Doc at least did his best to play spoiler.

      Reply ↓
10. mosc December 12, 2013 at 9:37 am

    Halladay’s close for me. There’s guys like Smoltz, Martinez, Schilling, and Glavine I’d rather have in. There’s not much space there between Doc and Pettitte, Mussina, Brown, etc. Halladay’s contemporaries haven’t retired yet. He’s going to have to compete with Sabathia, Hudson, and Lee (who I can see pitching well into his 40s). I guess I see him as a slightly better Stieb or Saberhagen, neither of which got much hall love. Saberhagen even had a ring and a great WS pitching performance

    Then again, he did pitch a playoff no hitter, show his stuff regularly against the yankees, and have a great nickname. Those things matter more than his strikeout total to voters.

    Reply ↓
    1. Michael Sullivan January 8, 2014 at 9:13 pm

       Both Stieb and Saberhagen are in the Hall of Stats and probably should have gotten more love than they did. They are super-clear selections like some others, but they deserved serious consideration.

       Pitchers working during the 80s and 90s really got screwed by non-saber minded voters because run totals were so much higher than voters were used to seeing from 60s and 70s candidates. Then you had the crop of all time greats (Martinez, Clemens, Maddux, Johnson) show up after, and pitchers whose careers centered on the 80s were getting compared to similar pitchers with much lower raw ERAs on the one side, and then these 4 inner-circle greats who were so ridiculous that they matched some of those late 60s ERA numbers even during some of the highest offense seasons in history.

       To your typical BBWWAA voter, unaware of how to adjust for context, it looked like there was a drought of HOF caliber pitchers, and then finally we had these 4 guys who were as good as the best of the 60s and 70s. When in fact, there was only one pitcher from the 60s and 70s in the same class as those guys: Seaver.

       Reply ↓