The large discrepancy in Jose Mesa’s HOF Monitor and HOF Standards
Posted by Andy on September 7, 2010
This post was inspired by a suggestion from reader Greg F. Thanks Greg! If you have a post idea please feel free to email me using the link on the lower right side under 'Contact'. If you have a baseball blog, tell me the address so I can give you a shout out.
Jose Mesa had a pretty good career. He was among the top closers in baseball in 1995 and the early 2000's.
If we were to discuss his HOF credentials, I think we'd all agree that he was a good player with some great years, but he doesn't warrant any consideration for the Hall of Fame. But click through for another spin...
Looking at Mesa's HOF Standards, we see a similar conclusion, as he scores just 1, tied for 1,947th all-time. The HOF Standards were designed for starting pitchers so Mesa doesn't get any credit for saves, and most of the point categories require a lot of innings to be thrown. Still, an exceptional closer like Mariano Rivera racks up 31 HOF Standards points, thanks in large part to his very low ERA, BB/9, H/9 rates.
However, his HOF Monitor (found most of the way down his player page) is 113, which is 12th-highest among pitchers not yet eligible for the HOF and 79th all-time among pitchers. That puts Mesa just ahead of Dizzy Dean, Tommy John and just behind Burleigh Grimes, Vida Blue, and Carl Mays. The nearby pitchers would suggest that Mesa deserves at least a look at the Hall of Fame.
Despite a black ink score of just 3, Mesa does so well on the HOF Standards thanks primarily to his save totals. He gets 28 points for his 4 seasons of 40+ saves, another 8 for his 2 seasons with 30+ saves, and 2 more his his 2 other seasons with 20+. That's 38 points right there. He gets another 7 points for his few seasons with a low ERA. His picks up 1 point for leading the league in saves once. Then he gets a couple of big career bonuses: 20 points for 300+ career saves and 30 points for 1,000+ career games. So we're up to 96 points. The rest of his points come from the post-season: 9 points for his 7 WS relief appearances and 1 win, and 2 points for his two other post-season wins. Add all that up and you get 107--I missed 6 points somewhere else, but you get the idea.
Mesa is a guy who happens to just barely qualify for some key HOF Monitor thresholds, as well as benefiting from things like points for post-season appearances that were not designed for modern late-inning relievers who often appear in 4+ games of any given series.
So there you have it--that's how the discrepancy came to pass.
Can you think of other pitchers with such a large discrepancy? The first guy who came to my mind was Jesse Orosco. He's got a discrepancy but nowhere near as large. Many of the other guys to creep over 1,000 career games also have discrepancies: Dan Plesac, Mike Jackson, Roberto Hernandez, Kent Tekulve, and others. (Weird how many of these guys played for the Phillies at one point...)
September 7th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
The HOF Monitor was thought up in the mid-80s, yes? It was a pretty different time for closers back then. Thirty saves in a season was pretty darn good, as was 300 in a career. Injury problems were rampant too; the massive inflation in the career saves record comes from pitchers these days being able to rack up 30+ saves year after year -- itself a side-effect of a great reduction in the number of batters closers face in a game, and how often they're worked.
In other words, I suspect the HOF Monitor is not geared to closers post-1990. The other names you mention at the end of your post suggest it too.
September 7th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Thanks for using my suggestion!
It's a bit scary when you think about how much assumptions impact models.
September 7th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
The save stat has always been a total joke. The notion that a guy can come in the 9th inning with a 3 run lead and get a save, while a guy in the 7th inning with bases loaded in a one run and prevents a run from scoring gets nothing. Get rid of the save stat, and you would see teams actually putting their best reliever in the game when it matters.... I want my best reliever when the game matters, rather it be in the 6th inning or the 9th inning
September 7th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
He had 30 saves a couple of times when his ERA was quite bad. One of those years it was 4.98, which is terrible for a closer, and another was 3.73. He picked up 27 saves with a 4.25 era, and 24 saves with a 6.52 ERA. Him getting HOF points for this is absurd and shows how poorly that monitor is constructed. He was always a subpar starter when he was a starter, and his career ERA is 4.36.
Basically, Mesa was in the league a long time, and due to a couple of big years, teams often let him have many save opportunities during years when he was actually quite bad and shouldn't have been given those opportunities.
He reminds me of Joe Carter. A hitter who wasn't really very good, but because he got overrated, he was able to hit in the middle of some very strong lineups, play everyday, and rack up big RBI numbers that make many remember him wrongfully, as one of the best "run producers" of the 90's.
September 7th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
I vote Yes, he will make it and he deserves to.
September 7th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
@3 -- I agree: Saves as currently defined mean virtually nothing. The definition isn't the worst problem; it's more the bizarro world we've reached in which managers let the save definition dictate how and when they use their best reliever -- often to the detriment of the team, in both the standings and the bank account. (Let a cheap reliever accumulate 30 saves one year and he won't be so cheap the next year.)
I've looked at various proposals for changing the save rule, but I fear that whatever rule we might use, we'd still end up with the cart before the horse. So I think the best course would be to just abolish the save altogether, wait a few years for usage to realign with baseball common sense, and then revisit the question of how best to measure a reliever's impact.
As to the Mesa discrepancy ... I think it shows that the "HOF Monitor" just doesn't work for modern relievers.
Some other big discrepancies between "Monitor" and "Standards":
-- John Franco, 124 (63rd), 11 (727th). Franco was pretty good for a long time at a not-very-difficult job.
-- Todd Jones, 78 (146th), 3 (1,671st). It's not his fault, but Todd Jones's career represents to me everything that's wrong with the very idea of a closer. Jones amassed 319 saves (14th on the career list) even though, by any reasonable measure of pitching performance, he really had just 1 noteworthy year in that role. Jones had 9 seasons with at least 17 saves, but in just 2 of those 9 years was his ERA below 3.50.
And what do I mean by "everything that's wrong with the very idea of a closer"?
-- The job is defined in such a way that, once acquired, it is generally lost only through chronic or high-profile failure. It can also be lost by the ascendance of an alternative who is obviously better qualified; however....
-- Within the game, the closer's job is thought to require such intestinal fortitude and other "intangibles" that a young pitcher who is clearly better than his team's closer is often required to serve an apprenticeship -- even though there are hardly any cases of a good pitcher actually failing at the job, countless cases of a mediocre pitcher (or worse) succeeding, and many examples of young pitchers succeeding in the role right off the bat, if given the chance.
September 7th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
@4 -- Good analogy, Jimbo: "Closer" = "RBI guy." Both stats are opportunity-driven. Both tasks are thought to require intangible (mythical) abilities. Both jobs are self-perpetuating, as demonstrated by Carter, Tony Perez, etc.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Great googly moogily. No.
His WHIP was nearly 1.5 and his ERA+ is 101. Considering how overrated saves are to begin with, there is nothing that says he was a dominant pitcher for any stretch of time despite putting up a 46 save season. He's best known for blowing game 7 of the 97 series and would let any average closer as fair game for induction if he got in.
He died way too soon, but there is nothing that says Cooperstown.
@3 I would be curious if managers would bring in their ace relievers in the 6th inning, or whatever jam they were needed in, if saves were not a stat. I certainly think that we would probably see some gambling as when you would see him put in the game, but would a manager take the risk by using his trump card in the 7th and then seeing the pitcher behind him cough it up in the 9th.
Trust me, I would love to see a return of the fireman as well.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
@7
Well at least Tony Perez had a couple of truly big years and had a career WAR of 50.5
I was a Blue Jays fan in the 90's. They had 2 WS winners, and many other teams with stacked lineups. Carter always got to bat cleanup, even though he was usually the 6th or 7th best hitter on the team. He'd have Alomar, Molitor, Olerud, and guys like that in front of him getting on, and he'd drive in 100+ runs every year, despite averaging an OPS of .306 and a SLG of .464. A career WAR of 16.5, yet he finished in the top 20 for MVP voting 8 times! and 7 straight years in his prime. Throw in one key WS home run, and you have a great recipe for perhaps the most overrated player of all time. If he played a couple of more years at 140-150 hits and 15-25 home runs he would've hit some milestones like 2500 hits and 450 home runs, and probably would've made the HOF. For what it's worth, he didn't have much of a decline. His last 2 years were as good as any other years, so it seems likely he could've put in a couple of more of those years and been a weaker selection than Jim Rice.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
I wonder if teams could use things like this to their advantage. Let some average player bat in the middle of the lineup when he's young, so he racks up RBI's, then trade him and get good value. Same thing with saves. If you have a team that won't compete for the playoffs this year, let some 25 year old moderately talented pitcher rack up 30+ saves so he gets the reputation as being a stud closer, then trade him for a player of real value.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
As I recall, the HOF Standards and Monitor were developed not to determine who "deserved" (notice the quotes, please) to be in the Hall, but who was likely to be elected, based on past voting tendencies. As others have mentioned, at the time these were devleoped, the role of a reliever was somewhat different - as the role has continued to evolve over time. And, IMO, these standards continue to be a moving target. Obviously, Mariana Rivera has different standards in some ways than, say, Goose Gossage or Hoyt Wilhelm.
It was interesting to see that the relievers in the HOF all have fairly large discrepancies in their Standard/monitor ranking. They are listed below with HOF standards first and monitor follwing:
Wilhelm - 30 (144) 117 (74) includes some points as a starter
Fingers - 18 (358) 140 (48)
Eck - 34 (106) 172 (33) ditto Wilhelm
Sutter - 17 (396) 91 (118)
Gossage - 19 (327) 126 (61)
The Carter analogy seems good. But, look at his Standards/monitor numbers of 32/86. Generally below HOF level, but similar to Perez (41/81). Tony Perez had ZERO black ink (think about THAT for a minute).
September 7th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Um Jose Mesa is not dead.
September 7th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
A moratorium should be imposed on discussions related to "relief pitchers eligible for the Hall of Fame," especially those of "borderline" status, until Lee Smith is inducted.
September 7th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
There are some interesting results on the hitters side too just looking at it quick. Miguel Tejada is currently ahead of a lot of Hall of Famers, and he has no chance.
September 7th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I dunno, Andy. For some Indian fans, Jose Mesa may have died October 26, 1997.
September 7th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
My bad. Saw Lima and thought Mesa.
September 7th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
LJF.... i couldn't have said it better myself.. and then, he signed with (my hometown team) the Phillies and I had to watch that too!!
Random Note: Is it just me or is no one at all talking about Adalberto Mendez's start yesterday? In PI I only found 3 other debut starts where a pitcher went at least 6, gave up 1 or fewer hits, 0 runs, and 6 k's. All against an above average (to occasionally great) Phillies team...
September 7th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Great article on how relievers should be used (among other things) by Bill James:
http://www.billjamesonline.net/ArticleContent.aspx?AID=1404&Code=James01001
And I agree with Ron that you don't want to waste your Nathan or K-Rod or Rivera in the 7th and have some chump walk in the winning run in the 9th. Although I do think sometimes you need to go to the guy early instead of being obstinate, especially if you have a second guy you really trust (a la Mo and Wetteland in 1996).
September 7th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
There's nothing to waste Nathan and K-Rod on if the chump blows the lead in the 7th.
My suggestion: Eliminate the save and merge it with the hold. They're essentially the same thing, the save just comes at the end of the game, while the hold can come at any time.
September 7th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
@10 Jimbo -- Every Mets fan who read your post immediately thought of Billy Taylor. In 1996, the rebuilding A's traded Dennis Eckersley and installed Taylor, a 34-year-old career minor-leaguer, as their closer. Three-plus years and 99 saves later, they dealt the 37-year-old impending free agent to the Mets at the '99 deadline for Jason Isringhausen and Greg McMichael. Taylor was a bust for the Mets (ERA over 8, left off the postseason roster) and pitched just 16 more innings the rest of his career. Isringhausen, an oft-injured starter to that point in his career, immediately became the A's closer and put up 2 straight 30-save seasons, then signed a big free-agent deal with St. Louis; the A's took the draft picks.
Billy Beane has kept the revolving door spinning ever since, believing that it's unwise to pay market price for a closer to hurl 60-70 innings. After Isringhausen, Beane acquired Billy Koch from Toronto, fattened up his market value with a heavy workload (94 IP, 44 saves, 11 wins), then dealt Koch to the White Sox for Keith Foulke, an obviously better pitcher who'd had 2 fine years as White Sox closer but lost the job when Jerry Manuel inexplicably switched to a committee. Koch was a bust for the ChiSox and was soon out of baseball, while the A's milked Foulke for 87 IP, 43 saves and 9 wins before letting him go free-agent to Boston (reaping more draft picks). Recent efforts along these lines haven't worked out as well, but you can bet that Andrew Bailey won't be their closer for long once he becomes eligible for arbitration.
September 7th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
@17 Thomas -- In my (unpublished) blog, I noted: "Adalberto Mendez debuted with a splash, allowing 1 hit in 6 scoreless innings, with 2 walks and 6 Ks on an efficient 86 pitches. The 28-year-old Dominican is the 21st pitcher to debut with at least 6 IP and 1 hit allowed; no pitcher has ever thrown more than 5 no-hit innings in his first game. Mendez has a 3.98 career ERA in 8 minor-league seasons, with just 20 starts in 350 games."
I considered adding "6 Ks" to the search criteria, but decided that would be cherry-picking. If we set the floor at 5 IP and 5 Ks, with 1 hit or less, we get 17 hits (including the 5-inning debut of Cole Hamels).
Setting the search floor at the exact level of a target performance leads to a set of hits in which the target performance is by definition the worst; it's not really a representative group. And the more categories you add, the more you get distinction without difference. For instance, a search with Mendez's 6 IP, 1 H, 6 Ks and 2 BB as the floor finds just 3 other games; however, Mendez hit a batter, which the others did not, and perhaps some other pitcher walked 3 but with no HBP.
For the record, there have been 19 debuts (including Mendez) with at least 6 IP and 6 Ks and no more than 4 baserunners. The previous one was by Stephen Strasburg -- 7 IP, 4 hits, no walks, 14 Ks. Mendez had a wonderful game, but few would argue that Strasburg was better; yet he doesn't make the list if you search on hits rather than baserunners.
September 7th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
While the increased use of closers has resulted in greatly inflated HOF Monitor scores, a similar thing happens for Catchers due to the great number of points they get for reaching certain milestones in catching appearances. For instance:
Lance Parrish -107
Jorge Posada -112(he also gets a lot of points for the postseason)
Bob Boone -102
Tony Pena -98
Benito Santiago -94
Jim Sundberg -87
Jason Kendall -108
Good players all, but none are considered HOF material. (I'd add Ted Simmons and his score of 124, but I think he's qualified for the Hall, in my opinion.)
September 7th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Jose Mesa had a few good years, but he has a losing record (80-109) as a relief pitcher. How many pitchers have a losing record and are elected to the HOF?
September 7th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Jose Mesa has a losing record (80-109). How many pitchers have a losing record and are elected to the HOF?
September 7th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Satchel Paige (counting only his MLB numbers, which I realize is bogus), Rollie Fingers, Bruce Sutter. Lee Smith will be one day. Trevor Hoffman one day.
September 7th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
ok Andy, two things:
1. The thing I hate about sabremetric thinking is the idea that you don't have to take in the first-person experience of the man as a player. To ignore Jose Mesa' evil ninth inning stare is to ignore his greatest weapon.
2. BUT, I have to hand it to you. On a gut-level reaction you exposed two classic "fakers". Mesa, in his day, was a fearsome closer. BUT, he pitched during an era of ninth inning wonder-guys and, in the end he falls way short of the Hall. WAY SHORT. Jesse Orosco- great one, there. At the time, he was so awesome, and there were few as great as he was, and now he's on his way to being forgotten. Forever. A decade from now, people will say; "Jesse who?"
September 7th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
@21 I wanted to see how many people had done what Mendez had done, not how many people have come close. When I look up 4 home run games I don't look up 3 home runs and above, because "what if one of those guys hit his 3rd in the 9th inning and didn't get another chance"... which is what you're suggesting.
I don't mean to say that Mendez had some classic all time great performance. I just meant that this guy had a really good performace in his first game on the road against the two time defending NL champions who also happen to have been only a game out of first at the time. Not playing a meaningless game against Pittsburg in June, a team who at that point was already out of playoff contention.
Sorry, I guess I was just asking why we aren't looking at who has the good numbers and not who has the biggest name.... I'll get back to talking about how great Strasburg is now.
September 7th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
OT, but the Phils are now in first. reverse-jinx?
September 7th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
@14, Tejada scores higher because the HOF Monitor looks backward and SS's in the past were generally more defensive-oriented than offensive oriented. Someone who put up Tejada's hitting numbers at SS pre-1990 would have received strong consideration for the HOF. He might have even received some today if not for the steroid issue and the fact he played behind the Holy Trinity of A-Rod, Jeter and Nomar, making his offensive contributions from SS less noteworthy. That said, perceptions can change with time. I can't say for sure he won't make the HOF one day.
@22, can't say "none are considered HOF material" as there has been increasing discussion about Posada. Borderline, and my guess is currently on the wrong side of the election line, but certainly worthy of the discussion. He's still playing, and OPS'ing along this year at 132+, so he still has the chance to build an even stronger case.
September 7th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
@29- Really just a poor choice of words. I meant none are 'likely', and was thinking that players with those HOF Monitor numbers were usually 'lock-i-er', but looking again, there are a lot of borderliners with numbers in the 95-115 range; the only 'locks' would be the likes of Willie McCovey (110), Roy Campanella (106, short career) and Wille Stargell (106).
September 8th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Dillon Gee threw a gem today in his first major league start too!! Although, I guess it wasn't as good as Strasburg's.....
September 8th, 2010 at 12:33 am
@27
If you really wanted to see how many pitchers had done what Mendez had done, then why didn't you enter ALL the possible search criteria? You didn't include walks, HBP, pitches, wild pitches, etc., etc. And what about throws to first? Perhaps you'd consider that to be creating a distinction without a difference -- kind of like the way I view a search that counted hits but not walks or any other kind of baserunners. If Mendez had walked 10 batters and hit 5, he still would have met your search criteria; but it would be noteworthy only as a bizarre oddity, not an outstanding performance.
I think what you really wanted was a search that would make Mendez look impressive.
Thomas, I praised your guy, but I also tried to make a fair point, one that I think most serious stats fans would agree with -- i.e., that cherry-picking the search criteria doesn't advance the discussion. You seem to have focused on one particular remark and taken me as a Strasburg sycophant, which I am not; in fact, I took every opportunity to argue against Strasburg being named an All-Star back when that issue was raging. The only reason I cited Strasburg's debut is because I thought it would be widely recognized as one of the best in recent memory.
But it's hypocrisy for you to call Strasburg's debut "a meaningless game ... in June," while puffing up the performance of Mendez -- a September callup for a non-contender, for crying out loud -- just because it came against a good team. Sure, the Phillies are good -- and now they've got the lead to prove it -- but their offense this year is nothing to crow about, as I'm sure you know: 5th in NL scoring, which is actually poor considering that bandbox park; their team OPS+ is 93, a tick behind Florida's. Mendez started the first game of a doubleheader, facing another first-time pitcher in Vance Worley, with Jimmy Rollins and Carlos Ruiz out of the starting lineup. Do you honestly believe that the sum total of circumstances for Strasburg and Mendez was harder on Mendez?
Your likening my argument to saying that a 3-HR game is as good as a 4-HR game because "what if one of those guys hit his 3rd in the 9th inning and didn't get another chance" seems like mixing apples and oranges. I was pointing out how using multiple, targeted criteria leads to a less meaningful comparison group, and you counter with a hypothetical one-category search. But when we're talking about 4-HR games, we know exactly what we're talking about. But when we're talking about a debut like Mendez had, exactly what are we talking about? Are we talking about 6-IP, 1-hit, 0-run, 6-K games? That's a pretty constricted discussion that I just don't find very interesting, except as a statistical oddity. I freely admit to enjoying statistical oddities, but that didn't seem to be where you were coming from on Mendez. If, on the other hand, we're talking about outstanding debut starts, then let's set some parameters and get on with it. But don't try to set the discussion parameters at exactly what some guy did yesterday.
Finally, just because the Strasburg hype was incredibly annoying doesn't give you an excuse to pretend that he didn't pitch tremendously while he lasted, or that Mendez had a better debut. Because no other pitcher in the searchable era has ever debuted with at least 11 Ks (see, I'm not cherry-picking) and no walks; and only 42 pitchers have had a game of at least 14 Ks and no walks at *any* point in their career. That combination is a sign of massive ability. (Check out that list; there's not a single "nobody" on it. Even Sterling Hitchcock won over 70 games. http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi#n1=&as=result_pitcher&offset=0&match=gmatchCar&st=&min_year_game=1920&max_year_game=2010&series=any&series_game=any&WL=any&team_id=&team_lg=&opp_id=&opp_lg=&throws=any&HV=any&game_site=&Role=anyGS&DEC=any&orderby=SO&c1pgl=SO&c1gtlt=gt&c1val=14&c2pgl=BB&c2gtlt=lt&c2val=0&c3pgl=&c3gtlt=eq&c3val=0&c4pgl=&c4gtlt=eq&c4val=0&c5pgl=&c5gtlt=eq&c5val=1.0&c5pgl_b=&firstgames=&firstteamgames=)
September 8th, 2010 at 1:04 am
@27
The more I think about it, the less impressive Mendez's game seems, because of the competition. I mean, who *hasn't* blanked the Phils at some point this year? Rookie Travis Wood threw a 1-hit shutout against them in just his 3rd career start, with no walks and 8 Ks. Journeyman R.A. Dickey has faced them twice without allowing a run. Tim Wakefield skunked them for 8 innings, then got shellacked by the Royals in his next start and soon lost his rotation spot. Hisanori Takashi threw 6 scoreless against Philly, then got bombed by the Padres his next turn; he, too, is now out of the rotation. Mike Pelfrey stoned them on 3 hits for 7 IP, but soon was going through a skid in which he allowed (gulp) 90 baserunners in 30 IP. Tom (7-8) Gorzelanny? Wade (8-12) LeBlanc? Each had a scoreless start against the Phils.
Even Nate Robertson got in on the act with 6.1 scoreless frames back in April; a few months later, Robertson (5.47 ERA) was released by Florida, got signed by St. Louis, released by the Cards without ever throwing a pitch, and signed with ... the Phils, for whom he finished up the blowout loss to Adalberto Mendez.
But here's the crusher: Ross Ohlendorf -- of the much-maligned Pirates -- has 11 losses in 12 starts this year. His only win? Could it be? Yes! -- 7 goose eggs against the Phils in a 2-0 win, with 1 walk and 8 Ks.
So really, Mendez was just following in well-trodden footsteps.
September 8th, 2010 at 5:19 am
Best comment ever
September 8th, 2010 at 5:22 am
I know this is quite off topic and I also know that the season isn´t over yet but I would like to give Andy a friendly jab and cite this link.....
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7967
September 8th, 2010 at 5:51 am
@5 "I vote Yes, he will make it and he deserves to."
It *is* kinda neat to have Jose Mesa's dad on board
September 8th, 2010 at 10:41 am
My apologies for not buying into the Strasburg hype and giving him a statue already. I'll be sure to only post about the popular players from now on...
September 8th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Pitching is backwards today.When you have get the most important out of a game, you know call in a guy who is not good enough to start or close.. Totally ridiculous... maybe the hold is the answer or a stat that gives the total amount of runners on base verus the amount that scores... the save rule is riciculous. As a Met fan , I hate to say it but RIvera is probably the best ever due to longevity and consistency .. but having said that he nver ptiched 90 games or 130 innings.. one year Mike Marshall pithced in 108 games and over 200 innings and was credited with only about 30 saves... Rivera like many of today's closers, are not as effective when pushed past one inning..
September 9th, 2010 at 4:15 am
Lee Smith has a 122 point discrepancy.