MLB season delayed

Question peeled off from the obscure trivia thread - what will be the new career "magic numbers" for the HOF with wins harder to come by - ERA? WHIP? IPs. Saves are kind of a joke and with more "closers" being used in critical situations that may not lead to saves I'm thinking it will skew that stat as well.

 

200 wins will become the HOF benchmark.
ERA will vary on a sliding scale as run scoring changes over time. WHIP will probably become a big factor -- its a sabermetric stat most people can understand.

I'd guess within the next five years as more teams go to the "opener/principal (primary)" pitching strategy, that a "starts" stat will be introduced which covers pitchers pitching 3 innings or fewer and leaving with their team tied or ahead. Essentially the "saves" stat flipped to the front end of the game.

Very soon, I'd guess you'll see teams start selecting "ace openers" the same way they've been selecting "closers" the last 30 years or so.

The "openers" will be on a 3-man rotation, since they'll only be pitching an inning or two per game.

The "principals" will stay on 5-or-6 man rotations, since they'll still be expected/asked/hoped to go five or six innings ideally. Then you bring in the setup man for the 7th/8th and the closer for the 9th.

You'll also see teams without any standout starters try the bullpen game strategy: three guys go three innings.

 

What are the MLB rules as to how far in advance of game time the starting pitchers must be named?
Could a team just continually list "starting pitcher TBA" right up to game time??
I could see managers wanting to use their "ace openers" the way closers are currently used -- situationally on a game by game basis.

 

As the late Larry Whiteside of the Globe put it, "the unending search for the guy who doesn't have it."

 

Bill James semi coined the phrase in one of the early Abstracts, while discussing Whitey Herzog, I believe -- his propensity to use five or six pitchers in particular games -- "you keep bringing in guys until you find the guy who doesn't have it today, and it's bang-zoom, all she wrote."

Of course it's the same thing people had been saying for decades-- I remember Bill Veeck making some similar statement in one of his books from the early Sixties. But really, before the seventies, if you ever used more than three pitchers in a game it was pretty much presumed one or more of them had been lit up to the moon.

 

Delayed even longer for Thor:

Sources: Mets' Syndergaard to have TJ surgery

 

So, if one wants to bone up on analytics, where's the best place to start. In my case, it would be Baseball Geek 101.

 

@Starman, 200 is the benchmark right now for those who still put stock in counting stats. Good luck finding anyone currently playing who is going to get to 300, let alone 250.

 

Why would anyone consider a pitcher's WHIP in a HOF discussion? WHIP somewhat informs ERA, but why wouldn't you just rely on ERA when evaluating a completed career? Serious question, not being snarky.

 

Verlander (36 years old and 225 wins) and Kershaw (31 and 169 wins) are probably the only ones with a realistic shot, and both of them are going to limp across the line if they get there. Verlander is as good as he's ever been and can get to 300 by averaging a modest 15 wins for five more years. Kershaw is going to have to stay healthy for most of the next eight years, which has been a problem. Missing at least a third of this season will hurt both their chances.
Rick Porcello (30/149) and Gerritt Cole (28/94) might have a chance 10 years from now.

 

I don't think it is too much to ask that 250 is the new 300. But just about everyone who gets to 200 is probably going to have a borderline to legit case for induction.

 

I don't think there's any way that Verlander is knocking out double-digit victories in his 39, 40 and 41 seasons. Kershaw is a no-doubt hall of famer, but he'll do good to get to 225, much less 250 or 300.