The Almost Great Matty
Posted: December 13th, 2007 | Filed under: Baseball | 37 Comments »
Third in the BJIP Series — Bill James Inspired Posts
I never realized how little Matt Williams walked. I’m sure, over the years, I must have heard Williams called a “free swinger.†I’m sure that somewhere I must have looked at his statistics and thought, “yikes, that’s a low OBP.†And yet, when I go back now and look at his lifetime strikeout to walk ratio (1363 Ks, 469 walks, yuck) and lifetime OBP (.317, wow, and he had one full season with a .286 OBP), it’s pretty shocking.
Still, if you can look beyond on-base percentage — which isn’t easy since many will tell you it is the most significant offensive statistic — Matt Williams was a good player. His lifetime .268 average isn’t much, but he hit .300 a couple of times. He won four Gold Gloves as a third baseman, and for a big man who couldn’t run much he had really outstanding range and instincts. He hit for power, of course … his 378 career home runs rank him fourth all-time among third basemen (behind Hall of Famers Mike Schmidt and Eddie Mathews and the underrated Graig Nettles). His .489 slugging percentage ranks him behind Schmidt, Mathews and George Brett, which isn’t bad company.
All of this is nice, though it certainly leaves Williams on the LeMaster side of the Hall of Fame. His career numbers fall Hall of Fame short, and he played most of his career in a big offensive era. It’s pretty plain: A .317 OBP, 1,878 hits, four Gold Gloves, 1218 RBIs and all that make for a nice career, but not a Hall of Fame career.
BUT … here’s the question, inspired by Bill James.
Would Matt Williams be a real Hall of Fame candidate had he broken Roger Maris’ home run record in 1994?
First things first — as Bill points out again, Williams had a real shot to break the record. He had 43 homers in 115 games when the strike broke out (interestingly enough he had those monster homer numbers though he really wasn’t having any better luck just hitting the ball — his batting average was .267, his OBP .319, almost mirroring his career numbers). That put him RIGHT on pace to hit 61 home runs (well, 60.57 home runs if you want to be technical). He obviously would have had to deal with all the media pressure and fan pressure and pitchers who didn’t want to pitch to him and all that. But there are a couple of things that were in his favor:
1. Williams was, often in his career, a good and powerful August and September hitter. The previous September he had hit 11 home runs. The next September he hit .346 with 8 homers. In his career, he hit 134 of his homers in those two months — only May treated him better.
2. He was hot — in his last 30 games he had hit .328 with 13 home runs. You got the feeling he was locked in.
I don’t know if Williams would have broken Maris’ record, and obviously we won’t know. I believe he would have had a real chance (just as Tony Gwynn would have had a real shot to hit .400 and Jeff Bagwell* and Frank Thomas would have had the chance to have immortal seasons — yeah, I’m still bitter).
*Not true on Bagwell. Forgot that he broke his hand.
I’m saying this: Let’s say Williams DID break the record. I’m curious how that might have affected his Hall of Fame candidacy, even if everything else remained the same. You still have all the same issues — you still have a guy with fewer than 2,000 hits, an unimpressive batting average (though it’s the same as Brooks Robinson’s), a downright appalling on-base percentage. But …
– He would still have those four Gold Gloves.
– He would have close to 400 home runs.
– He would have broken Roger Maris’ home run record.
Makes it interesting, no? I guess my point here is to ask: What makes a Hall of Famer? It seems to me that this is what people are arguing most of the time. Yes, on the surface it seems like we might be arguing about, say, Tim Raines or Bert Blyleven or Jack Morris. But I think what we’re really arguing is WHAT MATTERS when considering a player’s greatness.
Tim Raines, for instance, does not have 3,000 hits, and he did not retire with the record for most stolen bases in a season and in a career. To someone who considers these standards impressive and important, Raines will not match up to Hall of Famer Lou Brock, who of course had 3,000 hits and both records.
Now, you could (and I would) argue that Raines was a better player than Brock, a lot better, he had 43 more points in OBP (.385-.343), his slugging percentage was 27 points higher (.425-.398), his OPS+ was a lot better (123-109), and he also drove in more runs, scored almost as many and got on base more despite having almost 1,000 fewer plate appearances.
Further, you could argue that Raines was a better base stealer. Brock had 938 steals — 120 more than Raines — but he was caught 161 times MORE than Raines. That’s not even close. Like I said in another post, you could argue pretty convincingly that Raines was the best base stealer of all time.
But let’s not get too far away from the point. There may be many ways to show that Raines was a better player than Brock, but none of them will change two simple facts:
1. Brock had 3,000 hits; Raines does not.
2. Brock was the all-time stolen base leader when he was inducted. Raines is not.
So, the question here is not really, “Is Tim Raines a Hall of Famer?†The question here is, “What is a Hall of Famer?†If you are focused on a certain kind of analysis, yeah, Raines is a Hall of Famer. If you are caught up with big standards like 3,000 hits and 500 home runs — if you believe the people in those clubs naturally leave a larger mark on the game — then he is not a Hall of Famer. If you believe in the gut and that there should be some sort of aura surrounding great players (not to mention MVP awards), Raines is probably not a Hall of Famer. If you believe that the Hall of Fame should probably include the best pure base stealer and one of the five best leadoff hitters in the game’s history, then Raines probably is a Hall of Famer.
All along, Tim Raines doesn’t change. Only our Hall of Fame standards change.
The Morris-Blyleven Hall of Fame debate might highlight this even more. I personally am so far over on the Blyleven side here that I would need a passport to even visit someone in Jack Morrisland. I cannot even fathom that there is an argument here. I present you the case in numbers:
Wins
Blyleven: 288
Morris: 254
Losses
Blyleven: 250
Morris: 186
ERA
Blyleven: 3.31
Morris: 3.90
Walks
Blyleven: 1322
Morris: 1390
*Blyleven pitched 1,100+ more innings
Strikeouts
Blyleven: 3,701
Morris: 2,478
Shutouts
Blyleven: 60
Morris: 28
Complete games
Blyleven: 242
Morris: 175
WHIP
Blyleven: 1.198
Morris: 1.296
Wild Pitches
Blyleven: 114
Morris: 206
ERA+
Blyleven: 118
Morris: 105
Neutral wins
Blyleven: 313
Morris: 232
Home runs allowed per nine innings
Blyleven: .78
Morris: .92
*Admit it, that one shocked you, didn’t it? Blyleven was the king of the gopher ball — and Morris gave up more dingers per nine.
Postseason stats
Blyleven: 5-1, 2.47 ERA
Morris: 7-4, 3.80 ERA
World Series stats
Blyleven: 2-1, 2.35 ERA
Morris: 4-2, 2.96 ERA
Sigh. I’m too emotional about this. OK, now I have to play the other side and try to make this believable. You can look at all that and clearly see that in every possible statistical way Bert Blyleven was a better pitcher than Jack Morris. BUT … only one of them pitched the 10-inning shutout in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. I don’t think many people would argue against this: Morris’ Game 7 performance is one of the most famous and spectacular pitching performances in baseball history. True if Lonnie Smith doesn’t get bluff — no, bring it back in, we’re on the pro-Morris side now.
The point is, what is that one brilliant performance worth? It is, after all, the Hall of FAME — and fame can be defined as “the condition of being known or talked about by many people, especially on account of notable achievements.†You can’t get much more notable than a 10-inning shutout in the deciding game of the World Series. So, if you are so inclined as a voter, that one incredible game by Morris could be decisive. Don Larsen was an utter mediocrity as a pitcher — went 81-91 in his career — but he was on the Hall of Fame ballot for 15 years, and he once received 53 votes. Because of one game.
Roger Maris was a good player whose top comps are Bob Allison, Hank Sauer and Jay Buhner — none of them even close to Hall of Fame candidates. But Maris was on the ballot for 15 years, and in his last year he got 184 votes — 43 percent — and even now there is a strong “Vote for Roger†lobbying group out there. Because of one season.
So, someone could say, quite logically I suppose –†I’m not arguing whether Morris or Blyleven was better. I don’t think either of them is worth of the Hall of Fame based on their career numbers. But Morris had a great career, and he had the money game, the singular game, he left the larger imprint on baseball. And that why I’m voting for him.†I don’t agree with this way of thinking. But I’m not sure how you argue against it. I’m not sure you CAN argue against it.
I don’t think anyone should wonder where I stand on this question — but what I’m trying to say is that is when I’m yelling for Blyleven or Raines, I’m really yelling, “The way I view the Hall of Fame is the right way.†And those people on the other side of the argument are yelling that, no, their way is the right way. It’s an emotional thing, really. And it’s no wonder that it is so hard to change anyone else’s mind. Everyone out there understands that Blyleven’s numbers place him with the all-time greats. They’re still not voting for him.
All of which brings us back to Matt Williams. If he had broken Maris’ record, then it seems likely he would have gotten all sorts of people to consider him a Hall of Famer JUST BECAUSE OF THAT. Throw in his 400 or so homers, the Gold Gloves, the solid play, the fact that other third basemen in the Hall had lower OPS+ than Williams (among them, George Kell, Freddie Lindstrom, Pie Traynor and Brooks Robinson) … I dunno. He might have gotten in. He certainly would have gotten serious consideration.
Which tells you that that strike REALLY screwed Matt Williams.
Loading ...
Which tells you that that strike REALLY screwed Matt Williams.
Is it really fair to say someone got screwed by something in which he willingly participated? Does it matter that whether or not he willingly participated wouldn’t have made a bit of difference?
LOL! Knew you’d find a way to throw Blyleven in there somewhere. Outstanding work Joe.
This post made me think of a great Jack Kerouac quote; and with the power of google, I found it within 2 minutes.
“This is the story of America. Everybody’s doing what they think they’re supposed to do.” ~from On the Road
No one should ever compare any third baseman with Brooks Robinson (not even Nettles). Brooks was conceived in the defense wing of Mt. Olympus, two doors down from the ’70s Steelers linebacking crew.
Blyleven vs. Morris is almost as bad. Morris goes in after Don Larsen and Jack McDowell.
I always wanted to like Kerouac more than I did. Bowles belongs in. Ginsberg, definitely. GO…
Blyleven, Ted Simmons, Dick Allen…Miller if you have to elect non-players…CURT FLOOD…
They shouldn’t even be allowed to elect more players until they correct the obvious deficiencies of the system. And maybe Garvey too.
“just as Tony Gwynn would have had a real shot to hit .400 and Jeff Bagwell and Frank Thomas would have had the chance to have immortal seasons — yeah, I’m still bitter.”
Minor quibble: Bagwell broke his hand on the last day before the strike. But for the strike, he probably does not finish the year or win his only MVP. Great, great player but without the strike does he go down as a Tim Raines-like player with no memorable mark to signify his greatness? Did the strike give him that one memorable season that will result in him being elected to the Hall?
This isn’t proper analysis, but I’ll mention it: the 1994 Giants had 47 games wiped off the schedule. In their first 47 games of 1995, Matt Williams hit 13 HR, which would have made 56 for the season. It’s a powerful thing, regression to the mean.
Joe –
I know that this is tangential to the point of the blog entry (which was great, as always), but I feel compelled to point out that as great as Williams and Gwynn were they clearly had achieved in 1994 at a level greater than at any other point in their careers, and not only would have had to keep it up but to even exceed that level (by a small degree for Williams, a fairly large one for Gwynn).
Just using as an example the two Septembers of Williams that you cited to show what a great September HR hitter he was, in those two Septembers he combined for 19 HRs. If over the Giants remaining 47 games he had hit HRs at that pace he would have fallen short of 61.
The example of Gwynn is far more pronounced. He’s a tremendous hitter, of course, but he’s never hit .400, and to do so in 1994 he would have not “kept it up”, but rather hit OVER 414!! Was it POSSIBLE? I assume so, but I don’t think that anyone considers how difficult it is for a career 338 hitter – OK, call him a 370 hitter at that point in his career – to hit 414 for 47 games. And I’m just talking statistics, not even relating to all of the ancillary issues (pressure, being pitched to differently, etc)
Aryeh
Maris was also MVP in 1960 so he has more than “61″ in his corner. However, he was never a great hitter and his career was way too short to be considered unless you’re going to create an Pozcar award for most impressive single season.
Williams might be worthy of the single season award, but by no means is his body of work worthy.
As for Jack Morris are you freaking kidding me? A career 3.90 ERA when the lgERA during his career was 4.08? The guy was a real workhorse he threw a lot of innings(293.3 in 1983) and won 20 games three times but seriously this guy wasn’t half as good as Don Sutton and we all remember how controversial it was when he got in. Maybe his World Series game could win a Pozcar for most dramatic single game performance.
Blyleven’s case is far more compelling 287 wins, excellent ERA and WHIP. He’d get my vote.
But, but, but, Jack Morris won more games in the 80s than ANYONE! He was the best pitcher of that whole DECADE!!
That’s probably my favorite argument in favor of Morris, because is so demonstrably false. I’ve given up on people who don’t vote for Blyleven. On some level, I think many of them refuse to vote for him solely because they know they should but just don’t want to admit they’ve been wrong for years. That’s a hopeless case, in my view. But I will take a small measure of satisfaction if Morris doesn’t get in, or even sees his vote totals drop. So, to that end, here is Jack Morris versus Dave Stieb for the decade of the 1980s. (All numbers neutralized per baseball-reference.com):
Wins: Stieb 167; Morris 150
Win Pct: Stieb .625; Morris .545
Innings: Stieb 2446; Morris 2537
HR Allowed: Stieb 183; Morris 269
ERA: Stieb 3.13; Morris 3.66
WHIP: Stieb 1.18; Morris 1.26
Shutouts: Stieb 27; Morris 20
In short, if Stieb pitched 91 more innings to match Morris’ total, he would have had to surrender 3.4 baserunners and a home run in every single one of those innings to fall to Morris’ level. He would have had to allow 244 hits and 60 walks in those innings, and surrender 179 earned runs (that’s a 17.78 ERA) to become Jack Morris.
In other words, Jakc Morris wasn’t even the best pitcher in the AL East in the decade of the 1980s. And it wasn’t even close.
Now, Dave Stieb got the whopping total of SEVEN votes in his only year on the Hall of Fame ballot, while Morris has cracked 200. If those voters are supporting Morris because they think he was the best pitcher of the 80s, I hope they read this an reconsider.
“and the underrated Graig Nettles”
No Yankee ever – ever – in the History of Man – has been “underrated”. None. Including Greg Nettles, he of the .329 lifetime OBP.
Dave Stieb was a stud, a far better pitcher than Jack Morris. I used to hate it when the Royals faced him because he was just so darn good. It’s too bad his career was cut short by injuries or he would have had a really good shot.
Thanks for the posts, Joe. I live far, far away from KC, but love reading your stuff.
I really hate the “Hall of FAME” argument. Its called the Hall of Fame because “Hall of Awesome” or “Legion of Extraordinary Players” sounds dumb, not because its for the guys who literally were the most famous. Rob Neyer has touched on this before – the Museum is for famous events and single game/single season performances; the Hall itself should be reserved for careers.
I am on the Blyleven side of the Blyleven/Morris discussion.
However, while everyone brings up the 1991 World Series with respect to Morris, what often gets ignored is his 1984 no hitter on the NBC game of the week against the White Sox.
Back then, the Game of the Week was everything and NBC used to show that final strike in promos for years to come. I certainly think this added to Morris’ fame.
I think Graig Nettles is underrated. (Another reason I’m qualified to vote for the Pozcar Awards.) I didn’t see Brooks Robinson play so Nettles is my standard for a defense at 3rd base. He was great there, he contributed majorly to the Yankees comeback to champion-dom. I think when we talk about great defensive 3rd basemen he should be on the list & I don’t often see him there.
I only knew Graig Nettles through his baseball card, which is filed in my “Funny Baseball Names” brain file with Mark Lemongello and Kurt Heaverlo.
Yes, Brock had 3023 hits, but Raines had 2605 _and_ 1330 walks for 3935 times on base. Adding Brock’s walk totals gets him to just 3784, and that’s in way more plate appearances than Raines. Even someone who discredits walks more than he should ought to realize which career total is better. These are not arcane advanced stats we’re talking about.
Which leads me to wonder here as I have elsewhere before: why don’t people promote total bases and TOB more? Seems to me these are simple, traditional, easily understood numbers that can open the door to a greater understanding of the game and and serve as an introduction to more elaborate stats like OPS+, EQA, VORP and suchlike.
I assume you’re counting “home runs as a third baseman”, since Darrell Evans had, and Chipper Jones has, more than 378.
I never said that Brock was better than Raines, I merely pointed out why he got in the Hall of Fame. He has better “counting” numbers. Frankly if Lou had 2800 hits and wasn’t the stolen base leader at the time of his selection, he probably wouldn’t have gotten in either.
Perhaps I’m biased but I file Raines with Harold Baines, Dwight Evans, Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Dave Parker, Dale Murphy, Rusty Staub. Very good players but not quite great players, at least not for the length of time required to be in the Hall.
You want to lower the standards for Raines? Then you might want to add a new wing because those other guys have a case too.
Will someone please explain to Craig that inducting Tim Raines is in no way “lowering” the standards of the Hall of Fame? Why do people persist in thinking that Willie Mays is the Hall of Fame standard? Maybe Joe should do a Bill James Inspired Post about The Politics of Glory.
Frank Frisch lowered the standards to the Hall of Fame. Not that he wasn’t a player, but because of him, we get to say stuff like “Even Fred Lindstrom is in the Hall of Fame! Then why not Matt Williams?”
And one reason that anti-Blyleven voters like to bring up is how he only made two All-Star teams. Well, I just looked at his yearly first-half statistics, and he had terrific ERAs and K/BB totals early in his career when he was in his prime, but had mostly losing records to show for it. So the same terrible-support problem that plagues his numbers now had harmed his All-Star chances. And in 1989, he went 8-2 with a 2.15 ERA and a 1.07 WHIP…and didn’t make the All-Star team. What is up with that?
The Hall of Pretty Good… yeah, let’s rename it then we can let all those guys in!
Also let me just say I’m just enjoying this debate. If Raines gets in, good for him. He wouldn’t get my vote.. but different strokes.
Frankly after they screwed Buck, they aren’t really worthy of any of our time anyway.
If he does get in, will he be wearing an Expos hat?
I certainly hope he wears an Expos hat. The place is a museum, first and foremost, so they should be faithful to the history of the game. Plus, after the way MLB treated the Expos, the least the Hall could do is put their old logo on Raines’ plaque.
Gary Carter wanted to go in as a Met, but the Hall of Fame stuck it to him. :p
I remember Gary Carter wore the “elb”, but the Expos were still in the league at that time. Raines would be in the position of wearing the hat of a defunct franchise… has that ever happened before?
Sure, it’s happened many times with Brooklyn Dodgers, NY Giants, and Milwaukee Braves. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Matt Williams would be a Hall of Famer had he broken Maris’s record. Whether he would be deserving is questionable, but he would definitely be in there. Bert Blyleven will never make it, and so he’ll always be the most deserving outsider. What’s with having all the living Hall of Famers voting anyway? What is it, a country club?
The whole Hall of FAME argument is hogwash. You don’t earn your place there through being famous — you achieve immortal fame through being a great enough to be inducted.
The FAME part is not an entry requirement, it’s what you are awarded for induction.
The more I think about it, Albert Belle was royally screwed on the hall of fame
voting, and it really makes the baseball writers look petty and hypocritical. Albert
was to his period what Jim Rice was to 1975 to 1986. Rice is continually thought
of as a fringe candidate, but the baseball writers gave Albert absolutely no chance.
I read this article on ESPN today, and it continually stressed that ballplayers
should be judged for what they do on the diamond, not outside of it. Moral superiority
should not be used in judging racists, cheats, etc. Unfortunately, the baseball
writers’ moral superiority is EXACTLY what caused Albert to receive virtually
no support for the hall of fame, or the 1995 MVP award for that matter. Albert
did not show up on yesterday’s list (but his peers Mo Vaughn, Juan Gonzalez,
David Justice, etc did) and Jose Canseco has stated that Belle definitely did not
use steroids.
I really enjoyed your blog entry and it really does remind me of some of the old Bill James essays ( which I think were some of the best things I have ever read ). I agree with you about Raines and Blyleven and believe that they belong in the Hall of Fame. There is a common thread with both of them that hurts their chances for making it into the HOF. Both of these guys were great at a young age and then hung around as good role players for several years on good teams. Voters don’t want to vote role players into the HOF. Blyleven was a stud for the Twins at the beginning of his career and is really one of the last great pitchers from the pitching’s Golden Age of the late 60’s/early 70’s. His curse is that he got traded by the Twins when Griffith couldn’t afford the Twins and then ended up on several mediocre teams – Rangers and Indians. Blyleven was great in the World Series for the Pirates but doesn’t get credit for it because nobody remembers he was on that team. Raines was a superstar on the Expos in his early years despite his drug woes but he played in an era when only Bill James knew how good he was. By the time the rest of the world could appreciate Raines he merely was above average and ultimately a role player on the Yankees. The Hall of Fame voters do not appreciate guys whose careers peak early.
As for Jack Morris, I do understand that his stats are not great but I also think that under different circumstances he would have had a better career. I think he was one of those guys where his manager expected him to complete his games to save the bullpen even as complete games were becoming rarer. I think if Morris was handled differently that his career stats may have ended up better. However, you can say that about other pitchers as well as they are at the mercy of their managers/pitching coaches. Lou Brock, like Morris was a World Series superstar, terrorizing the Red Sox and Tigers in the 67 and 68 World Series. I am old enough to remember those Series and Brock was the best player on the Cards other than Gibson. I think Brock’s World Series performances had a more lasting image than him breaking the stolen base record because that was one of the only times the entire country got to see him ( pre-cable).
I think there are other players who are in the same boat as Raines and Blyleven specifically Frank Thomas and Fred McGriff. It only seems like another lifetime when Thomas was the AL MVP.
He actually would not do very well at all in that award, either. 61 HR or not, there were a heck of a lot more valuable single seasons than that, even before 1961. In fact, there were two clearly more valuable seasons in the 1961 AL itself. One of them by a guy on Maris’ own team…
As for Matt Williams, the Mitchell Report makes that one simple: If McGwire isn’t getting in for PED-related reasons despite breaking the single-season HR record, then Williams, a much worse player, certainly wouldn’t be getting in either, even if he had broken the record.
Maris would not do very well in the “most impressive single season” award, either. 61 HR or not, there were a heck of a lot more valuable single seasons than that, even before 1961. In fact, there were two clearly more valuable seasons in the 1961 AL itself. One of them by a guy on Maris’ own team…
As for Matt Williams, the Mitchell Report makes that one simple: If McGwire isn’t getting in for PED-related reasons despite breaking the single-season HR record, then Williams, a much worse player, certainly wouldn’t be getting in either, even if he had broken the record.
Halls of Fame aren’t for people who already famous – if they are already famous, they don’t need Halls of Fame to publicize their achievements. Halls of Fame exist to honor those who should be famous – to honor those whose achievements deserve recognition. The most important role of Halls of Fame have is to honor those who otherwise would be forgotten (and to attract tourists, but that’s a different conversation). So the idea that fame is in itself a quality that should positively influence a person’s candidacy is perverse; ideally, it should have no effect whatsoever.
Extend the speculation about Williams playing a complete 1994 season and, sure, give him 62 homers to push aside Maris. Move ahead four years to 1998 — would the McGwire-Sosa dual race have been half so compelling, chasing a four-year-old record instead of a 37-year-old one? Would that race even have happened? Just a fun thought experiment.
So if Morris had gone 34-64, his lifetime record would have been the same as Blyleven’s. The 287 wins are impressive, but so are the 250 losses. Fair or not, the Hall of Fame always rewards playing on good teams, and Morris was on a few. Catfish Hunter and Luis Tiant have nearly identical stats, but Hunter breezed in and Tiant still languishes outside the pearly gates. Morris was the ace of the ‘84 Tigers and the ‘91 Jays, he was a horse who pitched well in “big games” and he had the extras – the 10 inning Series clincher, the no-hitter on the game of the week, three 20 win seasons. Morris really should be a Hall of Famer. As for Blyleven, I admit, I am becoming more convinced, but it his secondary stats, not the 287-250 record, that is making his case. Good article.
Bob,
W-L is more a team stat than a pitcher stat, focusing on that penalizes good pitchers on bad teams. If you look above theres a nuetral wins adjustment, which is meant to adjust for run support and defense to create an equal comparision. Bert picks up 25 NW while Jack loses 22 NW, showing the teams they played on made a significant difference to the win-loss record.
Or to give another example, can you name the only pitcher to lead in ERA, Strikeouts and IP and not win the CY Young?
Nolan Ryan who was 8-16 and in his 16 losses recieved 1.16 runs per game in run support.
John:
Agreed, but as I also noted:
Fair or not, the Hall of Fame always rewards playing on good teams