Comments on: The Almost Great Matty http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/ A Rough Draft Blog Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:08:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Bob http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3605 Bob Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:29:02 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3605 John: Agreed, but as I also noted: Fair or not, the Hall of Fame always rewards playing on good teams John:

Agreed, but as I also noted:

Fair or not, the Hall of Fame always rewards playing on good teams

]]> By: John http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3414 John Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:48:07 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3414 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. 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.

]]> By: Bob http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3330 Bob Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:42:55 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3330 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. 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.

]]> By: Chipmaker http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3272 Chipmaker Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:13:55 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3272 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. 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.

]]> By: Greg Andrew http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3271 Greg Andrew Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:41:35 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3271 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. 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.

]]> By: Mean Dean http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3267 Mean Dean Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:16:40 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3267 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. 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.

]]> By: Mean Dean http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3266 Mean Dean Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:16:13 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3266 <blockquote>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.</blockquote>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 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.

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.

]]> By: Tom Moroney http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3258 Tom Moroney Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:53:15 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3258 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. 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.

]]> By: mdpeter http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3257 mdpeter Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:33:00 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3257 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. 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.

]]> By: GWO http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3238 GWO Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:00:08 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2007/12/13/the-almost-great-matty/#comment-3238 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 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.

]]>