Yeah … Schilling
Posted: July 2nd, 2008 | Filed under: Baseball | 130 Comments »
I really cannot stand bad comparisons. They drive me nuts in a way that is hard for me to explain. For instance, the other day I noticed that brilliant reader Aaron wrote a comment about Jackie Robinson. It had a few things in there I might have disagreed with — mainly the oft-made point that if not for Jackie, someone else would would have broken the color barrier (sure, but when?) — but all in all I respected the argument, and I’m always for a variety of opinions on this site.
Except for this one: He compared two batting lines — the lines of Don Mattingly and Jackie Robinson — and said they were essentially the same except “Robinson got on base more.” These are the lines — the first is Mattingly’s:
.307/.358/.471, 127 OPS+
.311/.409/.474, 132 OPS+
Now, let me get this right so as not to defame the innocent — Don Mattingly was a terrific baseball player. He is my all-time favorite Yankee, and while being a Clevelander this is a bit like saying that Atilla was my all-time favorite Hun, it still means something to me. I love Mattingly.
But I’m sorry, I just can’t let that go. Those two lines are NOTHING alike. Jackie Robinson didn’t just “get on base more.” His on-base percentage is FIFTY POINTS HIGHER than Don Mattingly’s. There’s nothing remotely close about that. Nothing similar. Nothing. There are two oceans, a continent and a Nebraska Furniture Mart between a .358 on-base percentage and a .409 on-base percentage. If you Google Mapped the distance between a .358 on-base percentage and a .409 on-base percentage, it would tell you, “You can’t get there from here.” Even if you neutralize the stats, Robinson’s OBP is still 43 points higher than Mattingly’s which is a canyon Evel Knievel could not have jumped.
Then, you throw on top of it the fact that Robinson played second base, he slugged with Mattingly, he was by all accounts of the time a base-running sensation, he didn’t get signed until he was 27, and he was playing under the most intense pressures imaginable … well, yeah, it’s fair to say that I’m not a particular fan of that comparison.
Incredibly, though, since seeing that comparison I have run across a baseball comparison that is driving me even more insane. This comes from my friend Rick Hummel at the St. Louis Post Dispatch, who is one of the great people and great ball writers around. Rick wrote a column in which the lead item says that people who think Curt Schilling should go into the Hall of Fame are missing “a potload of more deserving candidates.” I like the word “potload.” His main argument, while I would disagree with it, is certainly a fair one: Schilling’s career record is 216-146, and that would normally not be viewed as Hall-worthy. I disagree with it because I don’t like the use of pitcher’s won-loss records for reasons that are worth about 10 blog posts. But I certainly concede the point … Schilling only won 216 games and if he does not come back he is very much a borderline Hall of Fame candidate.
BUT … then Rick makes the big comparison. If he had written that Schilling’s career (216-146, 3.46 ERA, 127 ERA+) wasn’t much different from obvious non-Hall of Fame Kevin Brown (211-144, 3.28 ERA, 127 ERA+) or even pointed out the eerie similarities between his base numbers and Bob Welch (211-146, 3.47 ERA, though Welch pitched in a much, much better pitching era as his 106 ERA+ indicates), then I would have been on -board. I think Schilling has some serious advantages over those guys, but I would have liked the argument.
But no. Instead, Rick compares to others who won a lot more games — Blyleven, Tommy John, Jim Kaat and so on. OK, those guys pitched a lot longer, OK, still I’m following. But first, before bringing up Bllyelven, Rick dredged up the name. Oh yeah. He compared Schilling to Jack Morris. I swear, I think sometimes that people just bring up Jack Morris in Hall of Fame arguments because they love seeing me lose it.
It’s bad enough that people keep comparing Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven (and some keep voting for Morris and NOT Blyleven), even though Blyleven was better in every possibly way a pitcher can be better. But in many ways this comparison is EVEN WORSE. OK, well, before I get into why, let’s look at some numbers.
Career ERA: Schilling 3.46, Morris 3.90.
Career ERA+: Schilling 127, Morris 105.
Strikeouts: Schilling 3,116, Morris 2,478.
Walks: Schilling 711, Morris 1,390.
WHIP: Schilling 1.137, Morris 1.296.
Winning percentage: Schilling .597, Morris .577.
OK, so all those go to Schilling by wide margins. WIDE margins. I mean, WIDE margins. Morris, however, won 254 games to Schilling’s 216. How about that? Well, even if you take that serious, to me, the argument has no steam. Morris’ career record was 254-186. Schilling’s is, as mentioned, 216-146.
That would mean that for Schilling to MATCH Jack Morris’ career totals, he would have to go 38-40 with a 6.46 ERA. If that’s the difference between Curt and the Hall, maybe he can come back and pitch left-handed.
But that’s not why I hate the comparison — after all, Blyleven’s numbers crush Morris to an even greater extent.* No … what I hate about the argument is this: Morris’ case revolves almost entirely around him being a “clutch pitcher.” Right? I mean, if you don’t buy into all that clutchiness then basically all you’ve got is a rugged pitcher who threw a bunch of innings for good teams, naturally won quite a lot of games and was, all in all, a little better than league average.
*The difference between Blyleven and Morris includes more than 1,200 strikeouts, 32 shutouts and more than 1,100 innings with zero walks and a 1.36 ERA.
But that’s not the Hall of Fame argument. The Hall of Fame argument is that Morris delivered in the big moments, that he threw one of the great games in baseball history (Game 7, 1991, of course) and that game summarized the grit and steel nerve of his career. The Hall of Fame argument is that Morris pitched to the score, lifted his game, came through in the clutch, was best when he needed to be, and true he may not have had a great ERA, and he may not have dominated like other great pitchers, but when the chips were down, and breaks were going against the boys, and backs were against the wall, and there was no tomorrow, well by gosh, that was when Jack Morris stood tall in the saddle.
And this is why this comparison drives me insane. Because it’s bad enough to have to argue with the myths and judgements of Jack Morris’ unshakeable character. But hell, if THAT’S your argument, then holy cow, Curt Schilling is a MUCH better example. He was a MUCH better postseason pitcher. He pitched the bloody sock game. He and Unit beat the mighty Yankees. The numbers aren’t close.
Postseason
Jack Morris: 7-4, 3.80 ERA.
Curt Schilling: 11-2, 2.23 ERA.
World Series
Jack Morris: 4-2, 2.96 ERA.
Curt Schilling: 4-1, 2.08 ERA.
And so, yeah, that bugs me. Now the argument is that he was tougher than Blyleven but at the same time he won more games than Curt Schilling? Ugh. Suddenly, Jack Morris has become a two-front war.
Loading ...
First comment!!
As a Twins fan I have a special place in my heart for Jack Morris (by the way, I keep thinking of Zack Morris from Saved By the Bell. Yes, I’m very young) but I have never considered him a candidate for the Hall of Fame. Part of that might be that I never consider our players for the Hall of Fame because I think of the Twins as a unit, not as individual players. As awesome as Joe Mauer is this year (and I can only tell from the stats since I’m in Chicago) I still think about the team as a whole and not just him. But maybe that’s just because over the years I’ve seen many, many, many Twins (cough, cough, Knoblauch) get traded to different teams and so very much worse. Maybe they were better as rookies, but it’s still all about the team.
Setting aside PEDs, why is Kevin Brown obviously not a Hall of Famer?
You can’t compare Jackie’s OBP to Mattingly’s. The fact is, you’re comparing 132 to 127, and that’s it. That’s pretty close. Jackie had stuff thrown at him and yelled at him; Mattingly had a non-functioning back. Neither of these issues are really under their control, we have no idea how much the impacted their numbers, so I tend to hold it out of the argument.
As for position, we don’t know how good Jackie was at 2B, but Mattingly was a damn good fielder. 9 Gold Gloves in 10 years he was eligible is pretty good (especially when his offense tailed off so badly at the end; it’s tough to win a GG when you are not very good at the plate). But, given Jackie played 2B, I’d guess he’d make a better 1B than Mattingly. And the steal numbers are pretty good – he looks like he was a pretty efficient basestealer.
But still… I guess the point is, Jackie’s baseball skill is somewhat overrated.
Love the line about Schilling pitching left-handed.
My question regarding Blyleven versus Schilling getting into the Hall of fame is about their relationship’s with the media. Please correct me if I am wrong but, wasn’t Blyleven perceived as un-friendly to the media? Schilling is a media darling with all the quotes and demonstrative opinions which, along with his two World Series performances, will get him in the Hall of Fame, in my opinion. His numbers are not Hall of Fame numbers but, his ability to provide great quotes and plenty of great stories will push him over the finish line while the lack of allies in the media will keep Blyleven out.
I’m naming my first son “Potload”
Joe!
That is a pretty bogus comparison of Mattingly and Jackie. Take a look at their best 7 full time years:
Mattingly – .322 / .376 / .520, 144 OPS+
Jackie R – .322 / .419 / .497, 142 OPS+
The OPS+ were calculated using a simple weighted average based upon plate appearances.
I don’t think it fair to count the tail end of Mattingly’s career when he was a shell of his former self. Robinson himself only had 8 seasons when he played in 120 games.
While John Paul makes a stirring, evocative, and lucid argument, I have to respond to Joe’s point instead.
As a Red Sox fan, I may be one of the biggest Curt Schilling supporters out there. He and Foulke basically sacrificed the rest of the careers with the 2004 post-season, finally bringing the championship back to Boston. But Curt is not a hall of famer. Yes, his “clutchiness” is outstanding, and I believe the sock or some momento from that series is already in the hall. But while he is a great pitcher, the hall of fame should be for only those who are truly worthy. Schilling took a backseat to Unit and Pedro, achknowledging that they were the better pitchers. I just don’t see how better than average = hall of fame. The best argument is the postseason record, and it will be up to the voters to see if thats enough.
I would love it if Curt made it in, but I’m not holding my breath, nor will I think it some great tragedy if he doesn’t make it. And for some reason, I don’t think Curt will either.
Geez, this one isn’t all that hard, even for HOF voters. I mean, if the Steroids Era did ANYTHING, it should have pounded into the voters’ heads the notion that raw numbers cannot be examined without the context in which they were compiled. Many of them are even using that argument already against Mark McGwire, and in favor of guys like Andre Dawson.
Well, okay, just follow that thought to its logical conclusion, fellas, and use the neutralize stats feature on Baseball-Reference.com before you compare two guys from different eras. All it is is a handy (and free) compilation of just about every traditional baseball stat ever compiled, and since it’s computer-based, it can perform some basic neutralization calculations with no trouble whatsoever. Seems like a tool HOF voters might be interested in using, but what do I know?
Anyway, using this handy tool that all HOF voters should have set as their Internet Explorer home pages long ago, we find that the neutral stats for Schilling and Morris are thus:
Schilling: 224-141, .614 Win Pct, 3202 K’s, 3.15 ERA, 1.08 WHIP
Morris: 229-204, .529 Win Pct., 2579 K’s, 3.82 ERA, 1.28 WHIP
If that’s not convincing enough, how about this one: Schilling’s teams won 59.2% of his career starts. Morris’ won 57.3%. And, in case you’re all wondering, Schilling compiled this record with WORSE teams. During Schilling’s years, his teams posted a combined .487 winning percentage in all games he didn’t start. For Morris, his teams had a .531 winning percentage in games he didn’t start. In other words, Schilling’s teams were about 22% more likely to win on days he pitched while Morris’ teams were about 8% more likely to win when he took the mound.
Pretty much a no contest.
Does a “potload” come from Potsdam or is it a word that should have been used frequently in “Dazed and Confused” but wasn’t?
Here’s a Zack and Jack Morris connection: The high school in Saved by the Bell was named Bayside and their mascot was the Tigers. Even more, their school logo was a rip off of the Detroit Tigers logo. I wonder why MLB and the Tigers didn’t sue over it. You saw it in a lot of episodes. The only difference was that it read Bayside instead of Detroit.
If people continue to use Wins as a HOF credential, then they should start using Wins for position players, too.
Re: Jackie v. Mattingly…
I would think that being a lightning rod for bigotry-fueled hatred would be a little more difficult than dealing with a bad back. I’m not talking about a pure on-field performance standpoint – obviously the deterioration of physical skills is detrimental to a ball player in more quantifiable ways, but what Jackie endured should never be dismissed or underestimated. I can honestly say that I wouldn’t be able to exhibit the same class, dignity and patience that Jackie showed in the face of racism.
And as for the fielding argument, Jackie played a far more difficult position, and the use of Gold Gloves is pretty weak. Palmeiro won a Gold Glove in a year when he played fewer than 30 games at first. Jeter’s won Gold Gloves. It’s pretty clear that the voters, as often as not, look at offense and reputation more than they actually look at the candidates. It seems like the voting’s almost an afterthought, as though someone goes around to the managers and coaches and says “name a player at every position.”
Regardless of Jackie’s on-field contributions (which were certainly outstanding), what he endured and what he meant to baseball and society on the whole, he should be a no-brainer for the Hall. Would someone else have broken the colour barrier if not for him? Sure. But he was the right person – in terms of character and strength, with the skill to back it all up – at the time.
As for the Morris situation, I always get annoyed with the argument that he was the quintessential big-game pitcher. I’m a lifelong Blue Jays fan, and I remember we signed him to a big money contract after his big 10-inning game. Throughout the ‘92 season, every solid outing would seemingly be countered with a mediocre one. We fans waited it out, because we were told that he was signed primarily because he was the kind of pitcher who would be decent enough during the regular season but who would shine in the playoffs.
Then, the team won the series that fall despite Morris’ outings, in which he would routinely take his team out of it early. His performance was kind of similar to C.C. Sabathia’s last year, except that his team won it all.
When I visited Cooperstown (admittedly several years back), there was an exhibit that discussed Morris’ 10-inning masterpiece with the Twins. That one game shouldn’t also get a plaque in the Hall.
If there needs to be a real discussion, the guy isn’t a hall of famer. Schilling was awesome. 5 years from now, he’ll remain awesome, except he’ll be seen as awesome outside the scope of the HoF.
Remember when Edgar Martinez retired and everybody picked him to be a no-doubt HoF’er? What are the odds he gets in now? When he’s considered in ‘09, I bet he doesn’t catch as much praise. Same will go for Schill. Great players of their generation, not every generation.
re Mattingling HoF: The dude is behind Garret Anderson in Hits, HR, RBI, 2B. Neither are going to the HoF. Maybe the Hall of Pretty Good.
But Morris would be the 3rd guy from St. Paul in the HOF (Winfield, Molitor). That would be cool. Has to count for something.
Mike, why do you imply that we can’t compare OBP, and that OPS+ is the end-all-be-all of stats. The fact remains that OBP is more important that Slugging% (and I would say *much* more important, but I guess that is arguable). I like Lou’s argument a bit more, but even then the OBPs are a ways off (more than 40 points).
I also wonder how true the assumption is that it’s hard to win a GG when you are not very good at the plate. It’d be interesting to look for correlations there.
I rarely mention other posters in comment threads but I must say Blackadder cracked me up. Kevin Brown. Hall of Fame. Just saying those two things one after the other is hilarious.
And Mike’s summary – “I guess the point is… Jackie’s baseball skill is somewhat overrated”. Now that’s stating an opinion with confidence. An opinion I don’t share BTW. But okay.
Anyway, humor aside – IMO – (and I find Schilling’s public persona to be very annoying) – Schilling’s amazing post season performances allow him to be considered for the Hall. I haven’t checked the record books but I daresay he has one of the best winning percentages of pitchers in post season history with 12 or more decisions. He pitched in the steroid era and though he might have played second fiddle to Randy and Pedro as a brilliant poster pointed out above – we must remember that Randy and Pedro and both arguably top ten pitchers of ALL TIME. Not a bad second fiddle to play.
The Mattingly/Robinson comparison doesn’t really hold water, although Mattingly did play second base once. It was the continuation of the Pine Tar game. Billy Martin put Guidry in CF and the Hitman at 2B as a form of protest. Fun, huh?
I think a better career comparison for Mattingly is Kirby Puckett. They played in the same time period. They played the same number of full years and virtually the same number of games (1785 – 1783). Looking down their lines…Runs (1007 – 1071), Hits (2153 – 2176), RBI (1099 – 1085), OBP (.358 – .360), SLG (.471 – .477) and OPS+ (127 – 124). All eerily close. And both players had their careers cut short because of injuries, granted that Puckett’s was more sudden and jarring. The only real differences are Mattingly walked more and struck out less, Kirby stole (a lot) more bases, Kirby played CF to Mattingly’s 1B (they were both multiple Gold Glove winners)…and oh yeah, Puckett was a World Series hero. Twice.
I don’t really believe that either should be in the Hall, frankly. And I’m a huge Mattingly fan. I just don’t see how Puckett gets in on the first ballot and Mattingly doesn’t even rate consideration. Does defense and the fact that your team made it to the World Series twice make THAT much of a difference?
Yes, I knew that OBP gap was huge when I made the original comparison Joe. The other numbers are very close, and the OPS+ is very comparable.
They both also had shortened careers, as Mattingly’s back forced him to be very mediocre after 1989. This was the original impetus for the comparison and I don’t think I even mentioned it. His line is .323/.385/.521 in the 8 years before his back flared up. Robinson played for 10 with 2 crappy years at the end of his career.
For what Jackie accomplished, he definitely deserves the honor. I just get the feeling that had Jackie been 2nd into the leagues he would barely be mentioned. Or maybe it would have taken him 26 extra years to get into the HOF like Doby, who had an OPS+ of 136, finally did in 1998, 27 years after he retired. Or if we were voting on this stat line today, somebody would make the asinine remark “this isn’t the hall of very good.”
Finishing the thought… On being second fiddle…
Post Season Records
Randy – 7-9 / 3.50 / 121 innings / 106 hits / 132 K’s
Pedro – 6-2 / 3.40 / 79.1 / 63 / 80k’s
Curt – 11-2 / 2.23 / 133.1/ 104 / 120k’s.
Who would you start a game 7?
responding to MIKE’s point about it being more difficult to win GG when you’re not as good at the plate…wouldn’t that mean it’s easier to win GG when you’re outstanding at the plate? perhaps mattingly won a few he didn’t deserve because of the attention brought to him by his offensive stats? playing in new york didnt hurt either, of course.
To the poster Silence Dogood, there are as many media members that HATE Curt Schilling as those who love him. His reputation is that of a blowhard who can’t shut his mouth. I think he has more enemies in the media than friends.
Absolutely, positively LOVE the data that Schilling would have to go 38-40 with a 6.46 ERA to “equal” Jack Morris. Evaluating a pitcher’s won-loss record to judge his overall performance is like looking at Jenna Fischer’s left toe to judge her smokeshow of an overall package.
Hmmm…. I’ve always made the emotional case for Jack Morris to be in the Hall, in part because it isn’t “The Hall of Guys Who Finished in the Top Three in Very Important Statistical Categories for Seven to Ten Years.” Winning does count for something (and I don’t mean the number of victories a pitcher earns – I mean being The Man on a Winner. Or One of A Few Men on a Winner. It’s the only way you can justify about a third of the Yankees being in the Hall.)
Of course you need high-end numbers to go along with it, but I think these other factors need to be considered. All of that said, you finally broke it down for me – Jack Morris doesn’t belong in the Hall.
Does a “potload†come from Potsdam or is it a word that should have been used frequently in “Dazed and Confused†but wasn’t?
Potload – noun; definition: The quantity of cannabis that need be consumed to make a nonsensical argument compelling.
[I]That is a pretty bogus comparison of Mattingly and Jackie. Take a look at their best 7 full time years:
Mattingly – .322 / .376 / .520, 144 OPS+
Jackie R – .322 / .419 / .497, 142 OPS+[/I]
Jackie’s 7 best full time years started at the age of 28, Mattingly’s started at the age of 23. That’s a HUGE difference there. Give Jackie those 5 years that he couldn’t have because he was black and this argument is laughable. Well it is already laughable but it would be laughabler.
“and while being a Clevelander this is a bit like saying that Atilla was my all-time favorite Hun..”
=)
Joe, you’ve subtleties that destroy me with laughter sometimes.
Good post.
@ Drew
Yes, it is a difference, but really, we can only go by what they did on the field. Obviously, taking everything into consideration, Robinson is deserving of HOF. I was originally trying to argue the point that the stats aren’t similar.
@ BE EARL
And I COMPLETELY agree on the Puckett comparison.
Actually, on second thought, If I name my first son “Potload Johnson,” it would go down next to Reed Rothchild and Kurt Longjohn as the worst porn names ever (and by worst, I mean greatest)
Geez…maybe I need to stop using “potload” in Mockingford’s definition’s proper context…
Justin – that’s ridiculous. I’m 5′7″ on a good day. I assure you, my physical limitations have a far bigger negative impact on my ability to play professional basketball than anything Bill Russell ever had to deal with in Boston. Maybe Mattingly was a wuss, or maybe he had a crippling condition that would have left a lesser man playing shuffleboard by his 32nd birthday. My point is, we don’t know.
I also tried to explain how Mattingly earned the GG’s DESPITE his offensive performance, winning them in years in which his lines were:
.288/9/68
.288/14/86
.291/17/86
.304/6/51
Really, the voters were rewarding offensive prowess?
I don’t mean to downplay Jackie’s accomplishments or the adversity he overcame. But the belief that what he had to deal with was “harder” than what other players have had to deal with is unfounded, even if it makes us feel progressive and empathetic.
Pitchers win-loss records . . . guh. I thought my head was going to explode earlier this year when some idiot on the Eastern Sports Programming Network made the statement that Mussina passed Bob Gibson in wins . . . and never once mentioned the fact that Gibby pitched five times as many complete games as Mussina. Gah! Somebody please stop this W-L abuse!
Amen Mike! If he didn’t like it, let ‘em go pick cotton! Are you with me?
I just wanted to point out, something about normalized stats. OPS+ and ERA+ aren’t linear stats. Therefore, a 5 point difference in OPS+ (between mattingly and robinson), is relatively significant. A lot greater than a five point difference in raw slugging percentage, for instance. Scrolling through some old BR pages, I saw a 5 point OPS+ difference between Trot Nixon and Varitek on the 2001 red sox. Same team, same parks, same league averages etc. Their lines (obp/slg/ops/ops+)
Nixon: .376/.505./.881/128
Varitek: .371/.489/.860/123
So in this case, 5 points of OPS+ is worth 21 points of OPS. That’s not going to hold constant, as the formula depends on the deviations from the league averages of both slugging and obp, but my point is, that 5 points of OPS+ is not something that can be regarded “pretty close”.
To reader Lou
The fact that a GG caliber 2nd baseman has basically the same OPS+ as a 1st baseman (albeit also GG caliber) is an argument for Jackie being more worthy for the HOF than Mattingly. How many second baseman have a 7 year stretch like that?
Another thing that a lot of people don’t point out is how big missing those early years are for Jackie. The man didn’t play until he was 28 years old when most players start their decline and while his first two seasons his OPS was 111 and 118, I think that having those early years he might have been at least league average or maybe better, with most likely, better defense.
As an aside, looking at the numbers he put up between 30-35, Jackie was a beast of an older player.
Matt, you’re a better person than me. Pat yourself on the back for being such a progressive fella, and not spending time thinking about things that people say.
Aaron, you can’t compare raw OBP due to the eras.
Really, the voters were rewarding offensive prowess?
No, inertia.
Seriously, once a player starts winning Gold Gloves, he becomes pretty hard to displace. See, for instance, Rafael Palmeiro – whose 28 games at 1b were sufficient to win in 1999. In other words, the voters thought he was so good a fielder in 1999, that he deserved to win a Gold Glove despite playing only 28 games in the field. His team, OTH, thought so little of his fielding that they thought he only merited 28 games at 1B.
Besides, you don’t think voters looked at Donny Baseball’s declining numbers and thought, hell, he *must* be a good fielder if the Yankees kept throwing him out at 1B despite Pete Rose-like anemia with the bat.
Mike, it has nothing to do with being progressive. It’s not progressive in anyway to be ashamed of bigotry. It’s not even particularly decent.
“the belief that what he had to deal with was “harder†than what other players have had to deal with is unfounded”
This is far more progressive than anything I’ve ever written or thought. It’s progressive in the same way people think the holocaust never happened. It’s progressive because you’ve moved on, forgetting the sixties, Martin Luther King, Jr., and all the UNIMAGINABLE VIOLENCE that people had to endure.
Progressive then were the people that didn’t shoot at Martin Luther King, Jr., 21 years AFTER Jackie Robinson played his first MLB game. Progressive now are the people that pretend it didn’t happen, or trivialize what it must have been like.
If you want to talk about Mattingly and Jackie, the question is this simple:
Where does Jackie Robinson rank among all-time second basemen?
Where does Don Mattingly rank among all-time first basemen?
It’s really not “just a position”. The difference between playing an up-the-middle position and a corner position (especially first base, regardless of Mattingly’s prowess) is enormous. Would Ozzie Smith have even made the major leagues if he played first base? You may be able to make a case that he would, but it would have been an awfully close call.
And just to throw this out there, in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract I have lying around (and he’s spent a lot more time looking at this stuff than I have), he ranks Don Mattingly as the #12 first baseman of all-time. That’s fantastic. He misses the top 10, sure, but #12 is very solid. Jackie comes in at #4 among second basemen.
Was Mattingly a poor player? No. And that’s why he’s constantly discussed in the “hall of fame snub” conversations. A little more longevity to his career, and he’d have had a shot at the hall. It didn’t help him, either, that in the very same city there was another first baseman who was racking up the gold gloves and riding an OBP around .400, and for a winning team, no less.
Mattingly was a damn fine first baseman, nobody would say otherwise. But let’s not sell Jackie short, and say he wasn’t really all that special. The guy was without question among the absolute best second basemen the game has seen, and saying he’s only a hall of famer because he broke the color barrier is as embarrassing and ignorant as saying Ripken’s only a hall of famer because of the streak, another often heard and inaccurate argument.
That is a pretty bogus comparison of Mattingly and Jackie. Take a look at their best 7 full time years:
Yes, how bogus to look at their entire careers, as is usually the case in HOF comps. Instead we should have devined a preselected criteria known only to Lou…I don’t know why we all didn’t think of this.
I expect Joe to be cited by Schilling when he writes a self-serving blog post on the Hall of Fame. Something along the lines of….
“Man, I’ll tell you guys, I really couldn’t care less about the Hall of Fame. Everyone on the street keeps telling me how I am a no doubter, but I have to remind them that that isn’t why I played. I played to win, and oh man did I win when it counts. The guy who I think has the most credibility when it comes to the Hall of Fame, Joe Posnanski, thinks that I was more clutch than Jack Morris, how about that. I could even pitch with a bloody sock. Try that Roger. But back to the point. I have three rings, so what does it matter if I make the Hall of Fame, it doesn’t really matter to me. I played to win, have you seeen my post-season numbers? Yeah, I bet they stack up pretty well to some of the guys in the Hall, but oh well, if I make it I make it, but I’m not obsessing over it. I mean I don’t really care either way because I know that I pitched in a hitters era, but it doesn’t matter to me………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..I pitched my best when it mattered most, but oh well, what is the Hall of Fame without a three time World Series Champ”
re: Robinson vs. Mattingly. As I always like to do, how about a quick and dirty WARP3 comparison? Let’s check out Top 5 years, since both players had shortened careers for different reasons.
Robinson: 13.9 (1951), 13.1 (1949), 12.0 (1952), 9.9 (1950), 9.3 (1948)
Mattingly: 11.9 (1986), 11.0 (1985), 10.2 (1984), 8.2 (1987), 7.1 (1989)
Don was a great player, certainly one of the best in the league 1984-1987, but he’s not particularly close to Robinson value-wise.
“That is a pretty bogus comparison of Mattingly and Jackie. Take a look at their best 7 full time years:
Mattingly – .322 / .376 / .520, 144 OPS+
Jackie R – .322 / .419 / .497, 142 OPS+”
The diffence in value between a first baseman with a 144 OPS+ and and second baseman with a 142 OPS+ is substantial. Factor in the fact that Robinson has a reputation (probably fairly deserved) as one of the greatest baserunners in history, and it ain’t too close.
Am I the only one here that remembers that Robinson played 1B at the beginning of his MLB career? He won the first Rookie of the Year (an award now named for him) in 1947 for a Dodger team that had Stanky at 2B.
So sure, maybe they were rewarding him for his hitting at the beginning of his career, and then it was inertia at the end. And if he was still good at the end of his career, the argument would be that he was still being rewarded for being good at hitting. So pretty much, Mattingly can’t get credit for his GGs. But of course, Jackie is considered a “good” 2B, but what if he’s “good” like Jeter is “good”, in that he makes sportscenter a few times a month, but has terrible range? In fact, we have no quantitative evidence that he was any good at 2B. Pretty much we have no argument either way about fielding.
Beckett and Clemens had blisters, Mattingly had a bad back, Rocco Baldelli has a mitochondrion disease, and Jim Abbott had one hand. Assigning where Jackie’s adversity fit on that list (in terms of impact on baseball ability) is completely and totally subjective.
And calling me a bigot because I admit to not fully understanding what Jackie went through and how it impacted him, pretty much makes this conversation over, doesn’t it? I don’t think we’re going to have much luck convincing each other of anything.
Yeah, but on XM the other day I heard the expert argument that essentially said this: “Jack Morris would pitch great for 6 innings, then with his team safely ahead he would just throw (lob, underhand?) fastballs over the plate thereby explaining his inflated ERA and lack of strikeouts.”
Dudes – I don’t think anyone is arguing that Mattingly is A) HOF worthy, or B) he is more HOF worthy than Robinson.
Joe P said the stats weren’t comparable and he’s wrong. They are comparable, and taken in a vacuum of caring about era only, Mattingly’s are a tad more impressive.
When you take position and culture into account, the gap for Mattingly becomes insurmountable.
@McKingford – I didn’t cherry pick. I was trying to exclude Mattingly’s downside because he played in more seasons (14 vs. 10).
I don’t find Jack Morris to be a HoF pitcher, nor do I find Schilling worthy either.
Don’t get me wrong by being a bitter Yankee fan (for both 01 and 04) who is enamored with your love for Donnie Baseball. But pitching is an entirely different criteria when it comes to the hall. If DIzzy Dean can go in only win 150 games and make it in why not Schilling right? I feel it’s wrong, Dizzy won 30 games in a year. Schilling’s best is 23. Schilling wasn’t even the best pitcher in the game when he was at his pinnacle, which, just to remind everyone, lasted only about 5 (98-02) years.
For a pitcher to make it to the hall it’s either going to take Johan Santana-like dominance where you’re undoubted as the Cy Young winner for half a decade. How many Cy Young’s does Schill have?
Now you have all the reason you need to see why he’s not HoF worthy.
Oh Mike.
So what you’re saying is that none of us is qualified to determine which was more difficult – being a black man in the 1940’s vs. having some ouchies on your hand or having one arm or having a bad back or having Rocco Baldelli-ism? Or are you saying, wait, what are you saying?
Mike-
In fact, there is absolutely data that can be used to look at historical fielding information. Fielding Runs Above Average are a pretty reasonable way of looking at things, and they can be adjusted to take ballpark, league, and era into account, so you get a fairly apples-to-apples comparison. Jackie Robinson’s career adjusted FRAA is 109, not all of which was accumulated at second base (note that Jackie played a fair amount of third base and outfield). Mattingly’s FRAA come in at 40, in a substantially longer career. Part of this can be attributed to the fact that a first baseman’s fielding value is intrinsically lower, but given that Mattingly showed several seasons with a negative FRAA, it’s entirely likely that to some degree his fielding prowess was overstated. I remember that in his time, Mattingly was considered a very good fielder, and it’s reasonable to think that the statistics don’t necessarily show everything (though it’s worth noting that his cross-town rival Keith Hernandez had a career FRAA of 88, and only one season (his rookie) with a negative FRAA). But to say that there’s no way of ever knowing if Robinson was a good fielder or not is simply not accurate.
2 different Drews there, by the way.
Remember when Abbott threw that no-hitter? I couldn’t believe how many jeers he had to endure from all the two-handed people in the stands! They were all yelling, “Give up a hit, you damn [socially relevant insult]!” I mean, what a freak!
Robinson was hated, maligned, threatened, battered, assaulted, and more. You’re citing blisters. Seriously, who wasn’t rooting for Jim Abbott?
Subjective would be technically correct, in that it is my opinion that life-threats and daily assaults (not to mention the scrutiny of the nation, and the hopes of a race) can be more stressful than blisters. But only the truly progressive can misuse “subjective” to such a degree that the incredibly obvious is meaningless because it isn’t factual.
Welcome to the world of today, where common sense is ignored and all relevant thoughts must be notarized.
Gee Mike I was gonna use your argument to show why Bert Blyleven doesn’t belong in the HoF. Is it OK with you if I just substitute Bly for Schill and re-post it?
2 different Mike’s too…
and BTW, am I the only one here that thinks comparing someone who played 40 years later stupid??
The adversity that Robinson went through and still having what we can only take as a borderline HoF career (through comparison with Mattingly being so close, yet far) numbers made him worthy?
@Orange Julius
I don’t know which expert said that, but his career splits by inning beg to differ. It looks like he was MORE effective in the late innings than he was in the first 6 innings when looking at opponent’s OPS+. I don’t know why Baseball Reference doesn’t have the splits by inning for ERA, but here are the opponent’s OPS+ splits for his career”
Innings 1-3 104
Innings 4-6 100
Innings 7-9 92
The average OPS+ of gold glove winners since 2000 is 116.7, and that’s with Brad Ausmus and Mike Matheny dragging things down. So, yeah, there’s probably some correlation to offense and gold gloves (See Jeter, Derek).
If you want the spreadsheet of my quick-and-dirty, let me know and I’ll email it to someone who can do something more with these numbers.
I think the fact that some fielding models show Mattingly was not such a good first basemen is an indictment of how poor some of the fielding models are – we have a ways to go.
Dan, that’s incredibly interesting. You’d expect the opposite, right? (we’ll call it the Adam Everett postulate). If you contribute a ton on the field, you don’t have to be nearly as good with the bat.
I’m not sure I understand the methodology of FRAA – we may have play-by-play data back into the 50’s, but we certainly don’t have zone data, which is about the best way of figuring out someone’s glove skill these days (and still far from perfect).
Did you really just call Rick Hummel a great baseball writer? Rick Hummel of stltoday.com?
The guy whom, when TLR started batting the pitcher eight, attributed the Cards’ increased scoring of 0.8 runs per game SOLELY to that stupid gimmick? Completely ignoring that Rick Ankiel had a 9 billion OPS at that point, and that dead weights Adam Kennedy and Juan Encarnacion were on the DL, replaced by guys that could actually swing a bat. That Rick Hummel?
The Rick Hummel who called the Adam Kennedy signing a great, GREAT move? Ignoring the fact that Kennedy had been in a never-ending downward spiral since 2002?
That’s just off the top of my head. I’ve finally stopped reading Rick Hummel’s ‘columns’ because they’re indicative of the “I can’t be bothered to spend FIVE SECONDS to look something up” mentality that pervades the BBWAA. Rick Hummel leads the charge.
I’m sorry Joe, but Rick Hummel and the words great ball writer should never, EVER be uttered within one paragraph of each other anymore.
Speaking of Jim Abbott, how did he ever get two hits (in 1999 with the Brewers)? Did he just hold the bat with his left hand and swing it one-handed? Did he lay down a bunt?
He got 3 RBI with only 2 hits, so they both couldn’t have been bunt hits, right?
“That would mean that for Schilling to MATCH Jack Morris’ career totals, he would have to go 38-40 with a 6.46 ERA.”
That is my favorite statistic of the month. Hell, the YEAR. That should be a quote on your blog’s title, or something. It should be a quote on ESPN’s front page.
It’s just absolutely hilarious. Bravo!
“If people continue to use Wins as a HOF credential, then they should start using Wins for position players, too.”
Oh God, please don’t give them any ideas. I can already see the Kevin Kiernan articles entitled “Nobody Wins as many games as Derek Jeter!”
“Winning does count for something (and I don’t mean the number of victories a pitcher earns – I mean being The Man on a Winner. Or One of A Few Men on a Winner. It’s the only way you can justify about a third of the Yankees being in the Hall.)”
I’m curious about two things.
1) On which team was Jack Morris actually The Man?
2) Which 1/3rd of the Yankees are in the Hall of Fame pretty much only because they had great teammates?
Haven’t read through the comments so I don’t know if this has been mentioned before.
But don’t forget that Robinson played first base his first season in the majors and played 197 games at first overall.
(His BR page also indicates he played 256 games at 3B as well as well as significant time in the outfield)
Robinson wasn’t much of a one position player so I think we can make the comparison that Mattingly was better defensively. Which could arguably swing back some of the OBP in his direction.
You actually could figure Wins for position players with WPA. Award the Win to the hitter on the winning team who had the highest WPA for that game. It’d be interesting to see which hitter led the league in Wins like that.
OK… Mattingly is looked at as a borderline HOF guy; peak people like him all right, career people laugh in his face. He won’t get in. Jackie was (at worst) just as good as a hitter, a better baserunner, and played a far more demanding position (and very well, according to Win Shares). He might not have made the Hall of Fame if he didn’t break the color line, but he’d definitely have deserved to.
Incidentally, 132 is Joe Morgan’s career OPS+. Yeah, it has early career and decline phase in it. Ryne Sandberg is at 114, Charlie Gehringer 124, Frankie Frisch 111. Jackie was a better hitter than all of those guys, and played the same position. So yeah, he’s a Hall of Famer on baseball playing merit, and easily.
Couldn’t agree more with ya, Matt.
This comment – “the belief that what he had to deal with was “harder†than what other players have had to deal with is unfoundedâ€
Knocked me off my chair. Unfounded? UnFOUNDED? The literal definition of unfounded is: ‘Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless’
I daresay there’s some pretty sound evidence that what Jackie Robinson had to “deal with” was “harder” than other players and beyond that basic truth – to call the argument in and of itself ‘groundless’ is just well, moronic.
This from literally 1 minute of “research”
“Then a few hits came, a few stolen bases and some fine fielding plays at first, a position he had never experienced before. The racists sent the hate mail, screamed from the stands and called out obscenities over an anonymous hotel telephone. That’s the way it had always been for blacks, hooded men in the night, rarely one on one in reasoned discussion about who it was that made people white or black after all.
Things got hot when the Dodgers played in Cincinnati, a southern border town with a history of antagonistic attitudes toward people of color. One death threat letter came into the clubhouse. When Robinson took the field that day his shortstop and captain, the previously mentioned Mr. Reese, sauntered over to him, put his arm over his shoulder and talked for a few seconds the way pals often do. No big deal. No extreme measure. Nobody in the press box screaming “stop the presses.”
“That meant so much, so much,” Jackie Robinson told me years later. “It was just a kind and incredible gesture.”
http://www.evesmag.com/robinson.htm
Here’s another way to put it… the neutralized stats of two players, from Baseball Reference:
Player 1: .296/.399/.466, 2309 H, 261 HR, 1314 BB, 518 2B
Player 2: .288/.348/.457, 2460 H, 291 HR, 789 BB, 416 2B
We could mostly agree that the first guy is better, right? I mean, it’s not a blowout, but it’s a good win? The first guy has an (actual) OPS+ of 128, the second guy 114…
The second guy is Ryne Sandberg. The first guy is John Olerud. Does anyone here think that Sandberg and Olerud are remotely comparable as players? (I think Olerud’s been pretty underrated myself, but still…) Yet Olerud is solidly superior as a hitter.
So… don’t compare the hitting stats of middle infielders to those of first basemen. You often wind up saying fairly odd things.
Mike, exactly.
While it’s not totally unbelievable to guess that fantastic athletes would be good both at the plate and in the field – Albert Pujols is widely considered the best defensive first baseman in the game and I can’t find any argument with that – there have got to be some players out there only making a ML roster due to their fielding skills, a la Chris Gomez of the 90s Padres.
Without really getting into it, was Aaron Rowand really in the top three best defensive outfielders in baseball last year? Or was his GG a result of the broken nose fence run and his career-high flukey 123 OPS+?
Sandberg and Lou Whitaker are pretty comparable though.
One thing we all forget – Don Mattingly is in the Fantasy Baseball Hall of Fame.
One of the things that makes this blog fun is the high level of civility in the comments. I think we should really try to keep the pejoratives under wraps.
That said, I entirely agree with Justyo that the belief that Robinson faced uniquely difficult burdens is far from unfounded.
Mike, your first post suggested that Robinson’s baseball skill has been somewhat overrated, but I think that among posters here it’s been very fairly rated. The consensus of this site has been that he was *among* the best second basemen ever and I don’t think anyone has argued that he was the best.
Your subsequent posts imply that it isn’t his skill but his COURAGE that has been overrated, and that his circumstances are somehow comparable to players who battled injury. I can see a certain logic to that argument even though I obviously disagree.
Injuries are part of athletics. Institutionalized bigotry isn’t, or at least shouldn’t be. When you battle injury, you’re fighting an obstacle that’s part and parcel of pursuing athletic achievement. What Robinson faced were external forces that had nothing to do with sports, and had he responded to those forces in the “wrong” way the whole civil rights movement might have played out differently. I think his circumstances are quite literally unique in American sports history.
Sandberg and Lou Whitaker are pretty comparable though.
Yup.
A: 276/366/426 116 OPS+
B: 285/344/452 114 OPS+
Since Sandberg is player B and Sweet Lou player A, so it’s pretty damn puzzling how Sandberg is elected to the HOF on his 3rd try, while Sweet Lou fell off the ballot in his very first year of eligibility (meaning he got less than 5%!!).
When you see stuff like this, it’s tough to resist the urge to attribute skin colour to it.
@MCKINGFORD
Actually, it is easy to not attribute skin color. Sandberg had what HOF voters like – hits, doubles, triples, and home runs. I sincerely do not believe it is a color thing.
Sandberg’s best Total Bases – 344, 331, 312, 307, 301. Whitaker never reached 300 (294 is his highest).
Of course, the baseball enlightened know there is more to the story than this. But when both were at their best Sandberg had more of EACH of the total base type stats – hits, doubles, triples, home runs, and that seems to be what voters like.
Sandberg’s peak is higher, and their career values are pretty even. Whitaker was just absurdly consistent, plus he was a middle infielder who could hit, but never had a superstar-looking year. He’s the kind of player you’d expect the writers to miss.
Remember when Edgar Martinez retired and everybody picked him to be a no-doubt HoF’er?
Um, what? The only people who’ve ever called Edgar a “no-doubt HoF-er” are Mariners broadcasters. I mean, I love the guy and I’d vote for him, but I admit there’s a bit of fanboyism that makes me say that. He’s the very definition of borderline, and even among knowledgeable fans, he’s no slam dunk. If the general population of baseball watchers were polled, I doubt he’d stay on the ballot past his first year.
I just don’t see how Puckett gets in on the first ballot and Mattingly doesn’t even rate consideration. Does defense and the fact that your team made it to the World Series twice make THAT much of a difference?
Defense does, when you’re comparing a CF to a 1B. A centerfielder, even a mediocre one, who can hit like a HoF (or near HoF) first baseman is a better, more valuable player than that first baseman.
@James
Re: Puckett. maybe, but I don’t see voters using defense at CF vs 1B as a big sticking point. If anything, Mattingly’s 9 would count higher with the standard voter than Puckett’s 6.
I think it comes down to WS titles and the fact Puckett left on a high note (.314 / .379 / .515) and he still had play left in him. Where Mattingly was struggling to keep a job.
Except everyone said Trammell & Whitaker were linked at the hip, and that they deserve to go to the hall together.
Tram: 285/352/415 OPS+ 110
Lou: 276/366/426 OPS+ 116
Whitaker fell off the ballot on his only appearance. He got less than 5%. Meanwhile, Trammell remains on the ballot, and after 7 years of voting, his totals appear to be rising. I have a hard time thinking that’s only because Tram played short and Lou was at 2nd.
For the record, I called no one a bigot. I was responding to being called “progressive” for showing empathy for someone who has suffered at the hands of bigotry, and I wrote that there is nothing particularly progressive about that, nothing more.
Thinking more about it, I would think the best examples I can come up with are those players that have dealt with addictions during their careers. Addictions are a funny thing: the liberal among us will want to label it a disease, and forgive the victim of any responsibility. Obviously, there will be many that will disagree.
Yet I know of no one who is not rooting for Josh Hamilton. Strawberry and Gooden certainly had their supporters. Even Steve Howe seemed to have more people for him than against him, all the way to the end.
And even if people were to root against these guys, it would be for at least an arguable reason. I just can’t think of a single person that was dealt with any significant abuse for no good reason at all.
This would be a great FireJoeMorgan.com piece. I love it.
I didn’t read all of this. But, Mike Lowell was just thrown out trying to steal 2nd in the top of the 9th against the Rays when trailing by 1 run. Can someone explain this to me?
Varitek at the plate, Lowell (1 SB on the year) on first and they try to steal to get in scoring position? If you’re going to run, you have to pinch run. If not, hold tight and look for a freaking gapper or bomb. Jesus H. Christ, looks like Francona’s just giving up.
Jeremy G:
“If people continue to use Wins as a HOF credential, then they should start using Wins for position players, too.”
They used to do exactly that for Pete Rose, back before he… well, you know. I must have heard “Rose played in more winning games than any other player” 25 times.
———
JUSTYO:
“Post Season Records
Randy – 7-9 / 3.50 / 121 innings / 106 hits / 132 K’s
Pedro – 6-2 / 3.40 / 79.1 / 63 / 80k’s
Curt – 11-2 / 2.23 / 133.1/ 104 / 120k’s.
Who would you start a game 7?”
That’s easy. John Smoltz.
This comment has basically nothing to do with this post or the millions of comments. It’s more a question as a result of the poll.
Why does Hank Aaron not get more love from fans?
He was an incredible hitter. Not just a power hitter. The guy is third on the all-time hits list. His name is up there on almost every statistical measure of hitting.
He put up with more racial pressure than any player except Jackie Robinson as he took down a beloved record. And unlike Barry… people actually rooted for him.
I love Ted Williams’ swing, his mystique, even his persona in the media. I get that he sacrificed prime years to the millitary and that he was one of the greatest pure hitters ever. But how does he exceed Hank Aaron by so much in people’s minds?
I take Hank Aaron immediately after Ruth and Mays. I just wish The Hammer got more pub.
Mikey, I’m not saying his courage is undervalued. I just think it’s incorrect to give some players credit for factors out of their control, and not others.
The fact is, Eddie Gaedel aside, there hasn’t ever been a player in the majors under 5 feet tall, right? In fact, in recent memory, I haven’t seen a single player under 5′6″ or so (and if there was, presumably with the amount of press that Eckstein gets, I’m sure we’d hear of him). So no matter how you look at it, the fact is that someone was able to be a successful ballplayer with Jackie’s adversity (and most of us believe if it wasn’t him, it would be have been someone else, at a later time). But no one, EVER, was able to overcome the adversity of being too small. And there’s only been one Jim Abbott. And no one (yet) has been able to overcome Rocco’s illness.
My point is, physical limitations can be a greater handicap than mental or emotional limitations. This is difficult to say, it’s not PC, and it apparently leads to people calling me a bigot, but it’s true. And we have absolutely no idea where Mattingly’s back falls on the physical spectrum of handicaps. But what we know perfectly is what Jackie DID, and what Mattingly DID, so in my opinion if we want to make a valid comparison, let’s stop guessing and just stick to the numbers.
“When I visited Cooperstown (admittedly several years back), there was an exhibit that discussed Morris’ 10-inning masterpiece with the Twins. That one game shouldn’t also get a plaque in the Hall.”
Or maybe it could be exhibited alongside the bloody sock.
Some mention was made regarding what Bill Russell went through during his early years in Boston. I’m sure it was difficult, but it wasn’t much compared with what Neil Johnston went through dealing with Russell. Now that was tribulation.
Wade, Lowell getting thrown out at second base was a hit and run the entire way. Francona does that with Varitek when he’s slumping – in fact, he did it on the pitch before Lowell was gunned down.
[...] Yeah … Schilling For instance, the other day I noticed that brilliant reader Aaron wrote a … the most intense pressures imaginable … well, yeah, it’s fair to [...]
Mike, I think the whole point is that with Jackie Robinson, numbers don’t tell the whole story. His numbers were great, HOF worthy, but when you take in the whole picture his career is that much more impressive.
We’re not guessing that Jackie Robinson had a more difficult life in baseball than Don Mattingly, Josh Beckett or Rocco Baldelli. It’s not guesswork. Jackie Robinson DID have it much, much, much more difficult than any of these guys.
I don’t necessarily think you’re a bigot, just ignorant.
Rick Hummel of the St. Louis Post Dispatch couldn’t readily say that there was a shitload of “more deserving candidates”, nor could he say that there was a shitpot full of “more deserving candidates”, but he could combine the two into a potload of “more deserving candidates”. It’s much more fitting for a newspaper.
Mikey, I did not call you a bigot. You wrote “empathy,” and I rephrased it as “ashamed of bigotry.” I meant them to be synonymous, meaning I meant to call you the same thing you called yourself.
Your argument has evolved to the point that I have nothing to disagree with anymore. I have no idea how Robinson’s situation affected his play. As he was such a great player and handled everything with such dignity, I would guess probably not at all. Feel free to leave out the circumstances when evaluating him against other players.
I found many of the metaphors and words you used in reaching this point perplexing, but in the end I agree with the point.
Robinson was #2 on my list. I feel he was likely every bit the player he could be, that he used all of his talent, and in doing so, thus one of maybe the top 30 or so players in the game. I bump him all the way to #2, because he so easily could have been–really should have been–a colossal failure.
Drew… the irony here is that you’re calling someone ignorant while professing your opinion to be complete and undebatable fact.
No one’s numbers tell the whole story. That’s why this blog’s owner gets paid to do what he does, right?
Compare Eddie Gaedel’s baseball reference page with Jackie Robinson’s, and tell me which one of them had factors out of their control that made it harder for them to succeed in the majors.
These metaphors do not hold water. Gaedel got out of his talent way more than what he was capable of. Gaedel’s only reason for having a baseball-reference page is the reason you claim prevented him from being a major leaguer. You’ve gotten it completely backwards.
Mike, I’m sorry you don’t understand that being black in the 1940’s was tougher than having blisters in the 00’s. I guess you can call that an opinion.
Another opinion of mine is that getting hit in the face by a baseball would hurt more than being hit in the face by a cotton ball.
You can argue against either one if you want.
We weren’t talking about Eddie Gaedel, you brought up the hardships faced by Don Mattingly, Rocco Baldelli, Josh Beckett and Jim Abbott and said none of us could say whether what they faced was more or less difficult than what Jackie Robinson faced. If you don’t see the difference I guess there’s nothing more to say.
Players who overcome physical factors outside their control do get credit for overcoming adversity. They don’t generally get as much credit as Robinson does, but I think that’s appropriate.
Robinson deserves extra credit because his success or failure had implications far beyond his own career. If Jim Abbott had never pitched in the big leagues, or was a complete failure at the major league level, his failure would not have set back the progress of disabled people generally.
If Abbott had gone into the stands and taken a punch at a heckler, it wouldn’t have been taken as evidence that disabled people are violent and dangerous. If anything, if Abbott had gone after a heckler ten other guys probably would have jumped in to help Abbott beat the sh*t out of the guy.
I don’t think it diminishes the accomplishment of people who have overcome physical challenges to say that Robinson’s circumstances were profoundly different. Obviously you don’t agree but the results of Joe’s poll suggest that a lot of pretty smart baseball fans see it that way.
pitchers going into the hall is such a great topic…
i think Schilling should go if ONLY for the post season numbers. those are glittering!
to say he took a back seat to johnson and pedro, thats like saying george was behind john and paul! just because he was the #2 guy behind a better hall of famer doesn’t mean he isn’t a hall of famer, too!
does Glavin go?
Halliday?
Petit?
Matt… we are on such different wavelengths, it’s comical. If a guy got way more than he should have, and “way more” is a grand total of 1 PA, wouldn’t you say that what he dealt with was more detrimental to his career than what Jackie dealt with? I’d love to cite little Joey Smith out in Anywhere, USA, who never made it due to his size, his eyes, his injuries, his alcoholic father, or whatever, but I don’t know any examples of those guys because… they never made it! I won’t take up any more space on this site in this topic because it’s counterproductive and not our site, but it’s been fun chatting with you guys. See you in the comments of another post
OK, bye bye.
Anyone else want to compare midgets to Jackie Robinson?
I just…I…WHAT?? Kobe Bryant is as good as Michael Jordan??
Eddie Gaedel’s career. Eddie Gaedel overcame adversity. More adversity than Jackie Robinson. Eddie Gaedel overcame more in his career than Jackie Robinson.
That’s what he wrote, right?
I’m guessing Mikey’s a lawyer. Maybe someday, all judges will ban together, and decide that wherever Mikey studied law is to be discriminated against. And Mikey will start losing cases. All his cases, for no good reason.
Then I can tell Mikey that he doesn’t have any problems–I couldn’t even get into law school! Imagine trying to win a case that way!
Glavine definitely, Pettitte possibly, and Halladay is way too early to be discussed (he’s only 31, and 120-61), although I’m wondering who the heck Halladay is behind, unless you’re predicting great things for Dustin McGowan or Jesse Litsch.
The better comp for Schilling than Jack Morris is probably David Cone. Using the categories Joe picked above:
Career ERA: Schilling 3.46, Cone 3.46
Career ERA+: Schilling 127, Cone 120.
Strikeouts: Schilling 3,116, Cone 2,688 .
Walks: Schilling 711, Cone 1,137.
WHIP: Schilling 1.137, Cone 1.256.
Winning percentage: Schilling .597, Cone .606.
Schilling beats Cone out in 2 major categories: He pitched 3 more seasons, and he walked a lot fewer hitters. Both of these are certainly important. Note that Cone averaged 208K per 162 games, and Schill averaged 210, so the strikeout differential is almost entirely attributable to the longevity point made above.
And as far as the postseason goes, if we want to talk about that clutch (read: small sample size) stuff, Cone was 12-3 with a 3.80 ERA in the postseason, including 5-0 with a 2.12 in the world series, compared to Schilling’s 10-2, 2.23 (3-1, 2.06 in the series)
Schilling’s got the better career than Coney, but I think the difference is relatively small, certainly much smaller than the difference between Schilling and Morris.
And as was mentioned above, Kevin Brown’s not an awful comp either. Though I think Cone is better.
Hulk Hogan is the greatest athelete of this or any generation… Joe please write a piece on the Hulkster and Hulkamania…
“there have got to be some players out there only making a ML roster due to their fielding skills,”
Omar Vizquel
Adam Everett
Jason Bartlett
Brad Ausmus
Nick Punto
That’s just off the top of my head in ~ 2 seconds. And I have a really hard time imagining that these guys save as many runs with their glove than they give up with their bat.
“When you see stuff like this, it’s tough to resist the urge to attribute skin colour to it.”
I think there are very very very few writers in the BBWAA that are racist, to the extent that it would affect their vote.
I also think that there are very very few writers in the BBWAA that actually have a brain and the ability to look up a statistic.
The latter is far more responsible for crazy HoF entries and rejections than the former.
“Why does Hank Aaron not get more love from fans?”
He’s fourth on the list, behind
1) The best player ever
2) The best hitter ever
3) The guy whom everybody who doesn’t think player 1 is the best player ever, say is the best player ever.
How much more love does he need to get?
“But how does he (Williams) exceed Hank Aaron by so much in people’s minds?”
At age 23, Ted Williams posted a 16.4 WARP. When he came back at age 27, he posted a 16.2 WARP. It’s probably fair to say that at age 24, 25 and 26, he’d have posted a 16 WARP. So if he hadn’t missed those three years to the war, he’d have finished with a WARP of 215, which is 10 fewer than Aaron. I don’t think there was much difference between the two players overall. The fact that Williams was the last to bat .400 probably adds quite a few “Mystique” points.
He also played for the Red Sox. Which probably adds a ton of votes, since everyone currently seems to just luurrve the Red Sox.
“I take Hank Aaron immediately after Ruth and Mays”
So your “lack of love” basically boils down to you voting Hank Aaron third, and him being fourth on the poll? Isn’t that a bit of a silly argument?
Jon… a little late here, and the discussion has apparently moved on to who did or didn’t call someone a bigot. But Jackie’s positional versatility was a huge asset to the Dodgers, not something that should bring him closer to Mattingly. Jackie played first when he came up, because second was taken; he moved to second a couple years later, making room for Gil Hodges, then moved to left and third to make room for Jim Gilliam. Because he could play so many positions well, the Dodgers were able to work less-versatile but still-talented players into the lineup alongside him. Mattingly (and most people) don’t offer their teams that option.
Another historical example is Pete Rose moving to third, allowing George Foster and Ken Griffey Sr. to both play regularly over an inferior player (Denis Menke? Someone like that). But that gets into Joe’s territory…
Jack Morris was “the man” in Detroit, he led the Jays in wins, starts, and innings (although Guzman was clearly the best starter that year with a lot fewer innings pitched) and he led the Twins in starts and innings. Being the inning eater for a WS champ does tend to help ones reputation, and none of the better starting pitchers on any of those three teams has any HOF credentials at all. Morris was a major part (two or three World Series starts) for three different teams that won the World Series, and that’s fairly rare. In no way am I convinced that he belongs in the HOF, but he’s not extremely far from it. However, I’d rank him behind all the other names listed recently, especially because Morris unfairly gets called a great clutch pitcher. Since so much of Morris’s HOF credibility is post season excellence, here are the numbers:
Morris (Games Starts ERA WL Saves CG IP H W K WHIP)
13 13 3.80 7-4 0 5 92.1 83 32 64 1.25
Blyleven
8 6 2.47 5-1 0 1 47.1 43 8 36 1.08
Schilling
19 19 2.23 11-2 0 4 133.1 104 25 120 0.97
Smoltz
40 27 2.65 15-4 4 2 207 168 67 194 1.14
John
14 13 2.65 6-3 0 3 88.1 82 24 48 1.20
Based on those numbers, including W/L%, ERA, and WHIP, Schilling is the pitcher I’d pick to win game seven if I’d bet my house on the outcome. Blyleven would be second, Smoltz third (all three would be excellent) and Morris would be the guy I’d hope the other team would start. It’s also worth noting that Blyleven’s team won every post season series in which he got a start, Schilling’s team’s records were also an excellent 10-2, and Smoltz’s teams were only 12-12 in postseason series (Morris’s teams were 6-1, but Morris himself just isn’t that good, either in record, ERA, or WHIP). John is a different type of pitcher (see: Bill James and the Tommy John type of pitcher) but his ERA says that he’s not far off from the others even if his W/L and WHIP aren’t quite as good as the big three. Plus Schilling, Blyleven, Smoltz, and John all had substantially better post season ERAs than career ERAs (improving by 1.23, 0.84, 0.81, and 0.69 ERA in the post season; Morris’s post season ERA bettered his career ERA by only 0.28) even though one would expect playoff teams to have better offenses.
So *if* post season quality is one of the tie breakers for HOF qualifications (as opposed to post season quantity) then Schilling definitely gets that nod; he is arguably the best post season pitcher of all time. Blyleven, Smoltz, and John all cranked their game up a notch in the playoffs. Morris pitched about the same as always, and if you remove that one shutout which made his undeserved reputation, pitched worse. If you removed their best playoff game from the other four, they still pitched better in the postseason than in the regular season. Morris’s postseason ERA is more than a run higher than anybody else’s on this list, his WHIP is the worst, his W/L% is the worst; how much more evidence do you need? I cannot give Morris any post season credibility for his HOF membership, and anyone who does chooses to forget all those mediocre games Morris pitched and just remember the only really good one.
Finally, some flame retardant. John Smoltz was a *superb* post season pitcher. But his W/L numbers have to be helped somewhat by being the #2 or even #3 starter for the Braves most of the time, and with that advantage he was still behind both Blyleven and Schilling in WL%, ERA, and WHIP. It’s fairly unusual to have so many stats all line up the same way when doing pitcher comparisons, but unless you are going to hold it against Blyleven for being on bad teams most of his career you have to discount the counting numbers. Both Blyleven and especially Tommy John started their careers well in advance of the Messersmith free agency decision. Smoltz didn’t leave the Braves (why would he?) but had that option almost all his career, and Schilling too often had choices about which good team to join. If you think Smoltz is on the fence for the HOF, then I would say that his postseason production pushes him over, and in a good way. I just think Schilling and Blyleven get pushed a little farther.
I read something here a few days ago that crystallized my reservations about this whole numbers/HOF approach. The words used were “larger than life” and “transcendant”.
The HOF should be reserved for the Legends of the Game. And you are legendary when you are “larger than life”, when you are “transcendant.” It’s the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Numbers. If Reggie Jackson gets 50 fewer HRs, doesn’t he still get in? He was Reggie Freakin’ Jackson. He was a legend, people told stories about the things he did. he got a candy bar named after him (and it may have been a AAA Baby Ruth, but I liked ‘em). For me, it was seeing Frank Robinson hit grand slams in his first two ABs (OK, it WAS vs. the Senators) and doubling in his third at bat for 10 RBI in a game. Or seeing him dive into the RF stands in Yankee Stadium with two out and the winning run at the plate to save the game for the Orioles in 1966 (all you could see was his legs, then he raised his glove with the ball in it).
By that standard, the Reggies, the WIllies, the Mickeys, the Franks and the Brookses, the Cals, they go in. Yeah, there’s a certain level you needed to play at for a certain period. But just like it took a Joe DiMaggio to hit in 56 straight games, if you were larger than life, if you transcended the game, you’ve already got that.
So for me, Schilling is an HOFer, and I don’t think it’s close. He was among the best, and he did legendary stuff like the bloody sock game and beating the Yankees in AZ. He led the Sawx to their first WC since before the Russian Revolution.
And I remember Jack Morris’ 91 WS G7 vs ATL. He was AWESOME. I’m not a fan, but that game made me an admirer. He would not lose that game, period. If I had a vote, he’d get it.*
Blyleven would not. No moments I’d tell my imaginary grandkids about. If he was HOF quality, he would have. Same for Mattingly. Jackie integrated baseball. He took all kinds of abuse, and he had the discipline to restrain his pugnacious, combative character. Yeah, someone had to do it. That someone goes in. he’s the someone.
*Another example, for me, is when Randy Johnson came in in relief vs. the Yankees in 1994. “Entering a 4-4 game in the ninth inning, Johnson pitched the 9th, 10th, and 11th innings. He allowed 1 run, struck out 6, and held on for the series-ending win in Seattle’s dramatic comeback.” Yeah, Unit won all kinds of wards and led the league in various categories; THAT was a performance people will talk about forever.
to consider the absurdity of the Jackie Robinson/Don Mattingly comparison in questioning why Mattingly is not in the HOF, why don’t we compare Donnie Baseball to Kent Hrbek, an ACTUAL peer, positionally and era-wise.
.282/367/481/128 Hrby
.307/358/471/127 Mattingly
and, uh, Hrbek starred on two WS winners….
I’m a Twins fan, but even I don’t hear anyone clamoring for Hrbek’s inclusion in the Hall. Let the Mattingly thing go, people.
Creston-
Thank you for pointing that out. I should have made clear that they (the three) are only inches apart in my mind. It’s not an easy 1-2-3.
I was looking more at percentages on the poll. Ted Williams was on 60% of “ballots” while Aaron was only on 45%. Again, I never pointed that out, but that was what I was basing my comment on. It’s just a general observation on what seems to be the mindset of many people when they talk about the greatest players ever. Babe Ruth was the best, Willie Mays was the best all around, Ted Williams saw the ball better than anyone… and oh yeah… Hank Aaron. He was pretty good, too.
I was more commenting on those kind of thoughts than I was any poll placement or anything. Although I think the percentages are somewhat telling.
I’ve found this discussion about whether Jackie Robinson was better than Don Mattinlgly rather enlightening. I look forward to future installments, such as “Was Willie Mays better than Thurman Munson?” and “Was Honus Wagner better than Paul O’Neill?”
Holy Mackeral! The last pope just revived himself so that he could be the first to comment on this post!
Some HOF arguments sound like people insisting that their high school band was actually really good or that “There ain’t no better chile in the world than my grandma’s slaptooth-8-ingredient-plus-one-don’t-hold-the-hot-stuff chile.”
At least my wife is classier than Jackie’s.
Wow- Joe! You started this blog to sell a book (one that I purchased and am 1/4th into and am loving, but I am WAY distracted about the thought of a Big Red Machine book, no offense) But I have to say that for me, especially with this thread, your readers just may have jumped the shark. The fact that Don Mattingly is regarded in ANY Hall of Fame discussion when compared to jackie Robinson OR Kirby Puckett is patently laughable. I owned a sportscard shop through the ENTIRE Mattingly era, he was as I told my customers–the poster child of the LEAST successful era in Yankees history. They need to just deal with that, but they can’t—”because Donnie Baseball is the Man!” UGH
Mo vaughn has an MVP too, and never won a ring–no one would ever compare the two of them, but in my mind as a guy who was a kid back in the early 70’s and watched all the way back through that time–Keith Hernandez and Steve Garvey BOTH should be in the HALL before Mattingly–and if you don’t agree with that, you’re a Yanks dork or a moron—go check the overall stats, if Garvey and Hernandez have no place in the Hall—no way does Mattingly
@ Eric J
Excellent point on Jackie’s versatility being an asset for the Dodgers. I think it should also be noted that Robinson was frequently the cleanup hitter for the Dodgers in those championship years — granted, lineups weren’t as predictably “typecast” in those days as they are now (that is, Robinson would be a classic leadoff or No. 2 hitter today, but the No. 4 spot was often reserved then for a team’s most reliable hitter rather than just powerful sluggers, although that can, in many cases, be one and the same.)
Personally, I’m not sure that Robinson’s playing abilities, nor his courage, can ever be underestimated. But I’ll be damned if some of you aren’t trying like hell to accomplish it anyway.
You know, I’m not so sure that ‘If Jackie didn’t do it someone would have’ argument really works.
Yeh, someone would have broken that barrier eventually, though we don’t know when and perhaps less influentially, but that doesn’t change the difficulty Jackie had to face in breaking that barrier. It doesn’t make him any less courageous or admirable just because, you know, someone else would have done the same thing.
Jackie is impressive and important because he DID do that, logical derivatives don’t affect what Jackie did.
But here’s the thing WRT Jackie Robinson: he is most famous for keeping his cool during a time of great undeserved stress. As a baseball player, he’s not particularly close to deserving HOF entry. He had some excellent years, but unlike Sandy Koufax (a similar player in terms of career length, one who also got some flak for his religion, and one whose HOF credentials are based on his quality, not his quantity) Robinson’s quality wasn’t high enough to put him into the HOF. He was not the best player in baseball (I’d pick Musial), he was arguably not the best player or even the best black player on his team (depending on season, Campanella, Snider, and maybe even Reese would have to be) and he set no records of any importance (he may have set a record for steals of home, but that’s not exactly relevant to winning games). He was an excellent player for a few years. But on the field playing baseball he did not build a HOF resume unless simply playing well enough to stay on the field counts.
What he *did* on the not baseball side of things would have been enough to put him into the HOF if he had been a weaker player. I’m not arguing against his inclusion into the HOF. But, as I fairly clearly pointed out in my analysis of HOF credentials based on postseason performance for Schilling, Blyleven, Smoltz, John, and Morris above, some players take their games up a notch when it’s really important. Robinson may have played as well as he did *because* he was first. I recall a biography (might have been Branch Rickey’s) I read a long time ago that said that Campanella was the better minor league player, but Robinson was older, had a college degree, had been an officer in WWII and faced a bigotry related court martial (and been found not guilty), and thus had the maturity to handle being first, whereas it wasn’t certain that Campy would be able to handle the pressure.
I would pick Robinson first amongst all ballplayers for a statue, or to have his number retired by all teams (as it has been). But the social relevance of his barrier breaking does not make him a great baseball player. Mays and Aaron were clearly better, and I think Campanella and Gibson and Paige and Frank Robinson and maybe Eddie Murray and (depending on how you feel about pharmaceuticals) Bonds, and perhaps Bob Gibson as well. And there are probably other great black ballplayers who I’m just forgetting. I’d like my HOF to be about baseball; I see too many social relevance arguments in the newspapers. And as a baseball player Jackie Robinson wasn’t that great. Sure, he’s listed as fourth best all time by Bill James, but if I recall correctly that book came out a while ago. Was Biggio even a second baseman then? Is Sandberg considered? Grich? Whitaker (the opposite type of Robinson; excellence in quantity but not greatness in quality)? What about Utley? We *are* talking about a player who had just over 700 games as a second baseman.
Robinson is somewhere between the 100th and 200th best baseball player of all time, in my opinion, on the field. And somebody can cite Robinson’s fame as why he’s in this HOF, and Jack Morris’s one stellar game as being worthy of fame, but Morris is the same guy who also, in the 1992 World Series pitched 10.2 innings with an 8.44 ERA, allowing 13 hits, six walks, and 10 earned runs, and lost both his starts; in the 1992 ALCS series pitched 12.1 innings with a 6.57 ERA, losing one game and winning none, allowing 11 hits, 9 walks, 9 earned runs; in the 1991 ALCS pitched 13.1 innings with an ERA of 4.05, allowing 17 hits and one walk and 6 earned runs; and in the 1987 ALCS pitched one game, lost it (to Bert Blyleven) throwing 8 innings, allowing 6 hits, 6 earned runs, and three walks. He had three good postseason series (ERA of 2 or less), one average post season series (ERA of 4.05), and three bad post season series (ERA of 6.57 or worse). You cannot ignore the *bad* and the *mediocre* just because you only *want* *to* *remember* the good. The same applies to Jackie Robinson (only he has little bad and a lot less mediocre). He had four years that clearly establish a peak level worthy of HOF consideration, and four above average years that add solidity to his career but don’t scream HOF worthiness (if you want to make it 6 HOF worthy years and 2 years which were solid, fine; for a ballplayer who has so much of his value in batting average, I’m drawing a line at batting .300) and two years where he was no longer an effective second baseman (mostly played third) and a mildly valuable major leaguer, and then he was gone. His four best seasons were not incredible; OPS+ (which is supposedly normalized, no?) peaked at 154. Of Robinson’s ten most similar players, only two are in the HOF (Mickey Cochrane and Freddie Lindstrom) and they don’t leap out as being the best in the HOF either). I’ll give you all the specious arguments: he’d have been better if he didn’t have to face all that hatred (an assumption, but I’ll conceded it’s probable); he’d have done more if baseball had already been integrated so he could have come up sooner (he could only have had at most two more years; he was in the military the three years before that, and fighting in WWII didn’t stop Ted Williams from having *clearly* a better career); and the big one, his social relevance far outshines what he did as a ballplayer.
I’m not arguing against that point. But I want the baseball HOF to be Baseball first and non-baseball fame last. There’s a place in my baseball HOF for Jackie Robinson. It’s just not in my top 25.
Reuben, Randy Johnson’s post season ERA is 3.50, better than Morris’s, but worse than his regular season ERA of 3.27. One relief appearance does not make up for a whole lot of mediocrity. I think Johnson deserves his HOF entry without post season consideration; second all time in strikeouts, five Cy Young awards, four times best ERA, and so forth. But if I had to push Randy off the fence into or out of the HOF based on what he did in the playoffs, I’m not sure I push him in.
*You* remember Morris’s big win against Atlanta. I remember it too. I *also* remember Morris being outpitched by Blyleven in game 2 of the 1987 ALCS, and making such an impression that Morris didn’t get another start in that series. Blyleven *also* won game five, the clincher.
Why am I so offended by selectors who value what they remember? Because it’s unfair to Ty Cobb and Cy Young and Lou Gehrig and Eddie Collins and Honus Wagner, the guys that they never saw. It’s particularly unfair to Babe Dahlen, who may be the best shortstop of all time but was overshadowed by Honus Wagner and thus never made it into the HOF. Basing ones choices on ones own experiences means that all the little things that also matter but were below ones awareness (like Blyleven getting two wins in 1987 and outpitching Morris head to head) leave the sense that Morris was a more effective playoff pitcher, even though the records clearly say otherwise. On *one* day Morris was an extremely effective playoff pitcher, throwing a shutout. It wasn’t Don Larsen, but it was still a World Series shutout. In 1984 Morris was also effective on three days; no shutouts, but three wins, two complete games. But in several other play games Morris hurt his team, or didn’t help them very much. His regular season ERA was 3.90, his postseason ERA was 3.80. Not a whole lot of elevating his game going on, even though you have completely blotted (or never noticed) the bad games. But how could you (say) compare Reggie Jackson (who you remember for his great three homer day) with better but less famous players like Jimmie Foxx or Frank Robinson or Mel Ott or Hank Greenberg or Cap Anson (third all time in RBI, 27 seasons with a career OPS+ of 141, first player to 2,000 RBI)? If you cannot rise above the fact that on this day you were able to watch the World Series but missed that day when Morris or Jackson sucked, then how can you profess any objectivity?
This is one of the problems of history (my degree) and not just baseball history. How does one reconcile multiple conflicting sources, especially in resolving wartime issues? The answer: read everything, not just stuff written by the winners. One day in October Morris was a winner; read about all the other days in October. One day in October Jackson hit three homers; read about the October day when had three whiffs as well. I’m not ragging on Reggie; he well deserves his spot in the HOF without having to look at the postseason. But overall in the playoffs he has an OPS of .885, not a lot higher than his regular season .846. He improved, but take away that one postseason game (out of 76 others) and he doesn’t improve in the playoffs from the regular season. So don’t give him more credit for one day than it deserves. Otherwise we have to put Mike Witt in the HOF for his one day (a perfect game) and Bob Horner (four homers in a game) and, well, it’s just not right. HOF should be about a career, not about a day.
This Don Mattingly/gg argument needs to stop. Yes he continued to win GG’s after he lost his power. But the phrase “you get gold gloves from hitting” is inaccurate in what it means is a ball player’s glove gets noticed by being a good hitter. Once a player is recognized as a good hitter, subsequently as a good fielder, HE DOES NOT NEED TO KEEP HITTING IN ORDER TO WIN FIELDING AWARDS.
Half (or more of) the battle is name recognition.
Richard, James ranked Jackie as the #4 2B ever in 2000. So, yes, Sandberg and Grich were considered, and ranked lower. Biggio was considered, and ranked 5th (which James later edited to move Lajoie ahead of him). In case you don’t believe James, the Hall of Merit just finished ranking their inducted second basemen, and rated Jackie as the #6 player at the position, just behind Charlie Gehringer. (For comparison, Campanella came in 10th at catcher). I don’t think anyone is arguing that Jackie is one of the 5 best players ever, or that he’s better than Mays or Aaron or Gibson or Robinson or Bonds. On the other hand, if you rank him between 100 and 200 (which is too low), he should still be in the Hall of Fame, which has something like 230 members, on the strength of his playing record alone.
Richard Aronson:
“Finally, some flame retardant. John Smoltz was a *superb* post season pitcher. But his W/L numbers have to be helped somewhat by being the #2 or even #3 starter for the Braves most of the time…”
However, when you consider Smoltz’s 9-inning shutout no decision in Game Seven, or that two of Smoltz’s postseason losses came in games where he didn’t allow an earned run, a case could be made that he’s a hard luck 15-4.
One minor Jackie Robinson note: Billy Martin liked to brag that he outplayed Robinson in all five of the Dodger-Yankee World Series. And when you check out the stat lines, Billy Martin was right.
“That would mean that for Schilling to MATCH Jack Morris’ career totals, he would have to go 38-40 with a 6.46 ERA. ”
Brilliant.
So, I lied. I will comment one more time. Joe – I think you miscalculated the “what Schilling would need to equal Morris”. It looks like you just straight up used their ERAs, but remember… Morris’ league average was 4.08. Schilling’s was 4.41. So if you want them to have the same ERA+, you’d need Schilling to get down to Morris’ 1.05. It would take Schilling 563 innings to equal Morris’ total, and it would take 532 ER (assuming the league stays the same) to get Schilling’s ERA+ down to 105.
In other words, Schilling would need to put up about three seasons in a row at an 8.48 ERA to match Morris.
But no one would keep a guy putting up those ERAs, right? So let’s assume Schill decayed to the point where he could put up 5.00 ERAs each year – in other words, a 4th or 5th starter – for 180 IP a year.
If Curt put up 5.00 ERAs until he was 64 years old (a mere 23.5 more seasons), he would then have an ERA+ equal to Morris.
In the years 1949-1954, Jackie Robinson was known to EVERYBODY as the second best player in the National League, behind Musial. Campanella had some super years, Mays and Snider were great, Kiner hit more homers than anybody, but for that six-year period, taking all aspects of the game into account, it’s Musial and Robinson. There is no way that he would have been kept out of the HOF, even if somebody else had been “The First.”
As for his fielding, Bill James did an analysis of this in the last Historical Abstract which found Robby among the top three defensive 2Bs ever, and he outhit the other two by a country mile. (He also found Robinson’s fielding numbers at 3B, which he played after Junior Gilliam came up in 1953, to be off the charts.)
And just so you can see what Joe means when he talks about Robinson’s OBP, consider this: of players who played their entire careers after WWII, ONLY Robinson hit over .300 with an OBP over .400 until Wade Boggs (and then Edgar Martinez) did it. That’s a fifty-year period. Aaron, Mantle, Mays, Frank Robinson — all those no-doubt first ballot names lacked that combination of skill and plate discipline. And his power numbers show he wasn’t a singles hitter, either.
So here we have a ballplayer who a) played a key defensive position about as well as it has ever been played, and b) was one of the two best players in the league at his peak, and c) posted offensive numbers which need not apologize to ANYBODY’S over the last fifty years. All of this puts him in the HOF without any question, even without his heroism.
I’m not a big Schilling fan but I have hard time thinking him as a second fiddle to anyone (including Johnson and Martinez). When he was on the same team as both those guys he was the face of the franchise though Johnson was a little better. For the D’Backs, Schilling was the guy who pitched three games against the Yankees in 2001 (two on three days rest) and of course in 2004 he was the ace of the Red Sox (and I am leaving out what he did for the Phils). He is definitely one of the greatest pitchers of all-time and did the same things as Morris did as a player (at the expense of his own health). The one thing that I can say about Morris is that when he was on the Tigers his team expected him to go 9 innings and I suspect that his career may have been better if he was taken care of better. There are no pitchers like that anymore and I think he was the last of the old breed of starting pitcher. Unfortunately for pitchers they can’t always control the environment that they work in. There hundreds of pitchers that may have had better careers under better circumstances.
Back to the subject of this post… Schilling’s HoF candidacy. Even as a die hard Red Sox fan, I was on the fence about his chances/worthiness. And then I stumbled across the following comparison:
Schilling: 216-146 (.597 Win%), 3261 IP, 3116 K’s, 127 ERA+, 1.14 WHIP
Pitcher X: 251-174 (.591 Win%), 3884 IP, 3117 K’s, 127 ERA+, 1.19 WHIP
As for postseason numbers, Pitcher X has an edge in ERA (1.89 v. 2.23), but compiled it over 50 less innings in a very pitcher friendly era. Once you adjust for the era, their ERAs are about equal, which would give the edge to Schilling for the 50 extra IP and having one more WS title.
While I would say Pitcher X has a slight edge overall from his additional 600 IP with equal ERA+, Schilling’s postseason advantage and superior K rate certainly make it a close comparison.
Considering that Bob Gibson (the mysterious Pitcher X) was a sure thing, first ballot type HoFer, Schilling certainly has a legitimate argument for the Hall of Fame.
Kansas funriture assembly…
[...] 3-person sofa provides relaxing, deep-seated comfort, and it coordinates with the Strathwood Falkner Lounge outdoor furniture collection. Ideal for use in outdoor furniture, cast aluminum is heavier and sturdier than standard aluminum [...]…
Just to make it clear, I never argued against Robinson being in the Hall of Fame. From the fielding stats I could find (at baseball-reference.com) Robinson does not seem like that great a fielder; above average, yes, but easily pushed off second base by another fielder who wasn’t outstanding. Robinson only played 748 games at second base, so I’m having a hard time picking him as one of the five best second sackers of all time. If Robinson was white, I think there is an argument that he doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame. But he’s not white; he did break the color barrier, and did so astonishingly well, so well that there was no justification against that barrier being shattered for all time in baseball. His stats would have to be a lot worse before I would argue that he doesn’t belong in the HOF. I *was* arguing against him being such a high vote getter in the polls here. Even if (as Norman Shatkin states) Robinson was the first guy who played only post WWII to bat over .300 and have an OBP over .400 until Boggs came along (never mind that OBP isn’t everything, and that WWII started in 1939 for most of the rest of the world so Ted Williams breaks that carefully constrained set of rules), it still doesn’t mean that Robinson is that good as a baseball player to deserve being ranked ahead of several black players I mentioned. I mean, Robinson or Aaron? Clearly Aaron. Clearly Mays. Clearly Bonds. Frank Robinson. Junior Griffey. Rickey Henderson. I think clearly Campanella: three MVPs versus one, on the same team. And I’m avoiding arguables like Ozzie and Winfield and Bob Gibson, and Latinos who still might have had trouble making it into the majors without Robinson, guys like ARod and Pedro off the top of my head. I’d pick Joe Morgan as a better player, based on the defensive numbers I can see: .002 weaker as a second baseman in FP compared to his league’s average, but .010 in RFg. And we’re talking 2527 games as a second baseman versus 748 (and almost twice as many games in his career).
We *have* to trust our best statistical tools if we’re going to compare players between times, and that leads us to OPS+. Jackie Robinson is tied for 127th all time in OPS+ and only played 748 games at second base; he can hardly have had the impact of a full career of *any* of the major defensive middle infielders. So move him up 30 places in OPS+ for insanely good defense (even if I can find no justification for it) and speed (which is easier to justify). That puts him at 97th best all time offensively. Are there going to be *any* pitchers in your list of best baseball players of all time? I think most folks would agree that pitchers deserve roughly 40% of the roster spots. So put in 38 pitchers and Robinson’s around the 135th best ball player of all time. And as I argued elsewhere, I’m willing to say that breaking the color barrier is worth a *lot* of jumps. A hundred, perhaps. That still leaves Jackie Robinson deserving of being around 35th in our poll of best players of all time.
So why is Robinson so high in Joe’s poll? I argue guilt. I argue that Robinson gets all the votes that should have gone to every Negro league player that we think deserved a shot at Cooperstown because of their MLB stats, but were denied a place on an MLB roster. And Ty Cobb, who has the best batting average of all time by a wide margin, doesn’t get votes because he was a bastard (although, as I pointed out, not a racist, just an all purpose ornery unpleasant guy). And Rogers Hornsby, the second best batting average of all time, twice as many games at second base as Jackie Robinson, OPS+ of 175 (42 points better), career BA of .358 (47 points higher), career OBP of .434 (25 points higher), career slugging percentage over 100 points higher than Robinson, who *has* to be anybody’s pick for the best offensive second baseman of all time, wasn’t even an option in this poll. Hornsby set the all time season record for batting average of .424 and was the best right handed hitter of all time barring ARod finding Bonds’ fountain of youth. And oh yeah, Jackie’s career high in homers was 19. Hornsby twice led the league in homers and 19 would have been Hornsby’s 8th best season.
So if Robinson clearly isn’t the best second baseman of all time, why does he outrank Cobb and Wagner and a whole lot of other players and especially pitchers in this poll? And if some treasure trove of old newspaper box scores gets uncovered and we find that some guy on the Brooklyn Superbas was actually the best second baseman of all time, don’t we owe it to the game to recognize that guy?
And that’s my argument. If we want ARod and Babe and Maddux and even Bonds to still have validity 100, 200, 300 years from now, we have to make sure that we can compare numbers across eras. Baseball *needs* OPS+ and ERA+ and maybe someday the better evaluative methods that will replace them. Because without those guides, there will be no way to compare the players of 2142, following the Genetic Vision Manipulation process which gives every human being 20:10 vision and drives batting averages to an unprecedented level, to hitters of today, or pitchers of 2142 to pitchers of today. We are already seeing some statistical skewing in career numbers based on 162 game seasons. Heck, some of the HOF arguments between Blyleven, Morris, Smoltz, Schilling, and John are skewed because one (or two) extra rounds of playoffs means pitchers have far more chances to prove how clutch they are. So I say, trust the numbers. And the numbers say Jackie Robinson, Hall of Famer, Hall of Fame human being, is maybe the 135th best baseball player of all time (and probably not even that, given all the Negro League players who don’t get onto my list). I say start the HOF with the best players, and then move to the guys who were merely great but did some great stuff. Reggie Jackson will never be on my list of the very best ball players, but yes, he deserves his place in the HOF. So does Koufax. So does Jackie Robinson. Just not the first ballot.
Bob Gibson is crushed by Bert Blyleven in almost every counting statistic, although give Gibson his due: he did have perhaps the best year any pitcher ever had, setting the ERA record, and winning MVP in 1968. But Gibson doesn’t rank in the top 10 in any non-normalized career number, 13th in strikeouts and shutouts. Blyleven is 5th in Ks, 9th in shutouts, 10th in losses and earned runs allowed. Blyleven was good enough to start pitching in the majors at age 19; Gibson, not until he was 24. Blyleven lasted until he was 41, Gibson only 39. So it *seems* that Blyleven was better younger and maintained a level of quality much longer. Gibson also had the advantage of pitching in the 1960s and never having to face a DH. I think Blyleven might be in the HOF if he had retired following his 17-5 season in 1989; he went 16-19 his last two seasons with an ERA above the league average.
I *think* Gibson is only a marginal HOF candidate. He was never in the argument for best pitcher in the National League until Koufax retired, then he had his unconscious year of 1968, and then he was never out of the argument for being the best pitcher in the NL even though he was never again higher than third in ERA+, even winning a Cy Young in 1970. I think Seaver deserved the Cy Young in 1970, leading the league in ERA (and ERA+) and strikeouts, but Gibson had 23 wins despite not pitching as effectively, Seaver only 18. But if Gibson is on the fence, his World Series success (7-2 with a 1.89 ERA, 1.02 runs better in ERA than in the regular season, and he started three games each of three WS) clearly pushes him into the HOF. Yet Gibson won a Cy Young finishing fourth in ERA+, and Blyleven never got closer than 3rd in the Cy Young race (twice finishing 3rd) even though he was first or second in ERA+ four time, first or second in Ks four times, first or second in shutouts six times, and so forth. I still don’t understand why Blyleven gets ignored.
Probably my last Blyleven post here, something I just noticed. In Blyleven’s career, he finished in his league’s top ten in ERA ten times, with a high of second (twice). He finished in his league’s top ten in ERA+ *twelve* times, winning once and finishing second three times. Is there any clearer indication that Bert was the victim of pitching in hitter’s parks and deserved more recognition than he got?
So, I’ve been thinking about this Schilling HOF debate, and I was just trying to formulate a consistent method of comparing HOF worthiness. I decided to ignore post season, because how you weight post and regular season seems pretty subjective to me. (I mean I think we all agree post season games are more important, but how much more important) I also felt that sticking around and pitching average ball, while valuable to a team, should not do much to enhance one’s HOF case. (Even if Tim Wakefield keeps doing what he’s doing for another 10 years, he doesn’t belong in the hall) Finally I felt that a player could not play his way out of the Hall. I mean no matter how poorly Pedro or Maddux or Randy pitch from now on, they can’t loose their HOF status.
So, my one number comparative metric came down to the following. If you created a completely average team (league average pitching and hitting) and then displaced however many innings that pitcher pitched with that pitcher’s pitching. How many Pythagorean wins would you gain. I did not count years when the pitcher would have hurt this theoretical team, as part of my you can’t play your way out of the hall thought. And then I summed up their total. I’ve also included the number of seasons with more than 5 expected wins added. I did this for all HOF pitchers and others that might be in discussion. I believe this method unfairly punishes relief pitchers, as their extra leverage is not captured.
Young 117.7 12
W Johnson 114.9 10
Clemens 85.0 8
Nichols 83.9 8
GC Alexander 83.0 7
Matthewson 80.7 10
Grove 76.0 10
Maddux 73.8 7
Keefe 68.5 5
Clarkson 63.7 6
R Johnson 62.5 7
Seaver 62.5 3
Pedro 57.2 6
Mordecai Brown 55.5 5
Walsh 55.5 6
Radbourn 55.2 3
Gibson 53.9 3
Spahn 52.4 2
Perry 52.4 3
Blyleven 51.8 1
Rusie 51.6 5
Hubbell 50.5 4
Palmer 49.0 4
Carlton 47.8 4
Plank 47.1 1
P Neikro 46.9 3
Ford 44.0 2
Kevin Brown 43.9 3
Glavine 43.8 1
Waddell 43.5 3
Newhouser 43.4 3
Schilling 42.9 1
Feller 42.8 3
Wilhelm 41.6 1
Covelski 41.4 3
Roberts 41.3 3
Smoltz 41.1 0
Marichal 40.9 3
Welsh 40.8 4
Joss 40.3 3
Lyons 40.0 1
Faber 39.9 2
Rixey 39.2 0
Galvin 38.3 2
Jenkins 36.8 1
Mussina 36.4 1
McGinnity 36.1 3
Koufax 36.0 4
Vance 36.0 3
Bunning 36.0 2
Ryan 35.9 0
Willis 35.5 4
Drysdale 34.6 1
John 33.9 0
Cone 33.0 0
L Gomez 31.8 2
Eckersley 31.6 0
Sutton 31.6 1
Wynn 30.6 1
Saberhagen 30.6 1
Ruffing 29.6 0
Grimes 29.4 1
Kaat 28.0 0
Lemon 27.9 1
Hoyt 27.1 0
M Rivera 26.8 0
Dean 26.8 1
C Bender 26.7 0
Herschiser 26.6 1
Guidry 25.0 1
Halladay 24.3 1
Chesbro 23.8 1
Santana 23.4 2
Pennock 23.2 1
Pettitte 22.4 1
Marquard 20.8 0
J Morris 20.6 0
Haines 20.4 1
B Welch 20.2 0
Hunter 20.2 1
Wells 19.7 0
Fingers 18.9 0
F Valenzuela 16.4 0
M Hampton 15.0 0
D Stewart 13.7 0
J Neikro 11.2 0
First off, how did Catfish Hunter get in the hall??? Secondly, I think Schilling is a slam dunk. Their are only three pitchers with more impressive regular season totals than him who I could find who aren’t guaranteed a spot in the HOF, and both Glavine, Blyleven and Kevin Brown will or have generated a fair bit of argument. This plus his remarkable postseason makes it pretty convincing to me.
As to the Williams vs. Aaron debate, with baserunning and fielding thrown in, there’s an argument, based on pure hitting, it’s not particularly close. Williams had a career OPS+ of 191, Aaron, with an amazing 155 is still not really close at all. To put it another way, Aaron had one season with an OPS+ better than Williams’s career, and Williams had one season worse than Aaron’s career numbers. Williams had more than a .100 edge in OBP over his career, and an 80 point lead in slugging. (I realize it’s unfair to compare eras without normalizing, but that’s what the OPS+ was for)
One more thing Williams versus Aaron, or indeed Williams versus everyone: we must consistently remind ourselves that Williams established OPS+ levels of 235 and 217 (in 1941 and 1942), missed three years because of WWII, came back with at 217 and 215 in 1946 and 1947, then got only 101 at bats in 1952/53 combined because of Korea. When he came back from Korea he was at OPS+ of 201 and 209, so it is probable that he lost five “prime” years because of military service.
Add five years of career average numbers for Williams and he is at 692 career home runs (he hit 14 in part time play in 52-53), and maybe doesn’t retire after 1960 (OPS+ of 190, 29 homers) since Ruth would have been so close.
Nothing against Aaron, who was a great all around ball player, but if Williams and Ruth are not the two best sluggers of all time then you just don’t know baseball. And most people would consider Mays a better all around player than Aaron; one point higher OPS+, 11 Gold Gloves at Center Field (and arguably the most famous defensive play in baseball history) versus 3 GG in Right; almost 100 more steals for his career.
What’s even more remarkable about Williams is this:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=willite01
Despite supposedly getting the advantage of playing in Fenway, his OPS for those seasons baseball-reference has charted so far actually have him OPSing four points higher on the road, largely because of a much higher slugging percentage. So maybe the DiMaggio-Williams trade rumors really would have worked out for both of them.
If we’re electing to the HOF based on postseason numbers (which, if Schilling makes it, we are), then shouldn’t Howard Ehmke and Don Larsen have been first-ballot inductees?