Hall of Fame Arguments
Posted: January 4th, 2010 | Filed under: Baseball | 220 Comments »
Well, my Hall of Fame ballot is up at Sports Illustrated, and I suspect that for people who love playing with the Hall numbers, it’s pretty conventional. I picked the SABR Seven — Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Martinez, McGwire, Raines, Trammell — and went off the board by picking Dale Murphy. I don’t expect a lot of people to agree with me on Murph. I very clearly see the case that he wasn’t good enough for long enough. But he got my vote.
In the meantime, I have a few leftover thoughts about the Hall … sparked by a paragraph in Dan Shaugnessy’s recent SI.com column.
Morris won 254 games in 18 seasons and pitched one of the greatest World Series games of all time, a 10-inning, 1-0 Game 7 victory over the Braves in 1991. There’s already support for Boston blowhard Curt Schilling, who won’t be on the ballot for another three years, but Morris has to get in before Schilling gets in. Morris was better.
– Dan Shaughnessy, SI.com
* * *
One thing about this time of year — Baseball Hall of Fame time — is that we are all berated with opinion. This guy belongs. This guy doesn’t. This guy was overrated. This guy was underrated. These stats matter. These stats don’t. On and on. I don’t only include myself in this … I would call myself one of the nation’s leading Hall of Fame perpetrators. I have spilled way, way, way too many words and blunt opinion on why Tim Raines should be in the Hall of Fame and why Jim Rice was a shaky Hall of Fame pick.
And, I suspect, I will spill millions more. I’m not apologizing. Hall of Fame talk is fun, I think. It gives us a chance to talk about the players we watched and enjoyed for years. But as someone who spends a lot of time blathering on about long ago players like Dale Murphy and Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris and Andre Dawson, I suspect I have a good idea how the overall game works.
Take Blyleven. The following two statements are true:
– Bert Blyleven won 10 or more 17 times in his career.
– Bert Blyleven won 18 or more two times in his career.
Same pitcher. Same career. The top line puts Blyleven in a class with Seaver, Perry, Spahn and Pete Alexander. The bottom line puts Blyleven in a class with Jim Colborn, Dan Petry and Van Lingle Mungo. Now, I think both statistics are rather pointless because they are built around a flawed statistic — victories — but my point is that it’s pretty easy to present one of those statements as the whole story, depending on your perspective, depending on whether you are trying to celebrate Blyleven’s longevity and consistency or highlight his inability to put up big seasonal win numbers throughout his career.
You can say Andre Dawson is one of three players who hit 400 homers and stole 300 bases or you can say he had a lower on-base percentage than Gorman Thomas or Bud Harrelson. You can say Tim Raines got on base more times than Tony Gwynn or that he had fewer 200 hit seasons than Ruben Sierra. You can say Dale Murphy hit the most homers in baseball from 1980-1990 or you can say that after age 31, Murphy hit .234/.307/.396. All of these are true. And all can tell the story that the writer wants to tell.
This can be taken to any extreme you like. On Twitter the other night, for instance, I started putting up what I tagged “pointlessbaseballfacts” …
– Juan Gonzalez won more MVPs than Rose, Gwynn, Boggs, Kaline, Ozzie, Jeter, Piazza and the Duke combined.
– Dave Stewart had more career victories AND more 20-win seasons than Sandy Koufax.
– Greg Vaughn had more 50-homer seasons than “Home Run King” Henry Aaron.
– Mickey Mantle had fewer 100 RBI seasons than Eric Karros.
– Bill Buckner had more career hits than Ted Williams.
I think the point is obvious. You can make the numbers dance. You can make them say that Duane Kuiper had more triples than Cepeda, a better batting average than McCovey, a better on-base percentage than Dawson and more big league hits than Monte Irvin. Well, he did. It doesn’t mean anything. But it’s a fun parlor trick.
Stop. See what I did there? Of course you do: I used Andre Dawson again as a low on-base percentage example. I told you … I’m no better than anyone else when it comes to this stuff. I’m often worse. Slam your point home.
The problem with slamming the point home is that, after a while, people will simply tune you out. I think what people really mean when they say “I don’t go by numbers,” is “I don’t go by YOUR numbers.” And who can blame them? Numbers can be presented so many ways, folded into so many origami shapes. And the people who present the numbers usually present them with some sort of agenda. I do too. I think Bert Blyleven and Tim Raines should be in the Hall of Fame. I think they should have gone on the first ballot.
But are their cases perfect? Of course not. There are numbers that detract from their careers. There are cases to be made that they fall short. That’s baseball. The vast majority of Hall of Famers have flawed cases. We all know that there has never been a unanimous Hall of Fame choice (except, possibly, Lou Gehrig in a special vote). But you may not know that there are only 26 players in baseball history who have received 90% of the vote, and that list does NOT include: Frank Robinson, Joe DiMaggio, Al Kaline, Mickey Mantle, Sandy Koufax, Yogi Berra, Bob Gibson, Walter Johnson and Warren Spahn. Apparently those guys didn’t quite meet the gut test for at least 10 percent of voters.
If you go below 80% you still find Jimmie Foxx, Rogers Hornsby and Jackie Robinson.
Lefty Grove might be the best pitcher in baseball history … he made the Hall of Fame by three votes in 1947.
So you can definitely make arguments — even somewhat reasonable sounding arguments — against almost anyone. Ruth set a bad example and used a corked bat. Ryan had a lousy winning percentage and walked more batters than anyone ever. Williams was a dreadful left fielder and never led his team to a World Series title. Aaron only won one MVP award.
Murray Chass the other day — in yet another effort to fit Blyleven into the chronic underachiever box — found “new ammunition” (his wording) for this characterization. Apparently, he found that Blyleven had some of his worst years when his teams had good years.
Now, it so happened that I had done a quick chart on this during my Blyleven research and found that when he played on good teams — 88 wins or more and the ‘87 Twins since they won the World Series — he was 92-70, which isn’t eye popping by any means but is better than the teams he pitched for and except for 1988 (when he was 37 years old and pitched lousy), he actually had an 82-53 record, .607 winning percentage, which would seem pretty good to me if I gave a damn about pitcher’s victories. So, I was curious about Murray’s methodology.
Well, best I can tell his methodology was to basically to point out … Bert’s 1988 season. Yep. That’s the whole case he presents (though he presents it as “the best example”). Blyleven went 10-17 that year even though the Twins were good. That’s it. That’s his “new ammunition” for not voting Bert Blyleven — that Blyleven had a lousy year when he was 37 years old and had pitched more than 4,000 innings in the big leagues.
The absurdity of this seems obvious — Tom Seaver at age 37 was 5-13 with a 5.50 ERA. Juan Marichal at age 37 gave up nine runs in six innings. Jim Palmer at age 37 gave up 18 runs in 17 innings. But the point is that it’s not obvious to Murray Chass, and I suspect it’s because he was looking for a statistic that confirmed his considered opinion. And, though it may flimsy to me and others, he got the stat he was looking for. And it looked like gold.
Then we get to the main point: The quote from my semi-colleague Dan Shaughnessy above. I should say here that I don’t know Dan well, but I have spoken to him from time to time. And I’m aware of a loud opinion out there about him, but I generally have found his writing to be interesting and thought-provoking and I have found him to be a nice guy. I might not agree with everything he writes or even most things — I’m sure you could point me to some stuff that I would howl about — but what difference does that make? I have never really understood why disagreement should prevent people from being friends.*
*For 13 years in Kansas City, I was a columnist with Jason Whitlock at the Star and through the years I heard from hundreds of people — probably thousands, to be honest — who expected that I despised him, I guess because we write differently. And I kept telling people that the exact opposite was true — I thought Jason was absolutely the best person in the country to share a newspaper with. The best. I’ve told Mike Vaccaro — my brother in arms, one of my best friends in the world, a groomsman at my wedding — that, no offense, I would rather be a co-newspaper columnist with Jason than with him. And he agreed entirely.
I’m not saying Jason and I are best friends — we are not. I’m married with kids, he’s single and Big Sexy, we obviously live very different lives, and I would bet we did not share more that a handful of meals the entire time we worked together. But it was for me the perfect professional relationship. Jason was hilarious to watch a game with, kind about sharing information, challenging when he disagreed with something and generous when it came to helping me do my work. I disagreed with what he wrote, he disagreed with what I wrote, what’s the difference? The point, I think, is to write from the heart. Jason does that. I hope I do too. I think people get too touchy about these things.
Anyway, back to Dan: I know that he has had a long-standing feud with Curt Schilling, and I would not begrudge Dan his right to take a cheap shot at his old nemesis. Hey, do what you have to do. But he cannot really think that Jack Morris was better than Curt Schilling. He may WANT to believe that. He may even NEED to believe that. But he can’t really believe it.
There are a million numbers which show that Schilling wasn’t just better than Morris but much better, whole flights of stairs better. But I would think that even if you look through the Morris prism there is no argument that Morris was better Schilling.
The Morris prism, as I understand it, is as follows:
– Morris put up a high ERA but he pitched to the score — he won 20 three times!.
– Morris may not have won as many games as, say, Bert Blyleven or Tommy John or Jim Kaat, but he had a better winning percentage.
– Morris was a top pitcher for great teams — he pitched for three World Series champs.
– Morris had one of the most remarkable postseason pitching performances in baseball history and a couple of other darned good ones.
I think that’s more or less the case.
Schilling’s case as seen through the Morris prism.
– Schilling’s ERA was a half-run better than Morris while pitching in a much higher scoring time — and he won 20 three times!
– Schilling may not have won as many games as, say, Jack Morris, but he had a better winning percentage.
– Schilling was a top pitcher for great teams — he pitched for four World Series teams, three World Series champs.
— Schilling had two or three of the most remarkable postseason pitching performances in baseball history — one with a bloody sock — and a couple of other darned good ones.
Now, if you want to step out for a minute, you can get into the fact that Schilling struck out 650 more batters and walked almost 800 fewer ones. You can mention that Schilling’s 127 ERA+ is more than slightly better than Morris’ 105. You can point out that while Morris led the league in innings pitched once, Schilling did twice. While Morris led the league in complete games once, Schilling did four times. While Morris led the league in starts twice, Schilling did three times. While neither won the Cy Young Award, Schilling finished second three times and Morris never did.
In many ways, the Schilling-Morris argument is more interesting and pointed than the Blyleven-Morris argument because they were really much more similar: Two power righties with outsized personalities who had famous big moments. Everything Morris did, Schilling did significantly better (but for not quite as long). Every case anyone could make for Morris, they would almost HAVE to concede to Schilling.
And this is one more fun part of the Hall of Fame. I always loved the line from Glengarry Glen Ross: “Always tell the truth. It’s the easiest thing to remember.” So it goes with Hall of Fame arguments. You can believe whatever you want to believe, make whatever case you want to make, but the trick is staying consistent. You want to vote Morris because he was a bulldog and had a great World Series game. Well, OK: Pucker up because the Boston blowhard who was more of a bulldog and had more great World Series games will be on the ballot soon.
Loading ...
Same Shaughnessy column, an even more tired, cheap-shot non-argument:
“The stat geeks, those get-a-lifers who are sucking all the joy out of our national pastime, no doubt will be able to demonstrate that Edgar was better than Lou Gehrig and Rogers Hornsby. I’m not buying. Stats don’t tell the whole story. A man can drown in three feet of water.”
I’m a Tigers’ fan who is far more interested in Alan Trammell getting enshrined than I am Jack Morris. The old argument for the “Morris Prism” that Joe forgot is this old beauty, “Morris was the winningest pitcher of the 80’s!” Yippee!
Am I the only one who thinks Dan’s SI headshot makes him look like the Joker?
Haven’t finished reading the post yet, but had to pause and say I always appreciate a Van Lingle Mungo reference.
This is one interesting development of the information age I think: we have access to information and statistics (or our favorite media outlets do) and MY statistics are better than YOURS. This is especially true in the Fox vs MSNBC “spin news” world.I don’t necessarily have a point, just that the Hall talk reminds me an awful lot of the right vs left political spin game.
As a lifelong Tigers fan . . . first . . . watch the Dan Petry stuff. That’s not cool. There’s just one Tiger SP you can bash and that’s Jack Morris. The man was a jerk, and he finished his career with the hated Twins.
Trammell deserves the HOF. (Lou Whitaker too.) But life is not fair.
Thank you for channeling Ken Tremendous on this one. I for got how much I loved FJM for minute there.
I love the whole thing about putting in Jack Morris based on one huge postseason game performance.
FYI:
Edgar Martinez, Game 5 1995 ALDS: 3-for-4 with a walk, a three-run homerun and a grand slam, 7 RBI.
For the series (5 games, thanks largely to him): 12-for-21 with 6 walks, .571 BA, .667 OBP, 1.667 OPS.
As a major Edgar fan, I find it intriguing that for every argument to keeping him out there is a rebuttal that not only refutes the original argument but crushes it in tiny pieces.
Edgar Martinez was the Mariano Rivera of hitting during his era. He should be in.
Oy, Curt Schilling. Is it just coincidence that it’s pronounced “shilling?” And if you think he’s better than Jack Morris (and he is), just look at Kevin Brown! And Mike Mussina! And Tommy Bridges! And…..
But Joe is spot on (as usual) — we revel in this battle because it’s true “talkin’ baseball” and that’s what we love.
The most truly insane thing about the “Bert was bad on good teams” argument is that the year after his 10-17 season with the Twins, he went 17-5 with a 2.73 ERA on an Angels team that had the exact same 91-71 record as the Twins the previous year!
*massive stroke*
You know Joe, I have a love-hate relationship with one of your sportswriting tendencies (or perhaps hallmarks is a better word) – the way you constantly make a point, then back up and soften the upcoming disagreement with a tempered “now look, [so and so] is a good guy and I like him and he’s a smart baseball man” and all that.
I hate it because I think you go too easy on these people. On Shaughnessy, on Moore, on the guys who either write or say or do truly dumb and inexplicable things. You bash them, but you do it nicely. And that’s where the love comes in – I love for it, too. You’re a nice person, a caring person, and it shines through your writing.
And in the end, the love wins out.
Shank might seem like an interesting read, on occasion, or like a decent guy, once in a while, but if you read him often enough you’ll see he’s petty, vindictive, self-centered, and proud of his areas of ignorance.
He can write a decent column in the rare instance he’s not grinding an ax or kissing an ass, but more often he’s the epitome of the worst of current sports commentary.
This whole “bad on good teams or vice versa” line of reasoning is a canard. For example, was Dennis Martinez merely a truly average place-filler over his career, logging just one out shy of 4000 innings because his employers were too dense to see that he didn’t add one ounce of assistance to the effort of winning? Martinez was 245-193 over his 23-year career, for a .559 winning percentage. His teams were 2098-1657 — also a .559 winning percentage. The “bad pitcher/good team” argument asserts that Martinez had a decent year 1985 because he finished 13-11 for an 83-78 team — although he logged a dismal ERA+ of 78 in his 180 innings. And he was allegedly “bad on a good team” in 1979 because he ended up 15-16 for the 102-57 pennant-winning Orioles — if one ignores his 110 ERA+ in over 292 innings as a truer measure of his worth. Who really thinks that’s a legitimate way to analyze? Or maybe, just maybe, the success or failure of his teams when he wasn’t in the game at all doesn’t matter when it comes time to assess Martinez’s (or any pitcher’s) career.
Joe, you are good about not saying anything too mean about anyone, which I respect. So I’ll say it: Shaughnessy is terrible.
Signed, a longtime Boston Globe sports section reader.
Bret: Joe’s also got to deal with most of those guys for a long time to come. Needs their trust. Gotta temper the bashing.
paul: yes, edgar was the man, but if you wander too far down 90 it’s tough to find anyone who was paying attention. or is yet.
Here’s the money quote from Shaughnessy:
“The stat geeks, those get-a-lifers who are sucking all the joy out of our national pastime, no doubt will be able to demonstrate that Edgar was better than Lou Gehrig and Rogers Hornsby. I’m not buying. Stats don’t tell the whole story. ”
You know what? I agree with Dan, just not about Edgar Martinez. If you ever saw Martinez hit, live and in person, you saw a guy who just hit ferocious line drives, all the time. His outs were hit hard. His foul balls were crushed. He reminded me of Hank Aaron that way. He made opponents nervous every time he stepped into the box.
The problem is that his “counting” stats are underwhelming. Those are the stats that are damning him. And I’m one of those guys who puts more emphasis on peak value than career value. Which is why I’m more in favor of guys like Dale Murphy getting into the Hall than guys like Craig Biggio.
Now I know what you’ll say about Biggio. His peak years were overwhelming! He was the best player in baseball for 5 years! But you know what, I saw Craig Biggio play, and he wasn’t ever the best player in baseball, ever, not for one second, even if he was the best player in Stratomatic.
In Joe’s previous post, he mentioned what was so fantastic about Biggio’s best season. He walked, he got hit by a ton of pitches, and he didn’t hit into double plays. All true. And there isn’t a baseball fan in the country who would pay to see any of those things.
Yes, those things are important to winning ballgames, but those things aren’t important to enjoying watching baseball games. That’s what Shaughnessy was talking about when he said that stats are sucking the life from baseball. When people look at spreadsheets rather than ballplayers to tell them who really mattered. When people say that the best players in baseball were Ken Singleton and Craig Biggio, I can only say, on what planet?
I’m not saying they weren’t good players, I’m just saying they weren’t MVPers, Hall of Famers, guys with that special flair that made baseball exciting and fun to watch.
So yes to Andre Dawson, no to Fred McGriff. Yes to Tim Raines, no to Craig Biggio. Yes to Mark McGuire, no to Rafael Palmiero. Yes to Mariano Rivera, no to Trevor Hoffman. I realize that statistical arguments can be made for or against any of these guys. But if you watched these guys baseball during their careers—actually looked at the game as it was played—you’ll know why some guys had the magic, and some guys didn’t. And magic is what the Hall’s about.
Morris is the most overrated pitcher of the last 40 years. He’s basically Al Leiter or Jon Matlack who was lucky enough to get on some very good teams with a great defense up the middle: Parish, Trammell, Whitaker, and Lemmon.
There’s 9 Tigers, 11 if you want to count Tony Phillips and Rocky Colavito as Tigers, who have more career “WAR” then Jack Morris.
Whitaker-69.5
Trammell-66.8
Darrell Evans-57
Norm Cash-52.9
Tommy Bridges-50.7
Chet Lemmon- 49.8
Mickey Lolitch-45.6
Dizzy Trout-43.6
Bill Freehan-43.4
JACK MORRIS-39.3
I agree with #16 (Utek) about peak value, but Shaughnessy is an insufferable, opinionated blowhard.
Utek: so if we understand you correctly, you think it’s more important that a player be entertaining than good? That how fun a player is to watch is a better yardstick than how much he contributes to his team’s chances to win?
Because *that’s* what we’re trying to determine, and what Joe was talking about with Biggio. Or anyone. I’m a baseball fan, and I care about winning. If I can learn more about what actually leads to winning, even better: I know more about how the game works and I enjoy it more.
People like CHB learned about what makes baseball players ‘good’ when he was 8, and he’s content to stay at that level of knowledge. Not only content, but he’ll go kicking and screaming and tossing ad hominem attacks at anyone that suggests there’s more to learn and know.
Which is cool for him, I guess.
On the last pro-Curt point, you have Morris typed instead of Schilling.
But nice post, I’ve been waiting for someone to talk about Curt Schilling, he’s a beast.
It’s a farce if he gets left outta the Hall.
Nice post, but where’s the outrage about him not putting Edgar in the same company as Ruth, Gehrig and Williams? He seemed to have no qualms about putting Jim Rice with them though…
I think we all have different things that make us excited to watch a player. I actually love watching Denard Span work an eight-pitch at bat and draw a walk. I think it’s a thing of beauty, just like a triple or a diving catch or a home run or striking out the side. Any thing that helps my team win I find exciting. In fact, if I look back at a player’s stats and realize I didn’t appreciate watching him like I should have (e.g. Chuck Knoblauch in his prime), I get disappointed in myself.
@utek
I can see where you’re coming from…Craig Biggio never seemed that outstanding, didn’t have that so-called magic, etc, etc.
And yet, the numbers say that he was a top-flight baseball player. And, since I didn’t have the chance to see him play every day and appreciate how well he was doing – and when I did, it was through the prism (to borrow Joe’s phrase) of an Astros hater – I rely on the numbers to tell me how good a player was. I don’t entirely disagree with your judging players on how entertaining they were, but it’s not fair to pass judgment on that based on a limited impression.
Utek said: “In Joe’s previous post, he mentioned what was so fantastic about Biggio’s best season. He walked, he got hit by a ton of pitches, and he didn’t hit into double plays. All true. And there isn’t a baseball fan in the country who would pay to see any of those things.”
Actually, I would pay good money to see Biggio plunked.
You have to assess value when determining Hall of Fame eligibility. What else is there to go on – who was the best-looking?
Maybe Bo Jackson should go in, because he was “exciting.” You can’t make that argument – it’s not reasonable.
If you were judging players based on their entertainment value, I think you’d see a lot more prime defenders in the Hall. I like watching David Wright hit, but watching a great defender field is even more enjoyable.
It’s got to come down to “best,” and best means contributions to wins.
“Am I the only one who thinks Dan’s SI headshot makes him look like the Joker?”
Well, the headshots the Globe used to run made him look like Walter “Rorschach” Kovacs, so… sure, run with it.
I was a huge Blyleven fan when I was a kid in the mid-70s. I had a huge curveball that I used when we played strikeout against the wall of the school. The only problem was that nobody else in school knew who he was. He wasn’t a star, even though he was a great pitcher.
I think you have to take both stats and the perception of that person of other players, fans and journalists. Jim Rice went into the Hall of Fame because he had good stats and the baseball community at the time considered him a star, whether the stats back that up or not. If you take those perceptions out of the decision making you are taking some of the joy out of baseball.
I think Blyleven should make the Hall based on his stats, but I think Morris should make it for the same reason Rice did. I think both of those decisions would be equally valid.
@16 – Utek: “That’s what Shaughnessy was talking about when he said that stats are sucking the life from baseball. When people look at spreadsheets rather than ballplayers to tell them who really mattered”
Well, to use Shank’s examples – how do we know how good Gehrig and Hornsby were? Well, there are contemporary news accounts, I suppose. But can you tell me how entertaining or exciting either of those guys were? Can Shank? No, not with first-hand accounts. Can stats tell us? Yes they can, and they do.
The problem people like CHB* is that he grew up on Avg, HR, and RBI, or W-L and ERA, and those were good enough for him** and his father, so these newfangled numbers are bunk.
*I can never decide which cognomen to use.
**You’ll note that he used stats to defend his vote for Morris, after all
And the thing about sucking the life out of the game – if, for a quick and easy example, you don’t get a huge kick out of thinking that Ted Williams had a career .482 OBP, or that he put up a 233 OPS+ when he was 38(!), then you probably don’t care enough about the game to understand just how monumental those numbers are.
I can’t decide what to do with Utek’s rant, which seems all over the map. I don’t really have a problem with Peak over Career (although I don’t think he presented that argument fairly – is there anybody that would induct Hoffman, but not Rivera?).
I think what it comes down to is context – observe the Hall of Merit.
15 center fielders have been inducted on the first ballot. Dawson was not, and isn’t clearly more magical than those who were.
10 second baseman have been inducted on the first ballot. By rough eye, Biggio would fit neatly into the second 5 somewhere.
Enshrine the 16th ranked center fielder, not not the 8th ranked second baseman? “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
Shaughnessy, is the biggest douche associated with baseball. The only good thing about all the newspapers folding is that maybe he’ll be out of baseball because no one would ever pay an online subscription to read his crap.
“how do we know how good Gehrig and Hornsby were?”
Gehrig’s a bad example – we’ve got the films (think “luckiest man on the face of the earth”). And of course Da Ringzz.
BTW, that was one of the best blog posts Joe has ever written. He deftly made CHB look like the blowhard that he is, yet killed him with kindness while doing so.
I will say this, however (in defense of the Morris crowd): one day, someone will argue against Schillings candidacy by looking at his short-ish career, his somewhat low counting stats, etc.
And guys like me will probably say something in his defense, like “You just had to be there. You had to SEE him in his prime, in those huge post-season games with everything on the line, blah blah.”
Because that IS a big part of the Schilling HOF case: coming up big when the stakes were high. I’m not saying I agree with the Morris candidacy. I don’t. But the stakes were pretty high in that Game 7 (head-to-head against John Smoltz, another borderline HOF guy whose post-season record is a big part of his HOF case). And Jack did come up big that night.
It may not be fair, but people do remember the big moments. Indeed, people remember them so vividly that you don’t even have to mention details of the game itself…you can just mention the names: Bobby Thompson, Kirk Gibson, Johnny Podres, Joe Carter. And there are at least two guys who were borderline HOF candidates who were greatly aided by those ”moments” to get inducted: Enos Slaughter and Bill Mazeroski.
So, while I don’t necessarily agree with the Morris argument, I do understand where it’s coming from.
To the point made by a couple of people, Joe, giving Shaughnessy the benefit of the doubt is admirable. Your personal interactions with him lead you to believe he’s a nice guy, and that’s great. Plus torching a semi-colleague on a personal level probably isn’t terribly cool, and it’s a slippery slope and all that, so the best course of action in your shoes, Joe, is to cut him some slack. Understood.
But Shaughnessy’s readers have largely never met him, so all we have to go by is the way he presents himself through his writing. And that writing implicates him as a complete asshat, so that’s how most people view him. And that’s reinforced by the obvious fact that if he really was a nice guy, he probably wouldn’t go out of his way to be an asshat in print, you know? Of course, it’s possible that he’s doing it by accident because he’s a terrible writer.
“But Shaughnessy’s readers have largely never met him, so all we have to go by is the way he presents himself through his writing. And that writing implicates him as a complete asshat”
VoU’s First Axiom – it is never wrong to judge a professional writer by what they write.
Yes, thankfully Craig Biggio was never good at the things “important to enjoying watching baseball games” like never playing the game in an exciting, gritty, hustling, dirt on the uniform style, playing like a kid out there (while actually looking like a kid for 20 years), putting the team first, or with leaving it all on the field passion that so would’ve enamored him with the sportswriting press or excited a casual fan, especially if he had of played in NYC, Boston or Chicago with or without actually putting up pretty historical statistics.
Nevermind that he was never engaging with the fans or a contributor to his community.
Nor was he ever good at those pesky baseball talents which can be statistically measured.
What a horrible baseball player he was.
As a cancer geneticist I work with numbers that make your “Win Shares” look like a newborn attempt at counting mom´s fingers. However, even these subtle, complex statistics (that require considerable computing power) often fail to grasp biological reality (obviously, these failures push statistics forward all the time). We never insist, above all evidence, that our numbers are right and reality wrong.
Your comparison between Roberto Clemente and Raines seems to be such case. As many a scientist you have become hypnotised by the beauty of numbers… they appear to solve so many vexing problems, to reveal so much… But a number that tells you that Tim Raines is in any way comparable player to Roberto Clemente is simply flawed.
It is curious that you are fun to read, but your point of view on baseball is so boring. If you had your way no one would go to a game any more, people would sit in a basement (their mother´s) and wait for numbers to accumulate, and then judge the game in “runs created” and other useless, souless fancies.
Joe, do not even give him the “gravity” of having disagreed with him…
CHB was a worthless tool 20 years ago. No one under 50 listens to his crap anymore…(and I’d reconsider you’re time with SI, if they think he’s worth having around…)
I am at a complete loss as to how anyone could possibly read Joe’s writing and think that if he had “his way” no one would go to games or simply enjoy the beauty of baseball.
Alex weighs statistics all day — don’t make him do it at home, too, Joe!
Why are we always arguing about peak vs. prime? Why can’t the HOF have both? What’s wrong with having Sandy Koufax AND Don Sutton, Kirby Puckett AND Paul Molitor, Tim Raines AND Alan Trammell? I’m not saying that the Hall should be cluttered up with everyone who won an MVP or two or hung on for 20 years (nobody wants to enshrine Juan Gone or Jesse Orosco), but the idea that there are two paths to greatness just seems eminently reasonable.
As for players who had the “magic” (see Utek above), I think there is a problem with putting too much stock in what we thought we saw back in the day, or what announcers and writers told us that we saw. Otherwise, we’ve got to start making a strong case for people like Steve Garvey, who, for those of you too young to remember, was generally regarded as a transcendent superstar during most of the 1970s and early 1980s (and who played a major role in four Dodger penants and one Padre flag).
Let’s play make-believe:
Rick Porcello was the youngest pitcher to throw a full season in the majors – a year older than Blyleven was in 1970 when he debuted.
Say Porcello retired in 2031 with a 118 ERA+ and 4,970 IP, and these were the ONLY metrics we had at our disposal.
Wouldn’t you be angry if you were the GM that drafted Porcello and a bunch of writers just made up stuff to try and obfuscate the fact that in the late 2000s you drafted what turned out to be one of the very, very best pitchers ever to take the mound?
I love Sabermetrics; have since I bought my first Bill James Abstract in 1982 at age 13. It always felt “cool” to know that you knew something about these players’ actual levels of ability that very few others – GMs especially – knew. The world has changed, and like any scientific method that withstands rigorous testing, the knowledge takes on almost a matter-of-fact quality. Of course Joe Carter was no superstar . . . duh; that’s so 1991.
In the case of Blyleven, though, I’m not sure the Sabermetrics don’t hurt his case. Since he’s close to election, the guys left on the fence aren’t likely to be younger, more enlightened sorts. They’re the same curmudgeons that didn’t think he belonged in the HOF in 1998 and thought Mike Torrez was his equal in 1978. ERA+ is something of a newish stat, but it looks like ERA instead of a scary acronym like VORP that causes guys like Shaughnessy to wet their pants and run for the hills. Likewise with IP and ShO. Blyleven ranks 8th in post WWII IP and 4th in ShO. He’s 5th all-time in SO. Where’s the mystery here? Oh I know – he had a poor season in 1988.
Hey, cancer geneticist … ooooh, you are so cool. You can probably do calculus. I am so impressed.
Do you really think no cancer geneticist has insisted his numbers were correct when they were wrong? If only the world were full of people as wonderful as you, there would be no more problems.
I have to chuckle t people who imply that using statistics in baseball ruins the game for them.
Is Alex saying that he never looked at the back of a baseball card? Is CHB saying that batting average and ERA have polluted the beauty of the sport? It’s absurd. Baseball has been a stat-heavy game since the 1800’s. And the reason is because it’s one of the few human endeavors where one really CAN infer a whole lot of truth from the numbers.
Go VORP!
@Alex I don’t want to start a flamefest . . .
But if you think Win Shares is a weak stat then come up with something that you feel works better. As a cancer geneticist it would be my sincere hope that you believe in the scientific method. Writing that there’s no way in hell Raines was better than Clemente because, well because there’s just NO WAY MAN . . . that’s about as unscientific as it gets.
I only speak for myself here, but I played baseball from age 6 to age 39 (not softball), pitched D1, and would be taking the mound this spring in a local league for the age 40 season if career-threatening rotator cuff surgery wasn’t scheduled for January 15. I’ve been to about a thousand major-league games and watched parts of thousands more. I gave up a prospering sports legal representation career to take a low-paying front office job with a bad major-league franchise. And you know, when I go and see a game and watch some player make a ridiculous pitch, play, or hit a bomb, all I can think is the same thing I did when I was five: “WOW” – NOT “I wonder what that guy’s VORP is”. This is an interesting website but it’s not a substitute for baseball any more than Roger Ebert’s reviews are a substitute for the moviegoing experience, but isn’t there plenty of room for both?
Spencer Steel,
I think you make an excellenct point, I think there is a lot of backlash against Blyleven because he’s seen as the Saber guys pet project.
I think another problem is the way the internet has just spread the saber stuff like wild fire in a relative short amount of time. Also because it’s relatively new, there’s a problem with the metrics adding up.
A person who is against Sabermetrics could say, “Hey Win Shares ranks Ken Singleton as the best player from 1975-1979 and War ranks him 21st, which is it? He could dismiss it altogether because of this.
I think the whole Jim Rice election was really a collective middle finger to all the Saber metric people from the older more established writers.
Seriously, there was no Jim Rice HOF talk during the 90’s. He was barely a blip on the map.
And now Jack Morris is there new HOF middle finger to the newer saber guys.
I am confounded by Alex’s rant (#36), which seems shared by more than a few hagiographers of Roberto Clemente. Comparing Tim Raines’ brilliance on the baseball field to your revered saint is not a misguided exercise by those who are misusing Win Shares, or any other statistic attempting to measure what happened on a baseball field. Anyone who actually watched the Expos in Raines’ prime (which Joe has described in great detail) knows how good he was. Win Shares and other statistical measures merely back that up.
I also suspect that Clemente’s hagiographers base much of their own arguments on anecdotal evidence of those who watched him play. Since Tim Raines played more recently, I would argue that the memories of those of us who saw the Rock play are likely to be more reliable … but it seems we have the burden of proof to show that the Rock is also a worthy HoF’er. Which is unfortunate, if you ask me … because Raines was every bit as good as Tony Gwynn, but since his offensive contributions didn’t take the shape of a high BA with a lot of 200-hit seasons, the Rock is underappreciated.
Everyone, there is no way Alex (@36) is a scientist. None. His post was terribly written. Sure, he/she doesn’t claim to be a writer, but his insult (mother’s basement) along with his opinion that Joe’s take on baseball is boring and if Joe had his way no one would go to games anymore are indicative of someone with very poor reading comprehension skills – possibly a Shaughnessy fan. Joe’s piece comparing Raines to Clemente wasn’t explicitly or implicitly arguing Raines was better than Clemente. It simply saying, well, I’ll just quote Joe.
“Now is the time when you say: “OK, seriously, how long are you going to keep up this facade. You cannot be saying that you think Tim Raines was as good a baseball player as Roberto Clemente.” But see, here’s the point: That doesn’t matter. Roberto Clemente is widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest players in baseball history. The Sporting News ranked him 20th all-time, the same place SABR ranked him in 1999, and others have ranked him higher. And Tim Raines got a measly 22.6% of the Hall of Fame vote last year.”
It’s impossible to read Joe’s writing and feel compelled to not watch baseball. Hell! I’m an O’s fan and Joe is one of the reasons I look forward to watching any of the upcoming 69-93 2010 season.
Sure, not everyone needs to be an avid Posnanski reader, but Joe, God bless him, heavily qualifies almost everything and seems to attempt not cause any discord with those he disagrees. He’s thoughtful, gives a shit, and researches the f— out of his opinions while maintaining the proper perspective (“I could still be wrong and this isn’t life or death, just sports” attitude). I want to know the baseball writer that Alex reads that makes Joe boring. Who is Alex’s gold standard of baseball writers? Who aren’t boring? Who stimulates his brilliant scientific mind? Because after reading his intellectually dull post, the only things that were stimulated on me were my gag reflex and amygdala.
As far as Dave Shaughnessy and Murray Chest, well… so few bullets.
@36,
Geneticist my helix!
(I know… I know…)
Here’s my problem with Shaughnessy and his ilk: they think that because they watches the same team play 162 games a year, they’re qualified to talk about who’s good and who’s not based on what their eyeballs tell them.
You know what? Maybe Dan Shaughnessy can tell me things I don’t know about Jim Rice. About Dewey, Freddie, Wade, Yaz, Manny, Papi, the whole lot of them. I’ll give the guy that, because I’ve never watched the Red Sox play every night. I also don’t watch the Yankees or Braves or Cubs or Angels or Tigers every night. Hell, I don’t even watch the Royals every night. But I guarantee you I’ve seen Zack Greinke pitch more than Dan Shaughnessy has.
And that’s the thing; some people manage to watch every game a team plays, but nobody — nobody — gets to see everyone play all the time. And frankly, the idea of some jackass in Boston who maybe saw Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven pitch 3-4 times a season each (except when Bert was in Pittsburgh, when he probably didn’t see him at all until October) telling me that I’m a geek for relying on numbers…?
What’s even more ludicrous is that I probably saw Blyleven pitch more than Dan Shaughnessy ever did, and I probably saw Morris pitch about as much as he did.
Numbers are what we have. Nobody — not Dan Shaughnessy, not me, not Peter Gammons, nobody — gets to see every game. You can’t even do it with MLB Extra Innings, for chrissake, unless you’ve got a rack full of TiVos and you fast-forward from dead-ball to pitch. There’s not enough time. (And even if there were, you can’t see everything on television.) So I wish these twits would quit trying to lecture the rest of us heathens based on some asinine philosophy that they’re professional observers of the game and realize that they either know a lot about one team, or not nearly enough about all of them. You have to rely on the numbers, and the only way to properly do that is to actually figure out what they mean.
As opposed, for instance, to being an ignorant clown who refuses to believe the earth is round and actually orbits the sun.
I am glad my comment attracted so many responses.
According to Sabermetrics, Craig Biggio was a better player than Barry Bonds from 1995 to 1999.
Now, please go back to that period. At the time, would you have said Biggio was better than Bonds?
This retrospective character of sabermetrics makes it similar to economics: excellent as a prophecy of the past, but mediocre to understand the present.
Moreover, would any general manager have signed Biggio over Bonds in, say, 1996?
By the way, sorry for my English, it´s not my native language and I wrote in a hurry.
Sports Illustrated’s baseball coverage is abysmal. Do they employ one scout or one statistician? ESPN has Law, Neyer, and Churchill+ BA and BP. At least they are trying. SI hires rumor mongers and local columnists to re-write the same stories every 4 months. I feel sorry for you Joe, you should not have to be the most stat-savvy guy at any baseball publication.
Let´s play a game.
You are a G.M and three rookie players, Raines, Clemente and Gwynn are available. You know (it came to you in a dream) the careers they will have. You know they will be similar players according to (how you use) sabermetrics
Now, who would you sign?
You know, it’s funny because I’ve been thinking that Schilling was a borderline Hall of Famer, and the fact that he blows Jack Morris out of the water just proves to me how violently overrated Jack Morris is/was. I’m a Diamondbacks fan so I should be biased here, and even I think (thought I should say, I’ll have to reconsider my opinion) Schilling is borderline. So if he’s borderline, and he’s much better than Morris…then obviously Morris doesn’t belong.
Another piece of ammunition that people like to use against Blyleven is that he didn’t reach 300 wins. Well today Randy Johnson retired, and he’ll finish with 302 wins. Which means he’ll be a slam-dunk Hall of Famer in some people’s eyes not because of his great years in Seattle, Houston and Arizona, but because of a meaningless season he spent in San Francicso. That’s how absurd it is to set arbitrary levels for players to reach; eventually you stop appreciating them for their peak years, and you start caring about meaningless years at the end of their career that pad their stats.
Shaugnessy is just upset that his stupid “curse of the Bambino” is no longer profitable, so he has to take it out on Curt Schilling for proving how stupid that idea ever was.
As someone who came up in the ’80s and watched a lot of baseball and saw a lot of Tony Gwynn and Tim Raines (and missed Clemente entirely), I have to admit I’d be stumped.
At the same time, if Raines, Reggie Jackson, and Dave Winfield came up in your same situation, it wouldn’t take me more than thirty seconds or so to choose Raines.
I’m a big fan of the 300 win milestone, but I must agree with Chris @43 that if it took getting to 300 wins for Randy Johnson to become a Hall of Famer in some people’s eyes, then those people are really pathetic. And yet I’ve seen so many people declare Bert Blyleven, Tommy John, or Jim Kaat ineligible just because they didn’t reach 300 wins that you know that it’s true. None of them are Hall of Fame voters, but that’s beside the point. These milestone clubs are certainly an honor, but by no means something that is make it or break it for a player’s Hall of Fame candidacy.
Anyways, even if Randy Johnson retired in 2007 with 284 wins, I think he would have gotten in easily with over 90% of the vote. However, it wouldn’t be surprising to see people use the lack of 300 wins as an excuse to not vote for him.
#52: Raines (seriously, check out how good he was as a young player), and I wouldn’t have to think too hard about the decision. But the fact is, all 3 players listed as choices are excellent players. The mere fact that Raines is a very defensible choice over two first-ballot Hall of Famers … what does that signify? Let me encapsulate Raines’ HoF argument in one sentence: he scored a lot of runs; he didn’t make a lot of outs.
You are a G.M and three rookie players, Raines, Clemente and Gwynn are available . . . who would you sign?
Raines. And it ain’t even a tough choice. His peak as a young player (‘81~’88) is far superior to the young peaks of the other two.
I’m a GM, knowing what I know about free agency (not to mention that I need to win NOW to keep my job), I’m gonna choose the guy who’ll play for 20 years and compile 3,000 hits??? Why?
Do I get a bonus because he dies in a saintly manner, trying to help earthquake victims? Do I get retroactive credit because he chases a .400 batting average 11 years after I sign him?
I guess I’m dumb, but I prefer rookies who hit .300, walk 75 times a year, pop a safe 10 HRs, and steal 75 bases at an 85% clip.
(And if they keep vials of blow in their back pockets, I just hope I GM in the era before drug testing.)
Maybe I´m a traditionalist, but I would choose Clemente, a multi-tool player with a forceful personality, and a leader who will win two rings for my team while establishing himself as an All-time great and a symbol of the franchise.
Winning is everything, right? (or is it “Win shares”)
I will take the game a step further, just to show that numbers, clearly, are not everything.
Our GM has another dream about two rookies, Barry Bonds and Derek Jeter. Remember, you are building a team, you want to win.
Who would you sign?
The Glengarry Glen Ross quote is actually a cop from Mark Twain: “Always tell the truth. Then you don’t have to remember anything.”
Our GM has another dream about two rookies, Barry Bonds and Derek Jeter. Remember, you are building a team, you want to win. Who would you sign??
Bonds!!!!!
Alex, I mean this with all due respect, but if you even considered choosing anyone other than Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, Walter Johnson, or maybe Oscar Charlton, then I have to say, you don’t understand baseball.
Sorry, but tabbing Jeter over Bonds would be indefensible. The greatest SS ever vs. one of the top 2 or 3 LFs ever? Worth mulling over.
But as great as Cap’n Jetes is, he ain’t Honus Wagner. Hell, he isn’t even A-Rod, supposing the latter stayed at SS.
@59 – Bonds, every time.
Anyone who says otherwise is foolish.
I would take Bonds, too, but if you just looked at statistics you would be overlooking the fact that Bonds was a worldclass jerk who probably hurt his team with his attitude. This just shows that stats can’t tell you everything about a player and in this case would be at least partially misleading.
a worldclass jerk who probably hurt his team with his attitude
I’ll take the “definitely” helped his team with his otherworldly OBP over the “probably” hurt his team with his supposed bad attitude.
If we know at this point in sabermetric analysis that OBP is 25% to 50% more important than SLG, I’d take my chances that OBP is 250% to 500% more important than BA (as in Bad Attitude; OBP is probably only 100% more important than the other BA, batting average).
I said I would take Bonds, too. But, again, if I just looked at the stats I would not have a complete picture of what I was getting with Barry Bonds. There is no way to quantify how much effect Bonds personality had on the performance of his teams, but you can’t deny that it had an effect. Stats can’t tell you everything.
“and a leader who will win two rings for my team”
All by himself?
While I understand the import placed on championships (it’s pretty obvious, after all) I would advise caution in naming one player a “winner” over another.
Given the option of signing Clemente or Ernie Banks, is it safe to assume that you would not even consider Banks, seeing as he never won any rings for his team?
People who say that stats and “stat-geeks” are taking the fun out of baseball or ruining the magic of the game or whatever are really saying: “Your stats do not confirm my preconceived notions about particular players I like or dislike.”
And of course stats don’t tell the whole story. Science can’t tell us whether there is a God, but it can tell us something about how we developed over the millennia from single-celled organisms to people talking about Jack Morris on a blog.
The problem with these thought experiments is that in real life there is no dream of who will end up with what career. i think a lot of baseball people, writers, GMs, scouts, are forced to predict what will happen. If those three guys are rookies and you are just looking at their limited pro experience Winfield looks like a lock to be the best of the bunch. Unfortunately I believe a lot of people would make a judgement on their respective talent levels and then spend the rest of their careers finding proof that their instincts were right rather than reevaluate who is actually most valuable.
I’m also quite tired of arguments revolving around one guy being a “winner” and another guy not being one. We are not talking basketball or even to a lesser degree football here people. Baseball is an individual sport and a player cannot make his teammates perform better in the essential baseball matchup, i.e. one batter vs. one pitcher. Barry Bonds, who never played for a WS champion team did significantly more to help his teams win than did Derek Jeter the consummate “winner.”
@Alex (again) you’re relying on what exactly to conclude that Bonds was so much more valuable a player than Biggio from 1995-1999?
I’m not saying he wasn’t. Again, Win Shares is just one metric, and like any statistical measure it’s imperfect. However, it stands light-years above the “infallible” trust-your-eyes argument. I saw them both play a lot of game during that five year period and always felt that Bonds was a monster and Biggio a bit overrated. I also know that our eyes can trick us, and that who cares what *I* “think” or “know”? It’s got no evidentiary value. It’s anecdotal. It’s everything that caused Jim Rice to get elected to the HOF a year or so ago today while a demonstrably better player in Ken Singleton is forgotten to history save for the occasional article by a provocateur like Joe Posnanski (Shaughnessy must be rolling over in his grave at that notion).
I have an all-time favorite player. His name is Nolan Ryan. After watching this 39 year old dinosaur from my childhood go pitch-for-pitch with Dwight Gooden in Game 5 of the 1986 NLCS I decided to find his starts for the next 6-7 years via satellite. Sometimes it was easy – he’d be on HSE or KTVT – and sometimes I’d spend a half hour searching the old C-band wild feeds to find the game, but I’d find it. He was wildly entertaining (pun intended). Even in his early 40s the guy still had the best fastball in the NL, and the best curveball as well. He might have even had the best changeup. And on those nights when he wasn’t throwing ball four there has never been a better pitcher, ever. Not Seaver, not Pedro, not Clemens, not NOBODY. Except he threw too many ball fours, though less than earlier in his career. He also threw a lot of passed balls and wild pitches. He was horrendous at holding runners. It all came out in the wash; at the end of his career his adjusted ERA was eleven percent better than the context in which he’d pitched. Sure he had some bad luck; the two seasons in which his ERA+ was the league’s best . . one of them was strike-shortened and in the other he led the league in losses(!). He also created some of his bad luck. Looking at their careers now two things are pretty clear. One is that there has never been a pitcher like Nolan Ryan (B-R’s closest analogue is Steve Carlton at 755), and the other is that Bert Blyleven was demonstrably better. I saw a lot of Blyleven too; he had the great curve and an underrated fastball but what he really had was invisible; he had a better ability than Nolan Ryan did of getting batters out. It didn’t LOOK like it; Ryan often looked untouchable. That’s the point; when judging who I’d rather see pitch a game I need no data or evidence – it’s Ryan over Blyleven in a landslide. You might see history; the guy threw something like 38 zero to 2 hit games. When judging who was the better pitcher, however, emotion and “common sense” have no business in the equation. Sabermetrics tries to answer questions like was player A better than player B through scientific rigor instead of the 120 year old tried-and-so-not-true method of “well I saw this guy and let me tell you . . ”
So far you’ve said two things: First that there’s no way Raines was better than Clemente (not even the point of Joe’s article referencing Bill James). Second that there’s no way Biggio was better than Bonds from 1995 to 1999. You may be right, but you’re countering evidence-based arguments with the scientific equivalent of . . . leeches.
dtro:
We are talking about a Hall of FAME not a Hall of Science. Fame necessarily involves things that can’t be quantified. Statistics are the most important factor in determining players ability and sabermetrics has been wonderful in explaining baseball. The problem I have is that sometimes stats are emphasized to the exclusion of everything else we know about players and in many cases that gives a false impression.
No matter how much we try to make this completely objective, there will always be a subjective aspect to evaluating players. That’s part of what makes it so fun and that is what I don’t want to lose.
“52: Alex said at 1:24 am on January 6th, 2010:
Let´s play a game.
You are a G.M and three rookie players, Raines, Clemente and Gwynn are available. You know (it came to you in a dream) the careers they will have. You know they will be similar players according to (how you use) sabermetrics
Now, who would you sign?”
The obvious choice is Gwynn. Yes, Raines had a slighly better statistical career. Clemente hit formore power and had a great arm. However, if I’m a GM and could see their careers ahead of time the only choice among those three is Gwynn. What some folks are missing in answering the question is Gwynn went on and spent his entire career with the team that drafted him. Raines had his best years with the Expos but spent just over half of his career there. Clemente did nothing for the team that signed him (Brooklyn). So, for a GM’s point of view Gwynn had the most value for the GM’s team. Local guy spends whole Hall of Fame career with hometown team, classy all the way, goes on to coach local college team. Easy choice for San Diego GM and city. How is baseball doing in Montreal and Brooklyn these days?
Just to clarify before I get jumped, I was not in any way blaming Tim or Roberto for teams relocating after they left the team.
Joe, just lay into CHB. We in Boston think it’s an idiot of epic proportions. Say what you want about Schilling, but the reason CHB hates him is because he had the balls to call a spade a spade, and of course to play a huge role in crushing CHB’s claim to fame.
That being said, Schilling had 11 seasons of ERA+ at 120 or higher where he pitched at least 162 innings (and one year of 122 in 151 IP). Morris had 6.
At 130, it’s 9 to 1.
At 140, it’s 6 to 0.
Morris’ best ERA+ was 133. Schilling topped that 9 times.
Of course, when presented with this information, CHB will call you a basement dwelling geek who should go outside and actually watch a game of baseball.
I hate CHB so much that I refuse to refer to him by anything other than CHB. Hat tip to Carl Everett.
@ #64
Mike, the common estimate is that a 1 point increase in OBP is the same as about a 1.7 point increase in SLG. Obviously there’s lots of co-dependence between those #’s, but if player A is a .350/.450 guy, player B is a .370/.450 guy, and player C is a .350/.484 guy, than B is about equal to C. So, OBP is actually about 70% more valuable than SLG.
And FWIW, I did a linear regression of AVG, OBP, and R/G from 2008. OBP checked in as about 50% more telling than simple AVG.
Can you imagine if modern media standards were to apply to HOF votes of Bob Gibson, Yogi Berra, Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle? How would somebody explain why they left some of these guys off the ballot?
Giving CHB that moniker is the greatest thing Carl Everett ever did.
Petty, vindictive, obnoxious, agenda-driven hack. How he even has a job is beyond me.
Thanks, Char, for at least a hint that I could google. Was I the only one trying to figure out who CHB is?
Good point, map (65). Numbers (like words) can help shine a light on reality, but they can never, ever fully encapsulate it. If I were GM today, I don’t know if I would pick Raines. His supporters don’t hesitate to point out that he played in a low-scoring era, but the other side of that coin is that if you put him in a higher-scoring time he loses some of his value. You think he’d get the chance to steal 90 bags today, especially if he had a decent lineup hitting behind him?
Some of you are arguing aesthetics over efficiency and I get the argument. It just isn’t correct.
Look, I grew up in the 70s and 80s in KC and I truly believe that Willie Wilson, Frank White and Dan Quisenberry were three of the most fun, exciting players I have had the pleasure watch play baseball.
Willie, in my opinion, was and still is, the fastest baseball player I have ever seen. To watch him score a run in an inning when the ball never left the infield was an amazing sight. He was breathtaking. I have often heard people say that a triple is the most exciting play in baseball and I think they are wrong. In my opinion a Willie Wilson inside the park home run was the most exciting play in baseball.
And yet, despite my love for his play, even if I looked at his peak from 1979-1984, it would be ludicrous for me to claim that he was a better lead off hitter than his counterpart, Rickey Henderson. Even though I never found watching Rickey particularly fun. He even kind of took the fun out of stolen bases. Watching him take a walk certainly wasn’t as aesthetically pleasing as watching Willie hit a “Baltimore chop” off the turf and beat it out. But Willie’s best OBP in his peak years was .365 (1982, the year he won the batting title), whereas during that same period, Rickey’s worst OBP in a full year was .399. So, as much more entertaining as I might have found Willie, Rickey was, by far, a superior player.
Frank White was the best fielding second baseman I have ever watched. Yeah, Sandberg has more Gold Gloves and so does Robbie Alomar, but Frank made plays, especially on balls in the air, that I never have seen other second basemen make. A Texas Leaguer over 2nd base was often an out when Frank was around. I loved him. Still do. And yet, much as I loved him, I don’t think he belongs in the HOF over Bobbie Grich or Lou Whitaker. His offensive numbers just don’t justify it. Now, watching Whitaker was pretty fun too, but Grich was just boring. Again, aesthetics would tell you that White was the more entertaining player of the two, but Grich, by far, deserves to be elected in the HOF.
Dan Quisenberry is the closest of the three to being a HOFer. He was an extremely effective relief ace (not a closer, never that, he pitched 2 or 3 innings for his saves, don’t ever denigrate him or Rollie Fingers or Goose Gossage by calling them “closers”). And he was fun. I mean, he threw underhanded. That was interesting. Plus, as Poz will tell you, he was intelligent and a great quote. And yet, he wasn’t Goose Gossage. It was great that Quiz could induce ground balls at a high rate, and that he never walked anyone, but . . . it is always better if your relief ace just doesn’t let the other team hit the ball. Goose could do that. Goose was better. To me, the submariner was more aesthetically pleasing, but he just wasn’t as good as the Goose (for one thing, Quiz had a really hard time his whole career getting left handed batters out; if Ben Oglivie could have batted against him every at bat, he would have hit about .450 with 70 HRs every year)
My point is this: If I want to remember how great Quiz, and Frank and Willie were, I can build a shrine to them in my basement and remember all the times that they entertained and delighted me.
But the Hall of Fame should be for the players who most helped their teams to win, whether it was through exciting HRS or through boring walks.
Spencer Steel, great name, like a pulp hero from the 30´s.
Of course Clemente and Jeter didn´t win all those rings just by themselves. The real question however, is “Could their teams have won (so much) without those two guys?”.
Probably not.
Even Bonds didn´t have the kind of impact people like Clemente, Jeter, Berra or Stargell had.
Regarding science, you´d be surprised by how much is achieved using intuition, going after “a hunch” or trying your luck with crazy experiments. This is because current statistics, as powerful as they are, do not quite grasp complex systems. Heck, even NASA gets its numbers wrong from time to time.
Clemente was a pioneer that fought against history and prejudice, led a small market team to two world championships playing with an intensity I have very rarely seen or heard of, won an MVP, hit 3000 hits and played a sublime right-field. However, according to “Win Shares” he is comparable to Raines.
You have to be joking.
From an old baseball writer: “Statistics in baseball are like a really small bikini: you can see almost the whole thing, but the most important bits are still hidden”.
@78, I was trying to figure it out as well.
Also, the point of asking us to choose between Gwynn, Raines, and Clemente stops with the question.
Like Joe wrote, Clemente is considered one of the greatest HOFers of all-time. Gwynn was a sure-thing 1st ballot HOFer. Raines is getting 22.5% of the vote. Raines is comparable to the two, was dominant for a decade yet an after-thought when presenting him comparatively with Gwynn and Clemente.
Also, I’d take Bonds. Jeter is great, but Bonds was a HOFer and on his way to being one of the greatest players ever before the ‘roids. He possessed massive amounts of combined talent, maybe more than anyone in history, in all three areas of offensive skill (Ability to hit for power, ability to get on base, and speed) and he was a good-to-great leftfielder for half of his career. Again, God bless Jeter, but Bonds was too good not to take. I’m not saying I don’t believe it’s possible that Bonds attitude could poison a team, but his skill set was historically excellent.
Hey Joe,
Is this your neighborhood McDonald’s in KC? What is going on there?! WOW!
http://www.kctv5.com/news/22143388/detail.html
I think Dan’s main flaw is the Boston Blowhard bit. Schilling was a blowhard at plenty of places. He was a blowhard in Arizona when he won a World Series MVP and he was a blowhard in Philly when he started a World Series game with 6 strikeouts.
but, hey at least he avoided the stat-geek numbers and backed up his claim with “but Morris has to get in before Schilling gets in. Morris was better.” talk about slamming your point home right there.
Re: 52
If I’m a GM and have the choice of Raines, Clemente or Gwynn and I know the careers each will have in advance, I would choose Raines.
It’s easy actually. Raines would never be as highly paid as Gwynn or Clemente (due to many people in baseball who seem to share Alex’ general mindset on this issue), yet virtually match their production. Thus my team would then have more money to spend on the other important members of my imaginary team.
Alex @80: “…Even Bonds didn’t have the kind of impact people like Clemente, Jeter, Berra or Stargell had…”
No offense, but says who? You? What, exactly, are your qualifications to make that determination? What is your proof? If this is just your opinion, okay, thanks, duly noted, I’ll add it to the other few million opinions on the subject that have no basis in anything other than personal observation.
From post #80: “Clemente was a pioneer that fought against history and prejudice, led a small market team to two world championships playing with an intensity I have very rarely seen or heard of, won an MVP, hit 3000 hits and played a sublime right-field. However, according to “Win Shares” he is comparable to Raines. You have to be joking.”
Well, no. It was Minnie Minoso who was the true pioneer. Criticism of Clemente in the 1960’s may have been as unfair as your praise is over the top, but he had detractors who said he wouldn’t play hurt. At the time, we perceived him as below Mays, Mantle, and Aaron (of course), just about Kaline. Hall of Fame, for sure, and understandably deified after his death.
Clemente came to bat 10,212 times; Raines, 10,359. Clemente reached base 3656 times; Raines, 3977. Put Clemente on base for the 147-time difference in plate appearances, and Raines is still a season ahead (in his last year, Clemente reached base another 147 times).
On 477 of those occasions, Clemente was quickly in scoring position, having doubled or successfully stolen a base. For Raines the number is 1102: 662 steals – caught stealing, + 440 doubles. 1102 times reached second base on his own, vs. Roberto’s 477. Yes, Clemente was a great (vs. good) fielder, hit 53 more triples and 70 more home runs. Those equal the 1102 to 477 difference in times standing on 2nd base (shortly) after your at-bat. 1102 to 477. Pitchers didn’t like seeing Tim Raines on first base, but often they didn’t have to look at him there for very long.
Of course, in stealing all those bases, Tim was caught 100 more times than Roberto. But Roberto grounded into 133 more double plays. Career win shares, Gwynn 398, Raines 390, Clemente 377. Put them in a bag, shake them up, you can’t lose. (Clemente, credited with 16 win shares in his last season, might well have reached 400. And Raines, too, if not for lupus, collusion, and platooning in New York.)
With respect to Bonds and Biggio, Alex, what Joe is doing is looking at who’s “best” over every 5-year period (and each decade has 10 5-year periods). For a stretch of 12 such periods, Barry wins 10 times, Biggio once, Bagwell once. That’s reasonable. For the decade 1990-1999, total win shares are calculated at 351 Bonds, 287 Biggio, 273 Thomas, 263 Bagwell, 261 Griffey, 244 Palmiero, 243 Alomar, 242 Larkin, etc. In 1977, Biggio’s near-perfect season, he scores 38 (to Bonds’s 36), but is second [or fourth] — in that single year — to the 39 ws
of Thomas, Gwynn, and Piazza. Over the 5-year period Joe refers to (1995-1999), Barry played in 719 games, reached base 1367 times, had 112 more steals than times caught, and was awarded 3 Gold Gloves for his play in left field. Biggio: 785 games, 1438 times on base, 136 steals+, 3 Gold Gloves at second base. Bonds wins in extra-base hits, 357 to 309. As Joe points out, the win-share verdict is close, but it’s certainly reasonable, taken these traditional numbers, that Biggio ranks #1 for these particular five years.
Great post, Brent. Great start to the discussion, Joe.
How does Barry Bonds being a “jerk” make the other players on his team worse? Is it really being suggested that his teamates were so weak in character and makeup that they performed worse at their craft due to how someone acted??? On the other end of that I cant believe for a second that Derek Jeter made any team better with his personality. All of this talk about personalities and being a “winner” to me are just garbage. Its like some leftover alpha male monkey on the highest branch bs. Jeter got the rings because he played on better teams. Yes he is a great player. Ive watched him for his entire career. Im a yankee fan and ive loved watching him. Barry doesnt have the rings but hes still a superior baseball player.
Alex’s entire arguments boils down to “I believe Roberto Clemente is obviously a superior player to Tim Raines, advanced statistical measurements deem them comparable, therefore statistical measurements are flawed.” It never dawns upon Alex that it is the first element of the equation that contains the flaw.
Jack Morris is overrated? Can we try some other distinction here than the over/under? I think actually he’s the pre-pitch-count, pre-Sabremetrics-era pitcher who suffers the most under the speculum of its verities. Joe, you wrote a great column when Lincecum won the Cy Young about how finally, with this award, we’re able to toss out 20 wins as the now antiquated gold standard for annual performance, and that Lincecum’s stellar performance this year would have been unjustly overlooked when 20Ws was the tyrannical cutoff and sole barometer of Cy Young level excellence. Now I’m sure you’ve heard all the arguments for Morris, but at the risk of getting shellacked in this forum (something Morris never minded), a good deal of his value lies in virtues that have lost their proponents lately. He was, at every stop and from early in his career, always the big horse of his team. He proved this by winning, sure, but also by being willing to stay in late in games that were already lost (sure, he may have lost them, but he was still going to save the rest of the pitching squad for another day). There was a certain imperious scorn in that gesture that’s gone out of fashion: Jake La Motta as pitcher. He was also nasty, not nasty in the way that a slider is nasty (devious and elusive and delighted to make you look foolish) but nasty in the way Ty Cobb was nasty: he was an ingluourious basterd with a mean streak that probably helped him play but seemed to disqualify him from normal everyday stuff, like talking with other humans. I’m not saying that this qualifies him for the Hall of Fame, just that those were valued qualities, favorable character traits back in the intangible era, and it seems to me those traits precisely that spoiled his numbers. Your rationale for including McGuire—that he was excellent by the standards then in vogue—work for Morris here.
@33 and #74, I just needed to share this email to and from the CHB:
Subject line: You’re right
Me: Joe Posnanski is TOTALLY sucking all the fun out of baseball. He really needs to get a life.
CHB: posnakski is a god.
you, on the other hand, should probably go outside and look at the sun now
and thenb
This “exciting player” vs. “great player” discussion was had in Boston not long ago when one of CHB’s colleagues (the ever clueless and mystifyingly employed Nick Cafardo) insisted in a column that there was no way the Red Sox should consider trading Jacoby Ellsbury for Adrian Gonzalez.
Assuming of course that option were even available, Cafardo said no because Ellsbury was exciting and fun to watch. He’s theoretically a national baseball writer for a once prominent news outlet and has absolutely no understanding of the game he’s supposed to cover.
[...] thing about Hall of Fame voting: people like to point to certain numbers to prove certain points (Joe Posnanski has a great article about this very idea) but those things they point at don’t always matter. Let’s take MVP voting for [...]
As far as Clemente, Raines and Gwynn. I think Clemente was the best player mainly because of his defense. Great peak and career value for Clemente. Raines and Gwynn seem like a better match to me.
Here’s their respective WAR totals:
Clemente:
Career WAR: 83.6
Top 7 Seasons: 50.0
Gwynn:
Career WAR: 68.5
Top 7 Seasons: 40.5
Raines:
Career WAR: 64.9
Top 7 Seasons: 40.7
In retrospect Clemente probably should have been a center fielder he was so good with the glove. Also remember Clemente was still a productive player at the time of his death.
Gwynn was a decent defensive player up until ‘92 and after that he really should have been a DH. His post ‘92 defense is so horrible that it negated a lot of his offense production.
Raines gets screwed because of the labor problems, 81, 87, 94-95. He lost basically 85% of a full season from that and lost about 230 times on base. That would have pushed him to about 4200 times on base and I don’t think a player has ever had that many times on base not elected to the HOF. Also he became a part-time player too early.
I must say upfront that I am completely unsure how to make the point I want to make and yet I feel compelled to try.
Of course the numbers are important in determining value and HoF status but surely there is also more to it than that?
For example I watched (and loved watching) ozzie smith play for his whole career. It was great watching him improve on his hitting until he got to MLB average or thereabouts from the punch and judy hitter than was painful to watch.
So I know he wasn’t the “best player” of his era (though he certainly should have won the 1987 MVP over dawson) and yet I knew he belonged in the Hall and that he would make it easily. After all he was the best defensive player at the most important defensive position who I (and a lot of other people) had ever seen. And he really did save a LOT of runs over a season, if not necessarily the 100 Whitey proclaimed once.
But there is a problem with the numbers, which is that they weight (in hitters’ case) things like obp and ops far greater than they do counting stats – perhaps even giving them more weight than they deserve, as if they are somehow the “only” stats that matter. Which is an attitude you can find all over the sabremetric world (I specifically do not include Bill James but do include his disciples Neyer and Law) and one I find the kind of “know it all” approach that people hate in ALL fields.
So it is no wonder to me that people are so sharply split on the importance of certain numbers – if nothing else the arrogance of many in the numbers camp should be expected to drive others away.
Of course no one should worry if Shaughnessy is driven away, since he really isn’t that insightful even at his best.
Take Biggio for example – he was a terrific player who any fan would want on his team. A gamer who got on base and could play nearly anywhere. Yet I too understand the reluctance to see him as the best player in the game at any point in his career. Unless you want to say the best over X period at getting on base perhaps.
I hated that MLB let him (and Bonds to an even greater extent) wear armor on his elbow that allowed him to deliberately get hit when the opportunity arose and, incidentally, know that he was largely going to be seeing pitches outside or if inside likely low, where he liked it better.
With Bonds it was a different approach but still with a lot of impact – BB would shrug off inside pitches he couldn’t handle confident in the protection he had. So they couldn’t come too far inside and if the didn’t get in far enough he WOULD punish them.
S does the elbow guard deserve a place in the hall? Because it made a good player better and a great player nigh unpitchable?
I guess my point is that HoF should encompass a lot of things – counting stats that are hard to attain over a career, like 3000 hits for example as well as players with high OBP/OPS. It should allow the peak dominant player who didn’t play as long as might be desired – like murphy and koufax – as well as the guy who did well for a long time – like biggio – but who never really was ever the best player in the game (Only in my view of course, Joe)
Yet it should keep out the players who are only there in some fan-like memories like Morris and Rice and maybe even schilling.
Heh, maybe the number shouldn’t be the way to decide who is in, but who is out. Let people vote as they will (as if you can stop them?) but any time they fail to vote in a player with X stats, then any player already in the Hall with lesser stats should be kicked.
Yes I am joking (sort of) and No I don’t think this will happen or that it could readily work but it would be fun, and I imagine Rice would have a fairly short stay so it is all good.
Dang this turned out long – sorry bout that. Great article Joe.
I’m not saying that statistics are useless or boring. I’m a baseball fan, and I like stats too. But I am echoing a point made by Bill Simmons who says that once baseball arguments no longer get the benefit of “I saw this guy play, and believe me, he was better than that other guy” because you can say X’s VORP is better than Y, therefore X is better than Y”, then baseball ceases to be a spectator sport, and becomes a branch of mathematics, and for many of us, stops being fun.
We are told that because stats tell us JD Drew is a fantastic ballplayer, the case is closed, even though people who watch him play on a daily basis (when he isn’t nursing some minor injury that keeps him out of the lineup) can tell you he is torture to root for, a mercenary who doesn’t like the game, has little interest in winning, who would rather take a called strike three than expand the zone to drive in a key run, and who displays all the zest of a mashed potato on the field and in the dugout. Don’t ask me—Tony LaRussa can tell you all about it. If JD Drew is supposed to be my model ballplayer—look at those walks!—then I’m watching basketball.
The Roberto Clemente argument is instructive. What made him a great right fielder was not his speed (average) or even his arm, because there have been other outfielders like Cory Snyder and Bo Jackson who could throw the ball farther. What made him great was the ferocious way he attacked the ball and came up throwing, hard and fast and seemingly angry. He didn’t just stop opposing baserunners, he terrorized them into submission. There just isn’t a stat that can translate the effect Clemente had on his team and on his opponents. You had to have seen it to understand. Meanwhile, for all of Bo Jackson’s phenomenal physical gifts—blazing speed and a cannon arm—he was consigned to left field because he was a terrible outfielder who got lousy jumps and took bad routes on fly balls when he didn’t misjudge them completely. It wasn’t enough that he was entertaining—he lacked the skills to be truly great. Again, all you had to do is watch the game to know this.
It’s like Jackie Robinson on the basepaths. I’m too young to have seen him play, and and his stolen base stats are pretty unimpressive by historical standards, but everyone who ever saw him play spoke of the way he changed a game when he got on base. To say that John Stearns once stole more bases in a season as Robinson did when he lead the league is missing the point.
Stat guru Rob Neyer once made a list of the best fastballs by decade, and neglected to include Nolan Ryan in the top ten in the 70’s or 80’s, on the grounds that Nolan had control issues that disqualified him. Only someone with his nose pressed into a spreadsheet could be that blind.
So when assessing Hall of Fame candidates, I’ll look at the stats, but mostly I’ll remember what I saw with my own two eyes.
No way McGwire should be in the hall. Without steriods (and don’t tell me there is no proof. You know and I know he used them.) he would not have broken Maris’ record. Lots and lots of those home runs would have been outs. There goes his record, going over 500 home runs for a career, his home run every 10. whatever PA and pushes his batting average (.263) down from average to bad. So why put him in the HOF and in effect say “this was a great baseball player, son, paly the game like him”. And just because some other unworthy guys are in there doesn’t mean we have to keep repeating the mistake.
Seriously — the question this column raises is: How on earth did CHB land at SI? That guy’s writing is utter garbage.
A larger point worth making I think is that while many of these discussions are an enjoyable digression from the normal workday, the Halls of Fame and those who are in positions of power in electing people to the Halls of Fame are essentially just a cottage industry for the media to continue to feel like they know the game and are the guardians of the game more than the fans who watch. They have the power, so they therefore must have somehow earned it and be respected for it.
Media used to be necessary because they traveled with the teams and games weren’t on TV and folks didn’t get to see or experience players from out of town. The slanted newspaper accounts and radio broadcasts were fans’ only source of information. Now arguably the media need MLB and the NFL a lot more than the leagues need them. But in the wave of the information age, the process of voting for awards and the HOF hasn’t changed because the writers are clinging to the last semblance of their relevance as an entity. They can’t tell us what they think we saw anymore, because we now see it all for ourselves.
It’s largely why in the end, Halls of Fame are kinda stupid. We remember great players, great plays, great moments not because they’re in the Hall of Fame, not because some writer or talking head told us about it, but because they happened.
Greg #96 – You’re the first one to comment about McGwire in these comments. Does that indicate something? Joe said it best – there have been spitballs, gambling, corked bats, amphetamines, etc throughout baseball history. In an ideal world none of them would’ve existed. When do we take the asterisk off? How do we know if all the HOFers were clean?
RE: Hall of Fame article.
I will stop watching baseball if McGwire makes the hall….there’s no way that juice monkey should have the honor of being in a hall of fame.
Dawson was the only one to make it. Blyleven and Alomar just missed.
Cardinal Mike, it’s easy to justify Ozzie’s place in the Hall with win shares. Despite his early years of weak hitting, Smith has 325 ws for his career. When you place those in context of other shortstops (some of them only part-time at short), Ozzie belongs. Wagner 655, Ripken 427, Yount 423, Appling 378, Vaughan 356, Larkin 346, Cronin 333, Banks 332, the Wiz 325, Trammell 318, Reese 314, Maranville 302, Aparicio 293, Boudreau and Sewell 277 each, Bancroft 269, Tinker 258, Rizzuto 231. Plus 19th-c. guys.
And some players bring something extra: Appling’s foul balls, Boudreau as manager, Larkin and Trammell as complete players, Aparicio as a prototype, Ozzie as a magician, etc. But 325 win shares isn’t magic — it meets the numbers standard for shortstops.
John Q, I think Utek has Clemente right. He wasn’t exceptionally fast but he ran hard. Assigned to center, he might have spent even more time on the DL, lacking a natural glide to his gait.
I pretty much understand win shares, but WAR is beyond me. Where do I go for a primer and for data on Kaline and Minoso? [Minoso is a Clemente comparable, but Minnie lost years to his combination of race and culture.]
I always thought Steve Garvey should be in the Hall. NL MVP, Most consecutive games played in the NL, AND 10 time All Star.
Maybe next year for Blyleven … only 5 votes shy.
I’m glad Dawson got in. He would have been the “wild card” on my ballot.
Bert Blyleven, 74.2%. http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/5672
Barry Larkin, 52%. http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/w7Ua
#87 “How does Barry Bonds being a “jerk” make the other players on his team worse? Is it really being suggested that his teamates were so weak in character and makeup that they performed worse at their craft due to how someone acted??? ”
I think it’s foolish to think that a person of sound character will work the same under any working condition. Some places stink more than others. I know they have in my jobs. I’m not saying Barry made San Fran a good or bad place to play, but I think you are painting with a broad brush when it comes to “makeup.”
Raines gained 8% in the vote, but that only puts him at ~31%. It will likely take the better part of a decade for deserving players such as him and Edgar Martinez (who debuted with 36% support) to have a real shot at the 75% threshold.
@95
Utek, you’re basically telling people that the reasons you watch baseball are right and better than the reasons other people watch baseball. That’s pretty arrogant. If you don’t like certain stats that try to dig to the truth behind who actually helps his team the most, don’t look at them. And don’t deride me for taking enjoyment in looking at these stats. I don’t feel it takes anything away from watching the game by trying to fully understand it. I really don’t understand how knowing the approximate change in win probability for a team takes any excitement away from seeing Jacoby Ellsbury score from second on a wild pitch.
Oh and as a Sox fan, I watch JD Drew on a nightly basis. The nagging injuries can be somewhat irritating, but I get a ton of joy out of watching what JD can do out there. You’re hating on a ballplayer that never complains to an ump, never shows up a teammate, coach, or opposing player, and is above average in pretty much every skill a player should have. He’s the epitome of a good player playing the game the right way.
Dave in Toledo,
heres’ the link to Sean Smith’s WAR at Chone Projections. http://www.baseballprojection.com/
Valid point with Clemente, it’s just odd to see a right fielder who does so well on fielding metrics. Usually a right-fielder that’s that good ends up in Center.
I guess they had Virdon in Center so Clemente played right but I would think on most teams he would have played most of his career in Center.
#95: “…who would rather take a called strike three than expand the zone to drive in a key run…”
Um, what?
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. That he just says “fuck it” sometimes and lets a 3rd strike go right down broadway? Are you saying he should just hack away with 2 strikes on him, GIDP be damned?
He grounds into a double play once every 76 plate appearances. In MLB, the average is once every 49-50 times. Drew is over 50% better at not making two outs than an average player, but we’re on him for strikeouts? (His K/PA is 18.3% in his career, his BB/K is 0.79).
@90 – Admit it. That’s a pretty funny response from Shaughnessey. That actually makes me like him a little better.
@ #109 Z
You forgot he scores the lowest in gritty manliness. What a girl for playing only 140 games rather than push threw a nagging injury that he can fix w/ rest, so he can hit 155.
But in all seriousness, J.D. Drew does strike me as a guy I wouldn’t hit a bar with, he seems pretty devoid of personality. But why do people make a big stink about his disposition when the results of his actions are so clear? He’s hit well in Boston.
His postseason stats are admittedly eh, but .286/.346/.459 in Boston is nothing to be ashamed of.
I think sometimes people just want players to root for. J.D. Drew is an easy one to root against. Naturally gifted, born with the proverbial silver spoon among MLB Draftees, and someone people think would be better if he just cared more.
One, maybe his “I don’t care” mentality helped him ascend to MLB fame. You think he ever got done on himself after an 0-for-series?
Two, why argue with results? If a pitcher wants to pitch blindfolded and he records a 3.00 FIP doing it, then why bother whine?
[...] And unfortunately, I’m afraid, too many little men on the election committee pulling the strings on baseball’s Hall of Fame But maybe this time they will get it right. Good luck Andre! Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » Hall Of Fame Arguments [...]
I think there’s one big and under-acknowledged reason why some people react to advanced stats with such venom: it robs them of their power. There’s a part of every person that loves being the first in the know, able to see more deeply than anyone else, able to explain the mysteries of life… or just baseball. Some people enjoy it a bit too much.
Even fifteen years ago, guys like CHB and Chass and Bob Conlin, et als, were the only way fans could follow the game fully. They were the big influencers of opinion; unless someone was manifestly awesome or terrible, they could shape the debate the way they pleased. Who was the fan to argue? They saw more baseball, traveled with teams, talked with all the other reporters, and had access to scouts and insiders. Bill James published Abstracts on his own nickel, and USA Today started printing all that agate type with platoon splits and such, but it wasn’t easy to find.
Then the Internet happens, and the advanced stats are readily available, and anyone can find out about any player they like in real-time… and see them live via Netcasts and satellite/cable. They’re not stuck with the Game of the Week and TWIB Notes and the local writers. They can form their own opinions, and back them with facts, and observation.
That just stings too much for some folks. They aren’t the ones with higher understanding anymore. Writers like Pos and Jonah Keri (and many others) who use the stats to test their eyes and their understanding come out way ahead.
(It’s not about age, either, but an open mind. The curmudgeonliest of them all, SI’s Dr. Z, kept elaborate charts to grade out players for his Pro-Bowl columns. He put in astounding amounts of work, watching as much as he could, and then translating it into numbers. He was forever writing that he was surprised so-and-so graded that low, or that high, but he stuck with those ratings – he instinctively got that the numbers were based on what we saw actually happen, that they were just another way of describing the results on the field. I miss reading his columns more than I can say, and it’s a terrible shame that he’s in such poor health.)
As somebody who has to endure his writing in the local paper, I offer a minor correction, Nightfly. It’s Bill Conlin, not Bob. Regardless of his name, though, he thoroughly sucks.
nightfly #115: I agree with you 100% about Dr. Z. He took his work totally to heart, watching/re-watching NFL game films to grade out nearly everyone. Anyone who enjoyed his serious but always fun style of expressing himself is much the worse off without Dr. Z’s research, grades and stories. It is so sad that he is in the condition of almost helplessness now.
As far as judging HOF candidates, the numbers & stats are an excellent tool and cannot be ignored. However, if a voter does not take into account a player’s style of performing, the final decision of HOF yea or nay for each athlete is not complete. I hardly care that many of Roberto Clemente’s offensive numbers are not up to snuff with Frank Thomas’ or Ken Singleton’s. No one in my lifetime that I have observed plays/ed rightfield quite like Clemente did. His arm strength and accuracy was incredible and he moved around out there as gracefully as can be. That accounts for a lot to me because it set a certain standard for rightfield play. The fact that he could hit line drives on pitches a foot out of the strike zone was just another plus. Clemente wasn’t the patient, almost scientific hitter like Tony Gwynn but he managed to lead the NL in batting average (I know, now a nearly worthless stat) four times I believe. SAnd, two WS rings and WS MVP helped too. He would have been a first year inductee had he lived.
Not to belabor a point on Pittsburgh athletes, but I view Lynn Swann similarly to Clemente in that Swann’s graceful moves/catches as a receiver was a thing of beauty in the 1970s. Few (maybe no one to that point – Alworth?) had that certain style of gracefulness with a fair amount of success. Swann’s overall pass-catching numbers are almost laughable in the context of HOF worthiness in today’s game. Yet, he’s in the NFL HOF. And yes, of course his four Super Bowl rings were not a hindrance either!
Couldn’t agree more with #115 & 117, and I don’t even like football. Dr Z. was a fine writer who meticulously researched his work.
115 writes: “I think there’s one big and under-acknowledged reason why some people react to advanced stats with such venom: it robs them of their power.”
This is inarguably correct.
When Shaughnessey and others say stat geeks are ruining the national pastime they clearly mean that it’s being ruined FOR THEM. The jig is up.
By the way, if you love Dr. Z’s grading of players I recommend a site called profootballfocus.com. They do really thorough grading of every player in the league. Great site.
Let’s not start writing about Dr. Z in the past tense just yet.
This is my order of what a HoF voter should consider when voting.
1) Stats / production – look, almost everything a player does is not only a biproduct of their talent level, but fits neatly into statistical categories. This makes it extremely easy to determine how well they actually played compared to a way more team-oriented sport like football, or even basketball (though that’s coming a long way, too).
2) Special circumstances – Think a guy was well on his way to a HoF career between ages 23-34, then suddenly he blows out a knee and is a shell of himself until retirement? I guess you can now dub this the Andre Dawson law. You could probably make the same case for Albert Belle
3) Character – There’s already a character clause in voting. The basketball Hall of Fame weighs this heavily. If you have two guys who go .300/.400/.500 over 9000 PA, one donated to charity and granted hundreds of wishes to make a wish kids, while the other was a grade A asshole, this should very much be a consideration.
4) Playoffs – way lower than the Heyman’s of the world have it, but postseason play is mearly a suppliment to regular season. Even Derek Jeter’s Regular Season PA : Postseason PA ratio is high (About 15.4:1). Not like it matters for Jeter, his postseason #’s are very much in line w/ his career. But how skewed is the public’s view of, say, Lou Brock, for 92 postseason PA, which made up 0.8% of his total career PA (Regular season + Postseason). Should Brock be viewed as an all time great because he rocked a .411 BABIP in 21 October games in his mid to late 20’s? A more normal BABIP gives him 29 hits instead of 34, and a line of (being generous and removing 5 singles rather than any XBH) .333/.370/.598. And does Ted Williams going .200/.333/.200 in the 46 WS diminish his greatness at all? No. (Sorry for this convuluted part)
5) Pure subjectivity – okay, done all of the above on everyone. Have some guys you straddle the fence for. Did you like them? Fine.
Unfortunately, too many voters go in this exact reverse order. Pick who they like, harp on their postseason stats (or skip if it doesn’t suit them), talk about character, leadership, and intangibles, then cherry pick some stats to support their claim while purposely avoiding all-inclusive metrics.
“knowledge is power”
It’s why certain nations block the web, and don’t educate their citizens.
It’s why smart people are ridiculed* in this country, while athletes are idolized**.
*”elites”; “stats’ geeks”; “brains”; “nerds”…
**”jocks”; “warriors”; “idols”…
It’s also why certain members of the media don’t like math and stats and all that collegy stuff.
And is it any wonder that Shaughnessey hates the current Red Sox regime? He was making a very good living by riding that absurd “Curse of the Bambino” hocus-pocus, and Theo/Bill James and complany came in and said, “Uh, no, witchcraft and superstition has zero to do with it. Numbers do. Your story is asinine, and we’re going to prove it to you.”
And they did. Twice.
As a Cub fan, I’d seriously be more excited about adding Bill James to the front office than I’d be if we landed Pujols.
“I think there’s one big and under-acknowledged reason why some people react to advanced stats with such venom: it robs them of their power.”
I agree. We’re quickly moving past the day when baseball analysis was reactive and based on a nebulous set of mystical factors. The implication that a person who studies baseball by the numbers cannot see the beauty in the game seems to be a reaction to having the veil forcefully lifted from their eyes.
I still get chills when I see a replay of Pete Rose flying into third base after literally launching himself into a violent head-first slide. That part of baseball will always be with me, and it’s the main reason I still enjoy the game. But the numbers and analysis have an attraction all their own, because they let me look past the not-very-accurate story my lying eyes tell me sometimes.
I love seeing. And I really really love knowing.
Mike @ 119
Great site. Wow I didn’t realize Rivers kicked so much ass in 2009.
This website also seems to advocate the M.O. of what we’ve seen from good teams lately. QB first, then protect your QB, then get after the other team’s QB, then fill in the blank.
Has anyone mentioned that best left-handed AND right-handed pitchers in MLB history were both named Johnson?
@Garrett Hawk 122,
That’s an excellent point, Shaughnessey hates that Theo/Bill James stuff because he it forces him to be a journalist instead of just making things up like “Most Feared Hitter” B.S.
Garrett Hawk,
IMO, I think it goes:
Grove
Spahn
Johnson
Carlton
Plank
As far ast the top 5 leftys
The problem with the HOF is voters who vote like this (see below article). This logic is so flawed, if every voter did this, doesn’t it mean Alomar would not have enough votes to be on next years ballot??…
http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2009/12/this_writer_wont_hustle_for_ro.html
Kevin S
PART of me actually forgives Livingston there and sees his point. To lay an egg in a decisive game, well, that happens, but it’s probably maddening to see one of your team’s best players half-assing it. Especially when the other team had a guy named Ichiro on it.
That being said, I’m really happy more writers didn’t want to take a stand against laziness.
Kevin S @128: The previously mentioned Bill Conlin won’t vote for anybody the first time he’s eligible. Did I mention that Bill Conlin is a douche and a terrible writer? I think I might have.
John in Philly, I seriously think Bill Conlin’s the worst. Murray Chass, for example, as far less confrontational one on one. Heyman’s a troll. The most recent internet baseball fan hating sensation Mike Silva is the king of trolling. But Conlin really is that guy.
I remember the email exchange (was it posted on deadspin?) of Conlin mocking a Phillies fan for mentioning that Wright was a better MVP choice in 2007 than Rollins, and basically resorted to 16 year old on a message board levels of maturity to a legit question.
Whatever, their industry is dying.
Joe R @120. Your arguments on Brock’s postseason performance illustrate why many people can’t get on board with sabermetrics. You mention Brock’s postseason BABIP being high, and then you “correct” Brock’s stats for what “should have” happened. And, then, when you look at it through this prism, you can plainly see that Brock wasn’t actually that great at all. I suppose everybody who cheered for him in St. Louis and all the news outlets who reported his heroics at the time were simply not smart enough to see that he wasn’t that good, just lucky.
John Q @126 suggests that Shaughnessy and others make up things like “most feared”. But, I must point out the .333/.370/.598 postseason line you assigned to Brock, which was 100% fabricated.
You’re great Joe.
With that out of the way I agree with you about Schilling and he’s a poterboy for your argument: He’s a right wing blowhard with advice for everyone. But, as a Sox fan – and watching that world series – he was great.
You could say he put his money where his mouth is. He had a lot of money but he still had room for his foot, his car, his house, a lamp, the couch…….
Thanks folks, I’m here every thursday.
@115 – You are right about TWIB and the Sports Machine; before ESPN(and the internet) that’s how I learned about baseball outside of the Chicago area where I grew up. I mean, at least I got to see the NL and the AL. I saw Tim Raines on my White Sox and the announcers said,” You should’ve seen this guy when he was in Montreal”, and I didn’t quite get it. If I looked at his baseball card…well, he stole a lot of bases when he was younger. Now I realize he is an HOFer, one step behind Rickey.
In regards to Ozzie Smith, my theory has always been…if Alan Trammells name was Ozzie Trammell and his nickname was the Wizard of Oz, and he did a backflip before the start of each season that he’d be in the HOF and not Smith.
A lot of this is based on our minds eye. Face it, Andre Dawson looks like an HOFer. Lean, ready to slice the ball with the menacing way he holds the bat like a saber. Bert Blyleven looks like our uncle in his “I heart to fart” t-shirt.
It’s odd, but one of the first players I knew was an HOFer while he was playing was Roberto Alomar. I first became aware of him when he was with Toronto, the engine of 2 WS winners, then right on to Baltimore and Cleveland. For him not to make it is strange, but I think that the spitting incident creates the perception “he doesn’t have the character of a first ballot HOFer” whatever that means. These writers are so strange.
How different would these guys vote if the players had one chance for election? 5 years after retirement – there is one yes/no vote. Does Alomar make it this year? Yes. It’s the same every year, you think you got a handle on the HOF process and still end up scratching your head.
Mark @132: Joe R doesn’t need me to defend him. But… I think you’re misinterpreting Joe R’s point.
He’s not saying Brock didn’t do those things, or that the things he did shouldn’t count. What he’s really talking about is that postseason data is a really small size, even for a player like Jeter who’s playing an ass ton of postseason games. And with small sample sizes, we get lots of variance from the norm — for example Brock (for somebody who was better) or Williams (for somebody who was worse).
The problem comes not from saying, “Holy cow, Lou Brock had a great World Series!” The problem, instead, comes in when we start assigning mystical meanings. “Holy cow, Lou Brock is full of clutchiness, because he clutched in the World Series.”
Joe R isn’t saying we should normalize playoff data. He’s saying we should remember that it’s a small sample size, and it’s not a good reason to build somebody up (or tear somebody down a lot.
(And Joe R, if I’m way off base, feel free to correct me.)
John Q,
Your list of the greatest lefties is pretty good. It’s a good argument that will go on for years, because there is no perfect answer. In fact, ESPN is currently running a poll for “best lefty ever,” and Koufax is winning by landslide…and he din’t even make your list.
IMO, there are 4 guys “in the discussion:”
Grove, Big Unit, Spahn and Koufax. Koufax, despite being by far the most beloved, doesn’t stack up career-wise with the other three.
It is my opinion that RJ combined the good points of Spahn and Koufax: he had a similar Koufaxian peak, and he had Spahn’s longevity. Spahn had more wins, but does anyone on this site consider pitcher wins to be the most important stat?
So it’s RJ vs. Grove.
Just below that line is another collection that includes Carl Hubbell, Steve Carlton, and Eddie Plank. Tom Galvine and Whitey Ford are possibly in this group also. I don’t know who would round out the top 10. Ideas?
Along the lines of your column (before I saw it), I was trying to make the case for John Franco to go to the Hall of Fame (because I’m a Mets fan) by organizing the “great” relief pitchers in a spreadsheet.
Anyways, I found two things:
(1) By your line of reasoning, if Lee Smith eventually goes to the Hall of Fame, John Franco probably should as well. (And honestly, I don’t believe either deserve to).
(2) If Trevor Hoffman is a shoe-in for the HoF, so is Dan Quisenberry. Remarkable (and similar) ERA+, awards are similar (Quiz has a slight loss on All-Star games, but an edge on MVP finishes), but Hoffman has 300+ more saves and loads more strikeouts. Which doesn’t appear to change the fact that they were each roughly as effective as each other.
At any rate, thanks for another great column.
Laid Off Too …we don’t have to know if everyone is clean. Starting now, the ones we know cheated we leave out. Character should count. Just we because we once let in players who cheated or had bad character doesn’t mean we have to do so forever more. Remember, we are not talking about taking away their pensions or making them return their salaries. We are just refusing to celebrate their ill-gotten accomplishments.
Greg, the problem with PEDs is that we don’t KNOW who cheated. Have you ever taken a good look at early career photos of Jeff Bagwell? Someone above made a pretty startling case for Edgar Martinez and PEDs.
We just don’t know. That’s why it seems strange to punish, say, Sosa (who was never busted) and not Bagwell.
Some one could do a Kennedy/Lincoln type thing with Randy Johnson and Walter Johnson.
Big Unit
Big Train
Best lefty pitcher of all-time (arguably).
Best righty pitcher of all-time (arguably).
Won exactly one ring, by coming in to pitch great relief in Game 7. He was 36.
Won exactly one ring, by coming in to pitch great relief in Game 7. He was 37.
Best slider in pitching history (or at least most famous).
Best fastball in pitching history (or at least most famous).
-Extreme sidearm delivery that scared the hell out of hitters.
-Ditto.
-Known as great strikeout pitcher. (2nd all-time in K’s. 1st all-time in K’s-per-9 innings.)
-Known as great strikeout pitcher. ( held career K record for over 60 years).
Randy Johnson
Walter Johnson
Interesting, no?
I can’t get too upset about Bert coming so close — gives us something to look forward to for a year.
But the absolute goofs have to be the guys who voted for Morris and not for Blyleven.
9 pitchers have thrown 4500 innings with a 118 ERA+ or better. Inner-circle household names: Big Train, Mathewson, Alexander, Clemens, Seaver, Spahn, Gaylord, Greg. And Bert.
http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/5672
To add Jack Morris you have to lower the innings to 3800 and the ERA+ to 105. Now the group is 37, not 9. And it includes, as Morris’s most comparable, Frank Tanana, Jamie Moyer, Charlie Hough.
Tyler Kepner points out the Bert lost 18 games in which he gave up 1 or no earned runs, and got the win in only 4 games when he gave up 5 runs or more. For Jack Morris, the numbers are 6 such tough-luck losses, and 27 fortunate wins in which he was charged with at least 5 earned runs. [If you add/subtract these numbers equally to/from their career records, Blyleven becomes 301-236 and Morris 231-209.]
If people want to vote for Morris on the basis of his intangibles, fine. He battled. Like Don Larsen, he pitched great in a World Series game. However, don’t penalize Blyleven for your subjective impression of Morris’s intangibles. Start with the actual career accomplishments. And here they are.
It doesn’t really matter, but as a still-bitter Braves fan, I feel obligated to point out that, were it not for Lonnie Smith committing one of the all-time baserunning blunders in Game 7 in 1991, Morris probably winds up with a valiant effort in defeat instead of a 10-inning shutout victory.
I’m as stat-geeky as the next guy (unless Shaughnessy is the next guy), but I don’t see the utility in going all BABIP on Brock’s postseason performance. BABIP is useful to predict what might happen next, but isn’t germane to an appreciation of what has already happened. Brock did the things he did. He did them. They happened. And, to me, he gets extra credit — not because he had a mystical ability to perform on the big stage, but just because he DID perform on the big stage.
As a reader of Philly.com everyday Conlin doesn’t bother me because he is more or less unreadable therefore you can avoid him. i suppose somebody is interested in comparing ben francisco to a player from 1963, but it’s not me (I like the history of sports. just read satchel. conlin just makes it inane). The ability to avoid him makes him better than a lot of writers who might get you to read their article before realizing how bad it is. I just wait for bill lyons special articles.
You know, focusing on Schilling & Morris gets to a part of the Hall of Fame debate that I think is too often getting unduly dismissed these days. It’s the narrative of baseball.
Theo Epstein often refers to the “narrative” of the baseball season — the stories about the season — as something he has no control over, and as something he can’t worry about. Which is great: As a Red Sox fan, I’m happy that the team is being built on more objective criteria, because I want them to win games. (That’s not to say that I prefer winning to the narrative, it’s to say that winning leads to the sorts of narratives I prefer). There’s no place in the baseball operations of the Red Sox to celebrate the narratives of the game.
But, I think, the Hall of Fame is different. It’s not as if we’re assembling in the Hall of Fame a sort of uber-team that could protect the Earth from a marauding band of invading baseball-playing space aliens. Unlike the baseball front offices, I *want* HOF voters to consider the narrative.
I want them to consider the narrative, because I think a part of what the HOF is about is celebrating that narrative. My Dad & I went to the HOF a lot as a kid, and the thing about the hall itself — not the museum, the hall — is that it’s not a silent cathedral. It’s full of people talking, sharing memories about their favorite players. The trip to the HOF was about my dad sharing memories with me of the players he idolized, and what they had done.
Statistically speaking, Morris & Schilling are maybe borderline candidates. You could use the numbers to include them, exclude them, or draw a distinction between them, suggesting Schilling is in and Morris out on the marginal difference between them.
This, I think, is to miss the point of the narrative. I think it’s worth considering that guys can get in on the narrative. On the stories about baseball that they were a central part of. And I don’t think this cheapens the hall, or sets new benchmarks; it’s just to admit that other things matter too.
Oh, and I know that the narrative can be written so many ways; that it favors the guys who enjoyed opportunities that other better players never had; that it, by necessity, focuses on a small sample; that its a non-representative sample; that its a terrible way to judge a player’s overall career performance.
And yet, I love the narrative. I was born in New England, so I’m a Sox fan. There’s nothing I could have done about it; those are the rules up there. But I didn’t have to be a baseball fan. That I am also a baseball fan has a lot to do with the narrative of the 91 Twins, and what Jack Morris did in that postseason.
You know, one of the many things I love about the statistical revolution in baseball is how it’s helped us re-evaluate careers, make sense of things that we couldn’t see even though they were right in front of us. Things like how great Blyleven’s career was. When we use these new analytical tools to see something wonderful, something we hadn’t really totally consciously noticed, I love baseball all the more.
I’d be awfully disappointed, though, if these sets of tools — these things that let me see more about baseball — became blinders of sorts, suggesting that the things that they help me see are the only things that matter in HOF decisions.
And that’s why I want Blyleven AND Morris in the hall. Blyleven on his career numbers. Morris on his place in the narrative (This distinction on the source of the merits, by the way, may help explain why some people who see the value of Blyleven’s candidacy but strain to see Morris’s case, and vice versa). These are very different paths to the HOF, to be sure, but I’m coming to think that I’m fine with them both.
hi joe – i know this oversimplifies things tremendously (which is odd for me), but can’t we agree on the following:
–for a hitter, it’s about not making outs (or rather, the rate at which you get don’t make out)
–for a hitter, it’s about coercing outs (or rather, the rate at which you coerce outs)
when boiled down to these simple things you can separate out the blylevens from the morrises and the dawsons from the rainses. it may be too simple, but it’s not that far off.
@ 132
Way to totally miss the point of my post. It was to illustrate how luck can play a part in such a small sample size, and that it’s silly to hold such a tiny fraction of his career to such high esteem.
And John in Philly (135)
Exactly.
A good current example of why it’s stupid to hold small samples to such high esteem is Ryan Howard. When you’re 30 years old and have an OPS+ of 142, you’re a pretty good hitter.
But Howard, thanks to some big Septembers and postseries series, became known for being this superclutch star that comes through the most in big situations (even though that’s partly true, his OPS jumps a ton from no one on to RISP, but a lot of it has to do with IBB’s). He has another monster September, and you get guys like Heyman saying “He’s possibly underrated”. Big NLDS, big NLCS, looks like the same old guy.
Then comes the WS, he lays an egg, and you get the Kruks of the world saying “wtf I thought he was clutch.”
David Ortiz, same thing. Monster in the postseason in 2004 and 2007, RSN calls him the most clutch hitter ever. Proceeds to do nothing in the 2008 and 2009 postseason.
Yes, Ortiz regressed in this time period, but if hyperclutchitude exists, wouldn’t he just turn it up a notch for “when it counts”?
Also, another thing that makes using the playoffs BS. Brock example again: he got to play in his age 25, 28, and 29 seasons. Then on the other end of the spectrum, you have someone like Darrell Evans, who never played in a postseason until age 37. Is this a fair comp?
Wow, terrible post by the Poz. Let’s start with an egregious factual error by Poz.
Poz says Blyleven’s record in the seasons Blyleven pitched for good teams (i.e., 88 or more wins plus the ‘87 World Champion Twins) was better than his teams’ records. This is untrue. Blyleven was 92-70 for a .568 winning %, while his teams were 645-489 for a .569 winning %. In other words, Blyleven’s record was precisely that of the average pitcher on those teams.
Poz apparently believe that Hall of Famer pitchers who pitch for good teams for multiple seasons are doing just fine if they’re record is as good as their teams. This is a bizarre and inexplicable belief.
Poz then proceeds to unfairly belittle Chass’s argument by omitting to cite an essential part of Chass’s argument: Bert won 92 games in seven seasons in which he pitched for these good teams. Poz, you can divid 92 by 7, can’t you? That’s 13 wins a season. Here’s some more math for you Poz: Bert averaged 33 starts a year in those years. Thirteen wins in 33 starts is a Hall of Fame record? Keep in mind these teams won two World Series, three divisions titles and had three other 2nd place finished. And all Bert could manage was 13 wins a year?
I’d also suggest to Poz that the ‘80 Pirates were a pretty good team. They were defending world champs, they led the NL East going into September. They were on their way to 90 wins in mid-August when something went wrong – Bert Blyleven collapsed. He went 1-5 over his last 8 starts with a 4.38 ERA, and the Pirates lost 7 of his last 8 starts. If Blyleven would have won 6 of his last 8 starts – like Palmer and Seaver and Guidry did so often in late season pennant races – the Bucs would have had their 88 wins.
One other point about Bert’s ‘80 season, Poz. He went 8-13, and he was only 29 years old.
But Poz wants to dismiss Bert’s terrible ‘88 season and focus on Bert’s 82 wins in the other six seasons he pitched for these teams. More math, Poz: 82 wins in six years is less than 14 wins a season.
Gosh, Bert had a lot of no-decisions in those years. Musta been those bad bullpens blowing all Bert’s wins, right? The fact is that in those seven years Bert left 30 games in a position to lose and his team came back to spare him the loss. This is an extraordinary number. It’s more bailouts than Guidry received in his entire career. Jack Morris had only 38 such bailouts by his team in 18 seasons.
But Bert’s bullpen blew wins for him, too, didn’t they? Yes, but only 17 over those seven seasons. If you give Bert credit for the games his bullpen blew but give him losses for those games where his team bailed him out, his 92-70 record becomes 109-100.
Chass was right, Poz. Thirteen wins a season for teams that averaged more than 90 wins per season just plain stinks. You can’t find one Hall of Fame pitcher whose records for good teams is so pathetic.
honor of Spinal Tap, here’s my list of the top 11 Lefty’s of all time:
Just regular season, Career + Peak (Best 7 Seasons):
Grove
Spahn
Johnson
Carlton
Plank
Hubbell
Koufax
Glavine
Koosman
Ford
John
Grove is just the best, great peak good career value.
You can make a case for Randy in the #2 spot but I give Spahn some extra war credit because he basically missed 3 seasons 1942-1944
Carlton had a weird peak and valley career
Plank is kind of forgotten but he won 325 games. I think it’s because his team (philly A’s doesn’t exist anymore.)
Same thing with Carl Hubbell (NY Giants) Great peak from ‘33-37
Koufax had a great peak, one of the all time best but it was a little short and his career value is basically in the Bret Saberhagen territory. He gets more credit if you ADD post season play
Glavine was very durable and had that great career value. Didn’t deserve that ‘98 Cy Young.
Koosman is kind of underrated. He’s kind of like Steve Carlton Lite. A lot of peaks and valleys. He probably would have won a Cy Young award if he was on some decent teams. He didn’t have the career value as Glavine but he had a better peak.
Ford is overrated IMO. He lost 2 years because of Korea but if he had played for any other team than the Yankees he wouldn’t be in the HOF. He wouldn’t have the great w-l%. But seriously, I heard writers busting Blyleven’s chops because he only won 20 games once. Whitey Ford only won 20 games TWICE in his career and he was on some of the most dominant teams in baseball history while Blyleven was stuck on the
Well, it seems I share my “mindset” with some HOF voters.
It is actually funny that Joe Posnanski describes, based on numbers, Edgar Martinez as an exceptional hitter, HOF worthy, while TomVerducci (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tom_verducci/01/06/hall.of.fame/index.html?eref=sihp) uses the same numbers (OPS, OPS+, etc) to show that Edgar Martinez is definitely NOT a hofer.
It goes to show, even math needs interpretation (i.e the much despised “what I saw”).
Concerning Bonds, I guess he was (steroids apart) the best hitter ever. However, if the goal of this game is to win a championship, then Jeter has a thing or two to say to him about impact, at the end of the day.
A final message to those who put an exaggerated emphasis on individual numbers: the real game is not “Fantasy” baseball. the real game is not about accumulating numbers or even about having a 120 OPS+. The real game is about much more than that.
John Q –
Two things. Whitey Ford had a 133 ERA+. He’s a Hall of Famer on that alone. It’s better than everyone on your list other than Grove and Johnson.
Ron Guidry should be on your list. He’s much better than Koosman and John. Excellent 119 ERA+, amazing .651 winning percentage and the best big game pitcher of his era.
Great essay on “the narrative,” Tim.
@utek
I hear you regarding “magic”, but frankly, that’s playing semantics. It’s easy to proclaim that a player had a “magic flair” about them that makes them hall worthy. But really, how often does the hall induct players simply for reaching a specific statistical milestone?
I think you’re arguing from the standpoint that a lot of people who misunderstand “stat heads” argue from: our love of stats is derived from our love of the game. We understand completely that the game has to be watched. Cool new stats only help increase understanding of what happened, and can be incredibly enlightening. And sometimes, they tell us, objectively, that one player was simply better than another. We still get to root for our favorites, without care for stats and whatnot. But just as we often judge with our guts for things like Hall-worthiness, despite what stats say, stats can also shed light on a player who was unfairly judged during his career by standards that, frankly, are out of date (i.e. overdependence on pitcher wins with Blyleven, lack of knowledge of OBP and the ways runs are created for Raines).
Also, you give Shaugnessy way too much credit. He is incapable of as layered a viewpoint as yours. Speaking as a Massachusetts resident who has had to put up with his spewing for a long time, his viewpoint is more or less: “these stats are new, so therefore they must be bunk.”
@ Garrett “Andre Dawson!” and John Q:
Great lists. I totally love that “Walter had a secretary named Randy” idea!
Koufax is a totally-peak guy, and he flamed out too quickly to really create career value. For one game, sure. For a career, no can do. And Jim Palmer through age 30 was pretty damn near his equal, I recently discovered!
I look at careers as a whole, so my lefty listy of a baker’s dozen looks like this:
Grove
Unit
Spahn
Carlton
Plank
Glavine
Hubbell
Rixey (seriously — solid ERA+s with lots of decisions: should have won almost 300 games. And a Wahoo!)
Prince Hal Newhouser
Ford
Rube Waddell
Tommy John
Billy Pierce
@149: “Poz apparently believe that Hall of Famer pitchers who pitch for good teams for multiple seasons are doing just fine if they’re record is as good as their teams. This is a bizarre and inexplicable belief.”
Why is this inexplicable? Even if pitchers’ wins and losses weren’t stupid stats — which they are — what’s wrong with having a W/L record comparable to that of your team?
Hey, PhilM, that’s a good list. But you can’t put Billy Pierce on it and leave off Lefty Gomez and Ron Guidry. They both excellent ERA+, spectacular winning percentages (and far better winning percentages than the good teams they played for), and excellent post-season records.
Jeremy the Math Guy says: “Why is this inexplicable? Even if pitchers’ wins and losses weren’t stupid stats — which they are — what’s wrong with having a W/L record comparable to that of your team?”
Nothing wrong with it. It’s just average. It’s not Hall of Fame worthy. Hall of Famers are supposed to be better than average, aren’t they? In these seven seasons Bert received run support approximately equivalent to the run support provided other starting pitchers on his teams, and he produced records approximately equivalent to their records. Are all the pitchers on those teams Hall of Famers?
Thanks Tommy: as a Yankee fan born and bred, Guidry was my guy (my Dad got me his autograph in person in ‘78), and for one game — say, an October playoff against those hated (but not feared) Jim Rice Red Sox — I’d pick him in a heartbeat. But his career ERA+ is just a smidge behind Blyleven’s, over only half the innings. Gomez is up there, but I still feel Pierce is underrated — I’d say he’s just as good as Drysdale, but without the famous partner open the Hall door for him.
I mean a smidge “better than” Blyleven’s (who’s not a lefty, I know).
Nice list, PhilM.
I don’t know if Rube Waddell is underrated or overrated. But he did lead the majors in strike-outs for 6 straight years. His career ERA+ of 135 puts him near the top of the class for any lefty ever.
I loved Tim’s essay about the “narrative” of baseball. And Waddell is front and center in that narrative. In fact, this may be my all-time favorite paragraph about a ballplayer:
Cooperstown historian Lee Allen on Waddell’s erratic behavior:
“He began that year (1903) sleeping in a firehouse in Camden, New Jersey, and ended it tending bar in a saloon in Wheeling, West Virginia. In between those events he won 22 games for the Philadelphia Athletics, played left end for the Business Men’s Rugby Football Club of Grand Rapids, Michigan, toured the nation in a melodrama called The Stain of Guilt, courted, married and became separated from May Wynne Skinner of Lynn, Massachusetts, saved a woman from drowning, accidentally shot a friend through the hand, and was bitten by a lion.”
Santana is just two complete seasons away of the total games pitched by Koufax (368 vs 310) and his 143 ERA+ is 12 points better (Koufax 131 ERA+). And Santana would be three CY and not two of them in his house.
Still his carrer is a little short for the list but looks as he has a reservation at least for the No.10 of the list.
Actually Guidry’s career ERA+ is just slightly ahead of Blyleven’s, 119 to 118. And, if you exclude ‘84 when he had arm problems and a terrible ERA, he maintained a 129 ERA+ between ‘77 and ‘85.
My biggest selling point for Guidry is that he was the best big-game pitcher of his era. He pitched in five close pennant races for the Yanks (‘77, ‘78, ‘80, ‘83 and ‘85) and made 30 starts in September in those seasons. He won 26 of those 30 starts. Let me be clear – he didn’t merely win 26 of 30 DECISIONS, he won 26 of his 30 starts!
The previous post regarding Guidry’s amazing September record in pennant races was my post, not PhilM’s. I’m not sure what happened there.
Great minds thinking alike, I guess — I told you Guidry was my guy! For a stretch there, there was no one better, but I guess I don’t think the stretch was long enough.
Yeah, it’s become accepted that Guidry’s stretch just wasn’t long enough, but consider the following.
Guidry had ten years in which he pitched enough innings to qualify for the ERA title (and Guidry pitched more than 190 innings in each of those seasons). The following Hall of Fame pitchers each had either 10 or 11 such seasons in their career: Dazzy Vance, Lefty Gomez, Hal Newhouser, Bob Lemon. Drysdale only had 12.
These Hall of Fame pitchers won more games than Guidry not because their careers were longer, but because they either pitched primarily in a four-man rotation or in an era when starting pitchers frequently picked up a few wins a year in relief (Gomez, Newhouser and Lemon benefited from these “easy” wins). In fact, if you count the ‘81 season as only 2/3 of a season (because the strike wiped-out 1/3) then Guidry averaged more wins per season over his 10 year stretch than Drysdale did over his 12 and averaged about the same number of wins as Vance over Vance’s 11 year stretch.
If Lemon and Gomez are in the Hall despite having only ten full pitching seasons, I think Guidry should go in, too.
#147. I think I got your point just right. Lou Brock was totally lucky in three World Series appearances. Because of this, his contributions to his team winning championships should be dismissed as statistical noise. Your point is more about broad judgments on player quality. Just because Brian Doyle had a great World Series one time doesn’t mean he was a great player. I get it.
I’m not saying that Lou Brock was a better player than Tim Raines, but he certainly accomplished more during his career. The difference between SABR types and traditionalists when it comes to HoF enshrinement is how to balance the “accomplishments” with the overall quality of the player. In Raines vs. Brock, Brock has a ton of accomplishments. In the postseason alone, he holds the record for stolen bases in a World Series (7), which he did twice. He holds the record for most hits in a World Series (13) and most runs in a 7-game world series (8). He holds the record for most hits in 2 consecutive World Series (25) and the record for WS batting average in 20 or more games (.391). He also held the record for career and single-season SB for a time. He was the first player ever to steal 50 bases and hit 20 HR. He led the league in SB 8 times. He amassed 3000 hits.
That is a list of Brock’s accomplishments. Now, it doesn’t really tell you how good a player he was. But it’s an impressive list.
For Raines, he led the league in SB 4 times, he has a batting title, he led the league in runs a couple times (so did Brock). He has 2600 hits. When you tally it up, Lou Brock has quite an edge in accomplishments such as these, which are the kinds of accomplishments HoF voters like.
On the other hand, Raines had a significantly higher OBP, a higher slugging, a significantly better SB/CS ratio, a significantly higher OPS+. The evidence that Raines was a better player is pretty clear. So, on one hand you have a very accomplished player in Brock, with records and milestones and postseason glory, and on the other hand you have a player who was quite a bit better but lacked all the accomplishments. This is the crux of the issue when it comes to HoF enshrinement. Sabermetricians spend a lot of time devising formulas to determine who was a better player. Traditionalists don’t necessarily care if a player was better if you factor in defense, baserunning and park factors. They care more about the accomplishments.
Tim @ 145: Well said. You express my sentiments exactly, but much better than I ever would have.
Tommy in CT @ 149: Well-argued post, but again you are arguing from a W-L standpoint which clearly indicates that you value this as a measure of a pitcher’s worth more than the measures the “stat-heads” value: ERA, ERA+, WHIP, etc.
I put the same argument to Heyman that I put to you. It is not the pitcher’s job to win games, it is the TEAM’s job. The offense needs to score runs, the defense needs to prevent them, plain and simple. Yes, a pitcher has a much larger input into W-L than any other individual player, but after factoring in defense, it is no more than 40-45% of the total.
Why rely on W-L as the primary stat for evaluating pitcher performance when there are much better stats out there (ERA, ERA+, WHIP)? It should be simple really…a pitcher will do his job in preventing runs if he keeps runners off base and doesn’t allow them to score. This is why Blyleven is appreciated by stat heads…all of the stats that truly measure a pitcher’s job indicate he is hall worthy.
Blyleven’s two worst seasons were 1980 and 1988 by any metric, and that he pitched for winning teams is certainly interesting. However, without looking at the context of those years, that’s all it is…interesting. While the 1980 Pirates were “contenders”, this was a team clearly on the decline compared to 1979…the offense scored 109 fewer runs in 1980 than in 1979 and the pitching was worse too (not just Blyleven). This was the height of the cocaine days, and Pittsburgh was one of the known epicenters of this. Things were so bad Blyleven threatened to retire during the 1980 season if he wasn’t traded (I think you have a stronger case against Blyleven’s character if you could argue he tanked, but I think his stats, while not great, are still good enough that you can’t argue this). So while I agree that he wasn’t great and certainly contributed to the Pirates falling short, to lay the blame for Pittsburgh not winning the pennant solely at Blyleven’s feet because he didn’t have a *transcendent* pitching performance seems a little myopic.
Lets look at another season though since you cherry-picked his worst season playing for a contender. How about his performance down the stretch for the 1978 Pirates? The team finished 88-73, 1.5 GB.
He made 13 starts after July 31, at which point he had a 3.45 ERA. He had a 2.41 ERA down the stretch, yet only finished 5-5 with 3 no decisions. His losses were all of the 3-2 and 3-1 variety, and pitched through at least 7 innings in each of them. While this isn’t a “transcedent” pitching performance in the vein of ‘88 Hershiser, it is clearly “ace” worthy, and if his team had scored 4 runs in just two of their games (slightly below their average of 4.222), they would have won the pennant, with Blyleven ending up with an even more attractive 16-8 record. Its pretty clear that Blyleven did his job – to prevent runs – while the offense didn’t do its job. To say that Blyleven never performed down the stretch for good teams is just wrong.
“Thirteen wins a season for teams that averaged more than 90 wins per season just plain stinks.”
Except that wins and losses are a terrible way to judge pitchers. It matters a lot more to me that Blyleven posted a 151 ERA+ and a league-best 1.065 WHIP while being 7th in strikeouts for the ‘77 Rangers than that he went 14-12.
For that matter, here are his ERA+ numbers and records for each season his teams finished above .500:
1970: 119 (10-9)
1974: 142 (17-17)
1977: 151 (14-12)
1978: 123 (14-10)
1979: 109 (12-5)
1980: 96 (8-13)
1981: 127 (11-7)
1987: 115 (15-12)
1988: 75 (10-17)
1989: 140 (17-5)
In every one of the good years for Bert, he was in the top 10 in the league in WHIP, strikeouts, or both. The bad years also really look like outliers here: he had preceded each with solid years and then followed both with outstanding ones.
My point? These stats are much, much more telling of how he pitched on decent teams than his win loss totals. He only had one really sterling W/L record in that batch, in 1989. However, the other stats tell a much clearer story.
@Phil M. 155,
Good list, my bad… I don’t know how the heck I forgot Newhouser, Waddell and Pierce. Focusing too much on career value and not peak i guess.
Here’s an updated list:
Grove
Spahn
Johnson
Carlton
Plank
Hubbell
Koufax
Newhouser
Glavine
Koosman
Pierce
Waddell
Ford
John
Pierce is one of those forgotten players. He’s a first ballot HOF if he and Ford switched teams.
@JohnQ – Thanks. Billy Pierce is an oddity: apparently widely loved in his day, started a lot of All-Star games, had the strikeout and shutout mojo, was one out away from a perfecto, etc. but is largely forgotten today. I don’t know why.
@Tommy – Once upon a time I dreamed about showing up at Cooperstown to stump for Gator brandishing the following sign:
Gomez
Ushered
In –
Doesn’t
Ron
Yardstick?
Like I said, he’s my guy and still my favorite pitcher of all time.
John in Philly @135. I understand the point he made. I just don’t agree. Brock played in only 21 postseason games, amounting to 0.8% of his total PAs. But, they happened to be the absolute most important PAs of his entire career. It was on the biggest stage with the highest stakes. He excelled. Perhaps he was lucky he was in his prime. Perhaps his performance deviated from the norm. Maybe his BABIP was unusually high. So what? He did what he did. It’s part of the history of the game that he had record-setting WS performances, and absolutely has to be in the discussion for HoF candidacy in comparison with Tim Raines. Keep in mind that it doesn’t say he was an overall better ballplayer than Raines. Raines simply doesn’t have postseason glory to tack onto his HoF resume. I actually am surprised that people are so against postseason performances as HoF criteria. I think it’s silly to conclude that Brock was better than Ty Cobb because of 21 WS games. But when compiling a HoF case for a player, great postseason performances surely belong in the discussion. It’s not the only reason people get in. Look at Kirk Gibson and Joe Carter. But I believe in borderline cases it can and should push them over the top.
For Morris, I think he’s below borderline so he shouldn’t get in. But I don’t think it’s wrong to use his postseason performances to build up his case.
@152 Tommy C.T.
I’m not that crazy about era+ it’s better than era but era is kind of flawed as well. Also, I think era/era+ skew their results towards pitchers with shorter careers. That’s why you get Ron Guidry having a better era+ than Blyleven.
Also, era/era+ just assumes everyone has the same fielders behind them. So whether you pitch for the ‘73 Orioles with B. Robinson, Belanger, Grich and Blair or the ‘78 Mets with Randle, Foli, Flynn and Mazzilli era+ assumes all fielders are the same.
Also, I think it’s very hard to judge pitcher from different eras because the role of pitchers (innings pitched) has changed so much over the years.
Here’s how Koosman, Ford, Pierce and Guidry compare in WAR, WARP-3, and Win Shares, (Career+Best 7 seasons/2):
WAR:
Koosman: (58.8+38.8)/2=48.8
Pierce: (53.5+39.7)/2=46.6
Ford: (55.3+33.7)/2=44.5
Guidry: (44.4+35.5)/2=39.9
Warp3:
Koosman: (51.9+35.7)/2=43.8
Ford: (51.7+33.5)/2=42.6
Guidry: (46.3+36.5)/2=41.4
Pierce: (46.4+32.3)/2=39.3
Win Shares:
Ford: (255+153)/2=204
Pierce: (243+151)/2=197
Koosman: (241+142)/2=191.4
Guidry: (174+135)/2=154
Win shares isn’t the greatest metric to measure pitchers because it starts at zero so as pitchers pitch less innings (5 man rotation, relief pitching) their win shares go down. I think WAR & Warp 3 are more fair when you compare pitchers from different eras. Win shares works better for position players.
I think Guidry at his peak was about as good as those other 3 pitchers, it’s his career length that hurts him.
Most likely, if Ford had been on any other team other than the Yankees during the 50’s he wouldn’t have made the HOF>
The latest rationalization I’m seeing for Bert’s poor W-L record is that he was very unlucky because he lost a lot of games where he gave up few runs. Commenters here and elsewhere will make this claim and then offer up a bunch of individual game scores to show how Bert lost 3-2 and 2-1 and 3-1. This is nothing but anecdotalism, of course, and is completely meaningless.
In order to determine if Bert was really that unlucky you have to look at other pitchers and compare their record in these kinds of games.
Bert had 99 “tough losses” in his career – games in which he made a “quality start” (6 or more IP, 3 or fewer ER) but lost anyway. It turns out this is fewer tough losses than Ryan, Niekro, Carlton and just one more tough loss than Don Sutton. It turns out that Bert had about the same number of tough losses as other pitchers of his era who had comparably long careers.
What about “cheap wins”, however, in which a pitcher wins when he doesn’t pitch a quality start? Well, Bert had about the same number of those, too, as the pitchers I’ve cited above. And when you subtract Bert’s cheap wins from his tough losses, you have a net -64 – that is, 64 more tough losses than cheap wins. Again, that is right around the same number as Carlton (-61), Ryan (-72), Sutton (-59) and Niekro (-59).
Bert lost a lot of tough, low-scoring games, but so did every other pitcher of his era with a comparably long career. This isn’t bad luck. It’s average luck. But it turns out that these games don’t just turn on luck. The pitcher’s performance in tight situations is critical.
The pitchers I’ve cited above all share one thing in common. They all pitched worse in high “leverage situations”, i.e., which occur most often in the later innings of tight games. If you pitch worse in these situations you’re going to lose a lot of those close, low-scoring games. In Bert’s case, he pitched 12% worse in high leverage situations than in low leverage situations (as measured by the opposition’s OPS in those situations). That’s a big spread. Sutton’s high/low spread was even bigger – 18%. Carlton’s was 14%, Ryan’s 10% and Niekro’s 6%.
But there are guys like Jim Palmer and Roger Clemens who lost a lot fewer of these games – only 65 – while making about the same number of starts as the guys I’ve cited above. Jim Palmer made fewer starts – only 521 – but lost only 56 “tough losses”, and his ratio of tough losses to starts is very, very low.
Did Clemens and Palmer have better luck? No, they just pitched better when the game was on the line. Clemens’ was 6% better in high leverage situations than low leverage situations. Palmer was astounding 18% better in high leverage situations than low.
You know who was really unlucky? Tom Seaver. Seaver had about as many tough losses as Blyleven, Niekro, Ryan, et al, and had about the same net record (i.e., tough losses minus cheap wins), but Seaver was 8% better in high leverage situations than low.
Blyleven wasn’t unlucky. He just shrunk in critical situations.
Blyleven wasn’t unlucky. He just shrunk in critical situations.
You mean like in critical situations such as the post-season, where he was 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA?
I’ll give Bert his props for his post-season record, but that was only six starts. Are you going to put “El Duque” Hernandez in the Hall of Fame?
Six starts out 700 can’t form the basis for arguing that Blyleven was a clutch pitcher. He had 40 starts in September pennant races where he wasn’t clutch (a 13-14 record). He had hundreds of starts in his career in tight games where he wasn’t clutch.
It’s just this sample. The statistics show conclusively that Bert’s mediocre W-L record and all those low-scoring losses weren’t a function of bad luck. It was a function of Bert pitching poorly in critical situations.
John Q, this claim is simply absurd: “Most likely, if Ford had been on any other team other than the Yankees during the 50’s he wouldn’t have made the HOF.”
Ford had a 131 career ERA+. He had a winning percentage nearly 100 points better than his teams during the Yanks’ great years (‘50 to ‘64).
He’d have been a HOF on any team, although obviously his record, like anyone else’s, wouldn’t have been spectacular. If you doubt this, take a look at “Neutralized Pitching” at Baseball-Reference.com, where a pitcher’s record is adjusted to reflect average run support. Whitey’s W-L percentage is still .619.
Besides, this argument is fallacious for one simple reason. The Yanks were good for all those years in large part because their pitching was always so good. But you would take that fact, stand it on its head, and argue that Yankee pitchers only looked good because their hitters and fielders were so great. But the statistics demonstrate the absurdity of that argument. The Yanks’ staff ERA+ all those years were excellent.
Do Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz look good just because they played for good teams, or were their teams good because they had Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz? Did Lemon, Garcia and Wynn just happen to play for very good Indian teams, or were the Indians good because they had Lemon, Garcia and Wynn?
I think the answer is obvious.
Phil M.
Billy Pierce is an oddity in that he was widely regarded as one of the 3 top pitchers in the A.L. during the 50’s along with Ford and Bunning. He made the all star team 7 times yet he did very poorly in HOF voting.
He probably would have won a Cy Young but I don’t think they were awarded until 1956 and there was only 1 awarded.
I think the problem was perception and bad luck and timing. He was first on the ballot in 1970. Baseball had just ended a huge period where the rules and the enviroment of the game (‘62-68) were heavily biased toward the pitcher. I think the writers didn’t put his career in the proper context (1950’s) so his 3.27 career era suddendly didn’t look as great in 1970 as it did in 1964.
Six starts out 700 can’t form the basis for arguing that Blyleven was a clutch pitcher. He had 40 starts in September pennant races where he wasn’t clutch (a 13-14 record).
I would never claim that Blyleven’s post-season career record is proof positive of his “clutchiness,” but nor does relying on a completely flawed statistic – winning percentage – prove the opposite.
The statistics show conclusively that Bert’s mediocre W-L record and all those low-scoring losses weren’t a function of bad luck.
They are conclusive to you. The rest of us remain less convinced.
Tommy C.T.
I’m not so sure about Ford getting in if didn’t pitch for the Yankees, maybe the Dodgers. Also, era+ didn’t exist in the early 70’s so that shouldn’t enter into the picture of whether Ford would have been elected or not. Also remember that Ford was pitching in the old Yankee stadium which was a fantastic park for left handing pitching.
In a neutral environment Ford’s career look’s like this:
206-127-.619%, 3.14 era, no 20 win seasons.
Now almost every pitcher that has won 200 and a +.600 win percentage is in the HOF. The only pitcher not in the HOF is Carl Mays. But everyone of those pitchers has at least 2-3 20 win season.
Also consider if Ford had never played in a post-season.
Here’s Billy Pierce’s numbers:
211-169-.555, 3.27, two 20 win seasons. Pierce received little to no support from the HOF.
I don’t get it, John Q. You claim that Ford wouldn’t be anything if he hadn’t pitched for the Yanks in the ’50s, but then you laud Billy Pierce, whose record in the ’50’s wasn’t that much better than the very good White Sox teams he pitched for. Pierce’s peak years were between ‘53 and ‘60. His winning percentage was .596, which is very good, but the White Sox winning percentage in those years was .578.
Ford, by comparison, had a winning percentage between ‘50 and ‘64 that was almost 100 points better than the Yankee teams he pitched for.
Billy Pierce was very good but he was no Whitey Ford.
Tommy in CT @177: “He had 40 starts in September pennant races where he wasn’t clutch (a 13-14 record).”
What was his ERA in those games? What was his ERA+ in those games? WHIP? K/9? K/BB ratio?
Win-Loss record just isn’t a good measure. It’s not absolutely putrid (over the long haul), but there’s better stats to look at in my opinion. Win-Loss record is affected by too many other factors — defense, bullpen, the batting order and how they perform that day, and so on.
You want to argue that Blyleven wasn’t good when his team needed him most? Awesome, I’m all for getting new information and exploring and examining and all that good stuff. Bring it. Just, you know, bring more than win-loss.
Tommy C.T.
as far as Smoltz, Maddux and Glavine/the Yankee pitchers of the 50’s-early 60’s. The Yankee pitchers were good but Remember the Yankees had Mickey Mantle and Yogi Berra both in primes during that time period both playing key positions. Mantle is one of the top 15 players in BB history, Berra is one of the top 2 catchers in baseball history.
Then they had guys like Howard, Maris, Bauer, Boyer, Skowron, Richardson, McDougald as support players.
Who did the Braves have Chipper Jones?
and then a cast of Mcgriff, Justice, Lopez and Klesko?
John Q says: “I’m not so sure about Ford getting in if didn’t pitch for the Yankees, maybe the Dodgers. Also, era+ didn’t exist in the early 70’s so that shouldn’t enter into the picture of whether Ford would have been elected or not. Also remember that Ford was pitching in the old Yankee stadium which was a fantastic park for left handing pitching.”
ERA+ didn’t exist, but ERA did. I remember the HOF debate about Ford in the early ’70s, and it was a VERY BIG DEAL that Ford’s ERA was the best of any pitcher in the post-1920, post-deadball era. Better than Koufax’s. Better than Spahn’s. Better than Feller’s. Better than everybody.
Did you really expect that the HOF would reject the guy who had the best ERA and best winning percentage in history? The guy who pitched a record 31 consecutive scoreless innings in the World Series? The guy who was the unquestioned ACE on teams that won 8 World Series?
You can’t be serious.
As for the ballparks, Yankee stadium was a good pitcher’s park, but the park Koufax and Drysdale pitched in was a GREAT pitchers park. Should we throw Koufax and Drysdale out of the Hall too?
Tommy C.T.
I never said “Ford wouldn’t be anything without the Yankees” I said he probably wouldn’t have gotten into the HOF.
The big problem is so much attention is placed on W-L% when in reality W-L are a large function of the quality of the offensive and defense of a team.
Ford is still one of the top 50-60 pitchers in bb history. But flip pitchers around to different teams and some would get in the HOF and some wouldn’t. Swap Larry Jackson with Whitey Ford Put Jackson on those 50’s Yankees and Ford on those 50’s Cardinals and Jackson is the HOF pitcher.
Ford would look a lot like Pierce if he had played for the White Sox or the Pirates, Tigers instead of the Yankees. Especially if he never got the chance to pitch in the post-season or only appeard in 1 ws.
I guess my point is the perception/gap between Ford and Kossman/Pierce by the media/fans is huge but in reality they were very similar pitchers.
put Pierce on the Yankees or Dodgers he’s a HOF, put Koosman on the 70’s Orioles, Dodgers, Reds, Pirates, he’s a HOF.
John in Philly says: “You want to argue that Blyleven wasn’t good when his team needed him most? Awesome, I’m all for getting new information and exploring and examining and all that good stuff. Bring it. Just, you know, bring more than win-loss.”
I’ve already cited the Leverage numbers. It is compelling evidence that Bert lost the close, low scoring games because his performance suffered in those situations. His OPS Against in those situations was 12% worse than in low leverage situations. That doesn’t mean he was a bad pitcher, it just proves that the disparity between Bert’s generally good ERAs and his mediocre W-L records wasn’t attributable to bad luck, it was poor pitching by Bert in critical situations.
Palmer and Clemens weren’t lucky, they were BEASTLY when the game was in the balance. So was Koufax. So was Whitey Ford.
An example of a guy who truly was unlucky was Tom Seaver. Seaver improved his performance in high leverage situations by about 8% over low leverage situations, and yet he still had a higher ratio of “tough losses” to starts than Blyleven did!
Tommy C.T.
The whole point about my “Ford wouldn’t have gotten in the HOF without the Yankees” is that aside from his W-L% his era would have been higher than 2.75. Remember the old Yankee Stadium was a great lefty pitcher’s park back in the 50’s.
Ford’s neutral stats are 206-127, 3.14 no 20 win seasons. Say if for pitched for the White Sox or the Cardinals and only appeared in 1 WS. I don’t think he would have been voted in the HOF during the early 70’s. I think he would have looked a lot like Billy Pierce who didn’t do well at all.
That’s not saying Ford doesn’t deserve to be in the HOF, I believe he does but I also believe Pierce belongs as well.
But to the voters of the early 70’s a St. Louis Cardinal or Chicago White Sox Whitey Ford from 1950-1966 with a 3.14 era probably wouldn’t have gotten in the HOF.
So many things to comment on, so little time:)
1) I love the bikini quote and even think it happens to be more than a little true.
2) Brock didn’t get into the hall for his postseason play; he got there for 3000 hits – because it really has (had) always been the one automatic.
like I said earlier, it seems reasonable to allow certain counting stats to be an auto include IF they truly are hard to attain and most of the players both the “eyes” and the “geek” squads are choosing failed to make 3000 hits so presumably it qualifies.
3) I agree that writers were a major means of getting info on teams growing up before the internet generation and I suspect losing their power over the masses has something to do with their misguided approach.
But I note that things are not that much different on the sabermetrics side of things. Joe P. uses the saber approach and believes in it but somehow his work is devoid of the arrogance and snarkiness of many others who also believe. People like Neyer and Law, for example. The “founder” of the approach Bill James, also doesn’t fall into the I know more than you, you’re an idiot, this is the only way to do it camp of sabermetricians.
4. As for the Tommy in Ct’s argument that Bert had roughly the same number of tough losses and cheap wins – you do realize you just compared him with 4 Hall of Famers, right?
I mean your point might be better made if he compared favorably in those things to pitchers not in the Hall, right?
Personally I hate all the peripheral arguments made on both sides to justify their choices though, like Joe P, I do understand them. (BTW, that was the main point of this article, no?) The numbers can show us how well a player does and they can show us whether that is better or worse than his contemporaries and even how much better. That is the main thrust of selection to the HoF IMO.
With the caveat that a player who accomplishes counting stats that are truly only rarely achieved is acceptable to the HoF too.
5. The toss-off comment that Schilling was a right wing blowhard gets 3 thoughts from me:
a) why is it only right wing associated with blowhards? you do realize there are blowhards all over the political spectrum right? and in roughly equal numbers? FTR I am a true Independent and not a libertarian
b) why are the honest, out spoken players generally viewed as blowhards anyway? Now curt certainly isn’t always right but he does say what he is thinking and what he honestly thinks so doesn’t he deserve credit for that?
c) Interestingly, there are some of the outspoken minority who become somehow “beloved,” like Charles Barkley, while others who just get excoriated, like Curt. Chuck also has many who think of him as just a blowhard too of course but…
Human nature I guess though I have no stats to prove it one way or the other:)
John Q says: “I guess my point is the perception/gap between Ford and Kossman/Pierce by the media/fans is huge but in reality they were very similar pitchers.”
Well, I’ll just have to disagree. Ford and Pierce had about the same number of starts and innings pitched. They pitched in the same era. Ford had a substantially better ERA+ (133 to 119), TWICE as much “Black Ink” as Pierce (a measure of how often he led the league leaders in important pitching categories) and had a much better record relative to his team’s than Pierce.
As for Koosman, I guess you’re joking. Koos had a 110 ERA+. Are you asking me to throw out W-L, ERA+ and the fact that Koosman’s Black Ink score is ZERO. That’s right, Koosman never led the league in a single pitching category (he did lead in losses twice, though). Ford led the league in major categories 17 times, things like shutouts, complete games, games started, innings pitched and other things that have nothing to do with the fact that Mantle and
Berra were great hitters.
Cardinal Mike says: “As for the Tommy in Ct’s argument that Bert had roughly the same number of tough losses and cheap wins – you do realize you just compared him with 4 Hall of Famers, right? I mean your point might be better made if he compared favorably in those things to pitchers not in the Hall, right?”
You missed the point. No one is arguing that tough losses are a qualification for the Hall of Fame. But Bert Backers are arguing that Bert’s number of tough losses were extraordinarily high and evidence of his bad luck. Were Carlton, Niekro, Sutton, Seaver and Ryan all unlucky?
Of course not. It turns out that Bert’s number of tough losses was about average for guys who made around 700 starts in their career. And the guys like Clemens and Palmer who had many fewer tough losses made their own luck by improving their performance significantly in high leverage, critical situations.
This whole “Bert was unlucky” argument has assumed tremendous significance for Bert Backers and there is simply no evidence for it.
JohnQ and TommyCT:
You both have excellent points, so let me try to cut through some of the contention. Blyleven surrendered 1830 earned runs in his career. With an ERA+ of 118, that means “average support” would be around 2159 runs (1830 x 1.18). Any way you slice it, that’s about a .580 winning percentage. Over 537 decisions, he ends up somewhere around 311-226 (comfortably north of 300 wins) and we’re not having this discussion because he was inducted a decade ago. So the “strength of his teams” doesn’t matter — just look at the runs.
I didn’t miss your point tommy but you certainly missed mine.
You compared him to 4 HoFers and said his results in specific areas were similar – which you used to “prove” he didn’t belong in the Hall, at least not based on those areas. That is at best counterproductive and at worst disingenuous
Now if he had the same results as all pitchers in those areas from his era, perhaps you have a point.
Tommy C.T.,
You keep bringing up era+ as the be all end all. era+ is ok but it’s flawed just like era. You can’t just say player x has a better era+ than player y, therefore player x is clearly better.
Case in point:
Sal Maglie has a 127 era+, Tom Seaver has a 127 era+.
Here’s to list of 8 pitchers, one with era+ over 120 another with era+ under 119:
Max Lanier-126
Ellis Kinder-125
Mel Parnell-125
John Tudor-124
Clay Carroll-121
Jose Rijo-121
Jimmy Key-122
Andy Messersmith-121
Here’s another list:
Warren Spahn-118
Gaylord Perry-117
Steve Carlton-115
Fergie Jenkins-115
Phil Niekro-115
Jim Bunning-114
Robin Roberts-113
Nolan Ryan-111
Which group would you rather have?
As far as wl% or wins, those are greatly overrated stats.
Just seeing the name Murray Chass makes me miss Fire Joe Morgan. Those were the days.
Apparently John Q believes are stats are overrated.
ERA+ is a pretty important statistic when comparing guys with comparable career lengths, and if one guy has the superior ERA+, more wins and a better winning percentage, the conversation about who is better is pretty much over.
The problem with your two lists is that you’re comparing the ERA+ of pitchers with VERY LONG careers against guys with brief careers. I would never use career ERA+ in that situation to compare pitchers (I used ERA+ to compare Ford with Pierce and Koosman because they each had careers of similar length).
Of course I’d rather Spahn and Perry than the short-career guys you listed, for one very obvious reason: both Spahn and Perry maintained better ERA+ of a lengthy peak that was longer than the ENTIRE CAREERS of the pitchers in your first list.
Who would you rather have, a guy like Parnell who maintained a 125 ERA+ for a mere 232 starts in his career, or a guy like Spahn, who maintained a 131 ERA+ over a span of 250 starts and a 126 ERA+ over a span of 458 starts? Perry maintained a 127 ERA+ over a span of 485 starts.
It’s easy. You take the guy who maintained an equal or better ERA+ over a much longer period.
I place a lot of important on peak performance. If a guy maintains high performance for something like a full decade, I don’t care if he has a protracted career decline that drags down his career stats. If a guy like Koufax has an extended learning curve before putting together five straight dominant seasons, I emphasize the performance over the five year period.
Longer is generally better, but an extended peak performance is more important than career totals.
Here’s something to tweet at Jon Heyman & Co for their fun filled revisionist history:
http://deadspin.com/5442809/i-really-have-nothing-to-say-13-years-of-sad-bert-blyleven-reactions
Eff you, 25.8% of Hall of Fame voters, eff you.
Can’t argue with Dawson, but he wasn’t the best outfielder on those Expos teams; Raines was. He is as good a player as Clemente. And he doesn’t have that automatic 3000 hit number in no small part because owners colluded to not pay him a market salary cost him a quarter season in his prime, and his last few seasons were sabotaged by illness.
@Tommy in CT
You make some very compelling points. However, I wanted to dig into these situational stats a bit.
Blyleven may have pitched worse in high leverage situations compared to low leverage over his career, but that can be deceiving if we don’t know the base to which we are comparing.
To use an unfairly extreme example, in 2000 Pedro Martinez was 37 percent worse in high leverage situations than low leverage ones based on OPS. That, of course, is because he had an absurdly low 21 ERA+ that season to begin with; he posted an ERA+ of 4(!) in low leverage situations and a 25 in high leverage, which explains the difference.
Again, that’s an extreme example, but the point remains: Being worse than your norm in a high leverage situation can still be damn good. Blyleven’s high leverage OPS+ against was 106, but that’s using his career OPS+ as the average. It’s worse than his usual, but it doesn’t tell us how consistently good he was compared to the rest of the league.
Being curious about this, I categorized Blyleven’s OPS+ against (based on the league’s OPS that season) in high leverage situations by season from 1970 through 1989 (his prime years, since that’s where we’re figuring his hall-worthiness does or doesn’t lie):
110: 3 times (1979, 1981, 1988)
He had as many years where his OPS+ against was less than 90 in high leverage situations as he did below average and bad ones. The idea that he shrunk in tight situations holds true in a number of his years, but it’s not at all an accurate assessment of his entire career. It’s almost a dichotomy; he was, for the most part, excellent in high leverage situations in the 70’s, and less so in the 80’s (with a handful of years where he clearly did buckle down). Saying that he wasn’t a good high leverage pitcher, however, doesn’t appear to be accurate.
@Tommy in CT
(due to some funny formatting, a chunk of my previous post didn’t go up. Here’s the repost, apologies for the double post)
You make some very compelling points. However, I wanted to dig into these situational stats a bit.
Blyleven may have pitched worse in high leverage situations compared to low leverage over his career, but that can be deceiving if we don’t know the base to which we are comparing.
To use an unfairly extreme example, in 2000 Pedro Martinez was 37 percent worse in high leverage situations than low leverage ones based on OPS. That, of course, is because he had an absurdly low 21 ERA+ that season to begin with; he posted an ERA+ of 4(!) in low leverage situations and a 25 in high leverage, which explains the difference.
Again, that’s an extreme example, but the point remains: Being worse than your norm in a high leverage situation can still be damn good. Blyleven’s high leverage OPS+ against was 106, but that’s using his career OPS+ as the average. It’s worse than his usual, but it doesn’t tell us how consistently good he was compared to the rest of the league.
Being curious about this, I categorized Blyleven’s OPS+ against (based on the league’s OPS that season) in high leverage situations by season from 1970 through 1989 (his prime years, since that’s where we’re figuring his hall-worthiness does or doesn’t lie):
greater than 90: 7 times (1971, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1985, 1989)
90 to 99: 4 times (1972, 1975, 1977, 1983)
100: once (1978)
101 to 110: 4 times (1970, 1980, 1984, 1986)
less than 110: 3 times (1979, 1981, 1988)
He had as many years where his OPS+ against was less than 90 in high leverage situations as he did below average and bad ones. The idea that he shrunk in tight situations holds true in a number of his years, but it’s not at all an accurate assessment of his entire career. It’s almost a dichotomy; he was, for the most part, excellent in high leverage situations in the 70’s, and less so in the 80’s (with a handful of years where he clearly did buckle down). Saying that he wasn’t a good high leverage pitcher, however, doesn’t appear to be accurate.
Corrections: I said ERA+ twice when talking about Pedro Martinez when I meant OPS +, I “greater than 90″ when I meant “less than 90″.
Tommy in CT,
I find it interesting that you compare Blyleven’s tough losses and lucky wins and find his numbers comparable to *gasp*…other Hall of Famers! I’m not sure how this supports your case.
Also, you never responding to evidence that he did in fact pitch very well down the stretch for a contender in 1978, which is disappointing since you were so adamant that he never pitched well for a contender.
John Q said,
“Ford’s neutral stats are 206-127, 3.14 no 20 win seasons. Say if for pitched for the White Sox or the Cardinals and only appeared in 1 WS. I don’t think he would have been voted in the HOF during the early 70’s. I think he would have looked a lot like Billy Pierce who didn’t do well at all.
That’s not saying Ford doesn’t deserve to be in the HOF, I believe he does but I also believe Pierce belongs as well. ”
Dear John,
Maybe when can have a Virtual Simulation Hall of Fame (VSHOF) with “neutral”, “park adjusted” and “What if Yogi Berra played for the St Louis Browns in 1923″ stats. Then and there we would really have a good Hall of Fame, based on solid mathematical evidence, and not this rotten situation where people like Pierce, Raines and Singleton (or Kensington, I don’t remember now) are unjustly excluded.
You are 100% right on Ford, because you don’t really need to perform while playing for legendary teams before extremely demanding fans. The team will do everything for you, right?
Mikey G says: “Also, you never responding to evidence that he did in fact pitch very well down the stretch for a contender in 1978, which is disappointing since you were so adamant that he never pitched well for a contender.”
I said Bert was a poor pennant race pitcher, with a 13-14 record in September in tight pennant races. His record in ‘78 wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t Hall of Fame, either. He won two games in September in six starts. If you want to go back to August, he was 5-4 in 12 starts. Five wins in two months is hardly stepping up in a pennant race.
But ‘78 is instructive and I’m glad you brought it up. You no doubt will argue that Bert had a 2.91 ERA in September and pitched well. But you’d be wrong.
Check the game logs. Bert had a lead or was tied in the late innings in every one of his six starts. In his two wins he had 3 and 6 run leads going into the 8th. In his other four starts he was either tied or had a lead of 2 runs or less, AND HE DIDN’T WIN ANY OF THEM. NOT ONE. He gave up the tying or lead run in every one and failed to win.
I’ve checked the game logs to find another pitcher of over the last 50 years who had four games in September in a pennant race where he gave up the tying or lead runs in late inning to take a loss or no-decision. I can’t find one.
The scary thing is that you’re right – this was actually Bert’s best September in a pennant. And he was a complete disaster.
Let’s put this in context. Ron Guidry made 30 starts for the Yanks in five September pennant races. How many times did he fail to win because he gave up the lead or tying run in the late innings? ZERO.
Here’s a challenge for you, Mikey. Can you find one other pitcher who had even three September pennant race games where he gave up the tying or lead run and as a result took a loss or no-decision?
Since Mikey brought it up, I want to explore the ‘78 pennant race some more. I neatly illustrates the central pathology of Bert Fanatics.
First, though, I left out an important point. Bert’s last start of the ‘78 season was against the Phillies. The Pirates were 2.5 games behind the Phils with four to go. Huge game. The Phils score two off Blyleven in the 5th inning to take a 2-0 lead. But the Pirates rally for 4 in the sixth to take a two-run lead. Bert, of course, gave the lead right back, letting the Phils tie it in the top of the 7th.
Now what do Bert Fans take away from this? “The Pirates only gave Bert four runs – below their average that year!” Or “Bert was unlucky in a tight game.”
But Bert wasn’t unlucky, and he wasn’t unlucky in any of the other three games that September in which he gave up the tie or lead run in the late innings to blow his chance at a win. He was just an average pitcher in these kinds of situations for most of his career, and things like this happen to average pitchers.
But they don’t happen to Hall of Famers. Not four times in one pennant race.
Tommy in CT – so you’re saying that Bert Blyleven isn’t a Hall-of-Famer because Grady Little went back in time and managed the ‘78 Pirates? Or are you saying that his 12 wins through the end of August didn’t count as real wins because it wasn’t Labor Day yet?
But you said check the game logs, so OK…
In those four games you cite, his team won two, including that last start against Philly. He left with a lead in the other game, that his bullpen lost but his hitters regained. (In other words, he pretty much did his job.) In the other two, he took complete-game losses:
9/8/78 @ NYM… led 2-1 in the third inning. Gave up tying run in third, and winning run on back-to-back doubles opening the home eighth. It was his fourth time through the order, and these two hitters were already 3-6 combined on the day.
9/23/78 @ MON… The Pirates never led in this game. Pittsburgh scored two to tie in the sixth; big Bert held Montreal scoreless for seven straight innings (2d throuh 8th) before losing in the bottom of the ninth. The Expos, btw, started three Hall of Famers that game (Dawson, Perez, and Carter). The last batter completed Bert’s fourth turn through the lineup. Maybe Tanner should have gone to his bullpen every once in a while? They had Kent Freakin’ Tekulve sitting around there, and every single man in the pen was better-than-average in ERA… why weren’t they being used?
In those six starts Bert only gave up two dingers, induced seven GDP, whiffed 37 while walking 15. His team scored four-plus in the four starts they won, and only four TOTAL in the two they lost. Sounds like the hitters didn’t pick up Blyleven there. At the very least, he wasn’t a “complete disaster.”
In 1978 Bert led the Pirates rotation in ERA+, k/9, k/bb, CG, and SO, and was second in WHIP on the entire staff. (FWIW he also led the team in wins.) It looks a lot like he was a terrific pitcher for them – better than Jerry Reuss or John Candelaria that year.
Was that his best September? I looked at his game logs for September 1987 for the Twins:
9/3 – 9 IP, one run on six hits, 11 k vs. Boston. Left trailing, team rallied to win.
9/8 – CG loss vs. Chicago. Didn’t pitch well. Loaded bases with one out in the ninth but Roy Smalley’s GDP ended it.
9/13 – six hits of two-run ball in Cleveland. Leaves with the lead, bullpen blows it, but Minny wins it.
9/18 – 8 innings of five-hit ball, nine whiffs, three earned runs. He gets the win.
9/23 – 6 2/3 IP, two runs on four hits (but five walks) against the Rangers. Leaves the game tied, team wins.
9/27 – CG, one run, five hits, 8 k vs. KC, gets the win.
And to be fair, 10/3 – loses to KC (seven IP, four runs, but only two earned).
Add it up and it comes to six quality starts in seven, with the seventh the CG loss to Chicago. He struck out 44 in 54.2 IP, gave up 15 earned runs (ERA of 2.46) despite nine homers (but at least six of them were solo shots), with about 10 baserunners per nine (WHIP of 1.116).
Again, it’s hardly his fault he went 2-2 when his team won five of those seven starts, and could have won a sixth if Smalley’s grounder found a hole. I also think he should get a bit of credit for that postseason – wins over Jack “big game” Morris and Doyle Alexander in the pennant series, and a win in the Series vs. St Louis.
His record isn’t spotless… but nobody’s record is. Every great player has times they’ve been overmatched or mediocre. Even the Sainted Gator, Ron Guidry… you say he never gave up a lead in 30 September pennant starts, but he lost his last start in ‘77 by getting smacked around by the Tigers (five runs on ten hits in 6.2 IP). Because the Yanks didn’t score first he’s somehow more clutch than Blyleven?
In ‘78 one of his three loses was 9/20, when the Jays drove him from the box in the SECOND inning. In ‘81 there was no September stretch (and anyway, the Yanks finished fifth in the second half); in the first-half stretch run he got rocked on May 25th (third-to-final start of that half; six earned on eight hits in 4 2/3 IP).
In 1985, he was excellent as the Yanks won 97 but finished second… except for September 17th, when the Tigers touched him for seven runs on eight hits in six innings. He lost his last two starts in 1986 (again, the Yanks finished second).
Guidry was an excellent pitcher, and one of my favorites of his generation. I only nit-pick him to illustrate the silliness of what you’re trying to say about the Flying Dutchman, Bert Blyleven, who was a great asset to his teams, and better than you think during those stretch runs.
Nightfly, I think you’re being unfair. I wasn’t nitpicking Bert – I was talking about his best September pennant race. If I wanted to nitpick I would have talked about the following pennant races:
1979: Bert wins one of his six September starts and compiles a 3.96 ERA. In his last start, game 161 of the season, the Pirates have a chance to clinch. But Bert gets bombed by the Cubs and the Expos close to within one game of the lead.
1980: Bert goes 1-5 over his last 8 starts with a 4.38 ERA. The Pirates, who were 2.5 games in front when Bert collapsed, end up losing the NL East by a big margin.
1988: The Twins are within six of the A’s in mid-August, but Bert goes 1-6 in his last 7 starts with a 6.27 ERA.
Now THAT would be nitpicking, Nightfly, if not for the fact that nitpicking implies picking small, isolated and difficult to find nits. But Bert’s pathetic pennant race performances aren’t hard to find, are they?
As for your Guidry comments, yes, Ron lost 4 of his 30 September pennant race starts, while winning only 26. Sure, it’s the best pennant race record in history, but Ron wasn’t perfect! He was just closer to it when pennants were on the line than any pitcher since the advent of game logs.
Let me quote Tommy from post 196:
“ERA+ is a pretty important statistic when comparing guys with comparable career lengths, and if one guy has the superior ERA+ . . . the conversation about who is better is pretty much over. . . .
“Who would you rather have, a guy like Parnell who maintained a 125 ERA+ for a mere 232 starts in his career, or a guy like Spahn, who maintained a 131 ERA+ over a span of 250 starts and a 126 ERA+ over a span of 458 starts? Perry maintained a 127 ERA+ over a span of 485 starts.”
Note Spahn and Perry’s career ERA+, over many many innings, in the list below.
http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/5672
Conversation over. I hope.
That is, Spahn’s and Perry’s. . . . equal to that of our mutual friend, and part of the exclusive fraternity of nine — count ‘em, nine — in all of baseball history.
Well, in 1979 the Pirates were World Champions, and Bert won his World Series start – complete game, 1 run, nine strikeouts. Overall he was 12-5, his 3.60 ERA was better than league-average… again, do those wins not count somehow because they were early in the year?
In 1980 his whole team went 12-17 after September 1st while the Phils were finishing 22-11. Had Bert gone 8-0 instead of 1-6 it certainly would have been closer, but still not enough to close the gap for the defending champs. (And as bad as he was in 1980 generally, he was still second for the Pirates rotation in ERA, tied for first in shutouts, a clear first in k/bb. Bluntly, the whole rotation was horrible for them.)
In 1988, Blyleven’s worst year, the Twins were never in first, didn’t reach .500 until May 27th, and were never closer than three games all year. Point for your side – a 37-year-old guy had a rough season amid an entire team having a rough season.
The next season, he went to the Angels and went 13-3 in 23 starts from May 29 on: the Angels were in or within five games of first place from that date until September 24th. They were still within 2.5 when Blyleven beat the Twins on 9/18… they then lost 8 of nine from the 21st to the 30th to drop out of it. (The one win was a Blyleven shutout.)
Comparing Blyleven to “the best pennant race record in history” and saying he wasn’t that good is a nice trick, but by your definition, EVERYONE is giong to come off worse that way: Koufax, Unit, Seaver, Pedro, Gibson, Schilling… good as he was, the Gator isn’t cracking that rotation. And Blyleven’s good performances are just as easy to find as his bad ones; but you’re only looking for the bad ones, or else comparing him to the absolute best in one area of pitching in order to say that he wasn’t that good.
And my point is that anyone can play that game. Maybe the Yanks would have been in more pennant races if Guidry was more durable… if he hadn’t been terrible in 1984 and essentially done by 1986. And that’s a guy whose peak value was very good! In fact, Guidry from ‘77-’85 compares pretty favorably to other nine-year stretches:
Gator – 3.15 ERA (123+) in 1994.1 IP, 1483 k (6.7 k/9), 2.8 k/bb, 88 CG, 26 SO
Player A – 2.81 ERA (132+) in 2387.1 IP, 1910 k (7.2 k/9), 3.1 k/bb, 141 CG, 39 SO
Player B – 3.24 ERA (123+) in 1807 IP, 1329 k (6.6 k/9), 2.5 k/bb, 85 CG, 21 SO
So Player A’s nine-year stretch was a bit better than Guidry, Player B’s a bit worse. Who are they?
Nightfly: “In 1988, Blyleven’s worst year, the Twins were never in first, didn’t reach .500 until May 27th, and were never closer than three games all year. Point for your side – a 37-year-old guy had a rough season amid an entire team having a rough season.”
This statement illustrates the utter lack of objectivity displayed by the Bert Fanatics, the absolutely unquestioning worship of the man that blinds them to simple fact. Consider what Nightfly just said:
When Bert goes 10-17 with a 5.43 ERA, it’s a “rough season” according to Nightfly.
When the Twins play .600 ball for the season in games in which any pitcher other than Bert was the pitcher of record, that too is a “tough season.”
Ah, I understand it now. The Twins “tough season” was at fault for Bert’s “tough season.” A .600 winning percentage, like the Twins WP, is the same as Bert’s .370 WP. They’re both “tough seasons.”
In Bert World, black is white. Up is down. And Bert is infallible.
Nightfly says: “So Player A’s nine-year stretch was a bit better than Guidry, Player B’s a bit worse. Who are they?”
I would have to disagree. Say, for example, that Pitcher A pitched for teams that had a .509 winning percentage excluding Player A’s decisions, and only a .537 winning percentage when Player A got the decision. Now let’s say that the Yanks had only a .552 winning percentage in games where Guidry was not the pitcher of record, but a .697 winning percentage when Guidry pitched. So player A was only 7% than his mediocre teams, but Guidry was fullyl 26.5% better than his good teams.
Now let’s say that Guidry went 10-2 with a 2.16 ERA and then 12-2 with a 1.48 ERA in the second halves of two consecutive seasons, and followed those seasons with a 4-0 record and 2.17 ERA in the post-season as the Yanks won two straight World Series.
And what if Guidry won a Cy Young, finished 2nd and 3rd in two other years within this 9 year span, and had SIX seasons in this 9 year span in which he received Cy Young consideration.
And what if Guidry was selected FOUR TEIMS at the end of the year as one of two A.L. pitchers for the Sporting News All-Star team.
Well, if Bert had only one lonely 7th place Cy Young finish in those 9 seasons and was never selected by the Sporting News to anything and had no particular record of distinction in pennant races or post-seasons during this 9 year stretch, then I would have to say that Guidry was the better pitcher.
In fact, I’d have to say that any suggestion that Player B was the better pitcher merely because he had a higher ERA+, thereby ignoring all the foregoing considerations, would just be downright silly, bordering on delusional.
How about another round of Guess That Pitcher? Let’s look at the prime seven year peaks of Pitcher A and Pitcher B
Pitcher A – 158 ERA+, 7.7 SO/9 inn., 2.0 BB/9 inn., 1.072 WHIP
Pitcher B – 143 ERA+, 7.8 SO/9 inn., 2.5 BB/9 inn., 1.083 WHIP
Our contestant today is Nightfly! Nightfly, citing Pitcher A’s superior ERA+, better WHIP, better SO/BB ratio and roughly equivalent SO/9 inn. to Pitcher B, selects Pitcher A without hesitation!
Yes, Nightfly selects Kevin Brown’s 1995 to 2001 seasons over Bob Gibson’s 1964 to 1970 seasons, during which Bob won an MVP, two Cy Youngs, two World Series MVPs, won two Game 7’s in the World Series, won 7 straight World Series games, set the all-time World Series strikeout records for a single game and for a series and set the modern single-season ERA record.
“Well, it was easy, really,” said Nightfly. “Brown had the far superior ERA+, lower WHIP despite playing in a greater offensive era, and had SO per inning and SO to BB ratios equal to or better than Gibson. Brown had the better seven year stretch, no doubt about it.”
Thank you, Nightfly, and that’s been another edition of Guess That Pitcher!
Ahem.
Player B and Guidry were identical in ERA+. I gave the edge to Guidry based on other peripherals, and as you say, excellent performance in stretch runs.
Player A, as you correctly guessed, was Blyleven, 1970-1978 – his first nine seasons. As you also guessed, those teams were not nearly as good as the Yanks from ‘77-’85. But Blyleven, by those numbers, certainly was as good as Gator – better ERA, ERA+, more k/9, better k/bb, more CG, more SO. Who did more to help his teams? If Blyleven had given that performance to the Yanks and Guidry to the Twins/Pirates, who would have the better w/l? That is the point. The individual w/l is nearly meaningless – it would be like blaming a hitter for hitting three homers in a losing cause, or for hitting 330/420/600 in a year where his team missed the playoffs.
Here’s Bert’s ERA+, his staff ERA+, and his team’s OPS+:
70 – 119 (117) 98. Bert was 19 years old.
71 – 126 (93) 95
72 – 118 (113) 91
73 – 158 (105) 104
74 – 142 (104) 102
75- 129 (95) 104
76 Min: 115 (97) 108
76 Tex: 130 (104) 93
Hm. Bert outpitched the rest of the staff, and often by huge margins; he had a couple of decent offenses, but mostly crap.
But of course that was Bert at his best. What about ‘77-’85? You’re in luck. Player B was ALSO Blyleven, this time during those years: nearly identical overall performance to Guidry over the course of those seasons, in which Gator was at his absolute best. Here’s 77-85: first Bert’s ERA+, then his team’s, then his team’s OPS+; then Guidry’s ERA+ and the Yanks’ ERA+ and OPS+.
77 – 151 (115) 103; 140 (109) 115
78 – 123 (109) 93; 208 (114) 105
79 – 109 (115) 99; 146 (103) 99
80 – 96 (103) 96; 110 (109) 112
81 – 127 (94) 96; 129 (123) 108
82 – hurt, pitched four games; 104 (99) 101
83 – 109 (97) 92; 113 (99) 110
84 – 144 (97) 98; 84 (100) 109
85 – CLV 127 (84) 95
85 – MIN 145 (97) 96; 123 (109) 112
So Bert was better than Guidry in ‘77, roughly equal in ‘81, and easily better in ‘84 and ‘85. Edge to Guidry, as I have said from the start… for those nine years. But while Guidry gave no value before then, and precious little afterward, Blyleven was a great pitcher for seven years beforehand, and was nearly pitching the Angels to the playoffs in 1989, as outlined above – after Guidry had retired. And he was doing it on teams that were never once the equal of those Yankee offenses… Guidry never once in those nine seasons pitched for team with a lower than 99 OPS+; Blyleven did so seven times in the same stretch, and four other times from ‘70 to ‘76. Likewise, Guidry’s teams’ ERA+ was never below 99 in those nine years. Of course his numbers brought that up, but just as often Blyleven was raising his teams’ ERA+, yet still they were sub-par: below-average in ‘71, ‘75, ‘81, ‘83, ‘84, and ‘85, while Blyleven was at 109 or more each time.
The Hall of Fame is not just about peak or playoff performance, but an entire body of work. Blyleven’s peak was comparable to Guidry, he was still nearly as effective during Guidry’s own peak, turned in good work after Guidry faded, and a great year after Guidry had retired. And w/l% is about a lot of things, not least of which is how good a guy’s teammates are. Guidry can’t be blamed for having better offenses behind him, but neither can Bert be blamed for the inferior lineups he had.
Am I a blind Bert fanatic? Hardly. I’ve bent over backwards here to give Gator his rightful due. But hey, facts are facts. For every time Blyleven was bad, there are many more where he was terrific, often for teams that squandered it. Had the Reds drafted him instead of the Twins, had he gone to the Yanks instead of Texas from ‘76 to ‘78, then he’d have cruised past 300 wins and nobody would be wasting all these pixels on this stuff, because he’d be a mortal-lock Hall of Famer, based entirely on the accident of other people hitting well for him.
DOUBLE ahem… I didn’t put words in your mouth, sir, so kindly don’t put them in mine. If you are going to pose me a question, give me a chance to answer, as I did for you.
So, would I take Brown over Gibby up there, based on that info?
I don’t know. You didn’t give me nearly the amount of information I gave you. You left out that Gibby threw 457 more innings in those seven years, nor that he had more shutouts than Brown even had complete games (35 to 32). You only gave the information where Brown looked better, and none of the info where Gibby looked better.
Gee…. ain’t that what you did with Blyleven and Guidry, too? Shocka, you can’t debate honestly. Highlighting your strong points is one thing, but pretending you have no weak points is ridiculous. I’ve been nothing but fair to you and this is a hell of a thing to get in return.
As for your question? Darn, Brown was a helluva pitcher in his peak, wasn’t he? Won two pennants and a World Series in that peak, too, so he had some success. But I didn’t just compare peaks, I also compared overall careers. In Guidry’s case vs. Blyleven, it was pretty much no contest – Guidry’s peak was just about it: nine good-to-great years and four average-to-lousy years. Blyleven pitched a lot longer, and great for many of those years outside his peak.
In this case, Brown’s peak was very good, arguably on a par with Gibby… based on the more complete numbers, not just the very few you gave. But career? Gibby threw way more shutouts, 600 more innings with 700 more strikouts, and permitted fewer baserunners per nine, while posting an identical ERA+.
In fact… based on actual research instead of your fake game-show conversation with a figment of your own imagination, it looks like Brown:Guidry :: Gibson:Blyleven.
No, no… really, don’t feel too bad.
Let me suggest another campaign for you guys, now that you’ve succeeded in putting Bert at the entrance to the Hall, certain to go in next year.
If Bert goes in, doesn’t John Franco have to go in? More saves than Eckersley, Gossage, Sutter, Fingers and Hoyt Wilhelm. Better ERA+ than Gossage, Sutter, Fingers. More seasons with 10 or more saves than Mariano Rivera!
And, get this, FOURTH on the all-time saves list. And – get this – every pitcher with more than 400 saves and a better than 135 ERA+ is a SUREFIRE Hall of Famer – Rivera and Hoffman.
The parallels with Blyleven are uncanny. Franco, like Blyleven, got almost no Cy Young consideration in his career, continually getting stiffed while the Sutters and Smiths got all the attention. Like Blyleven, no one really appreciated at the time that they were watching a future Hall of Famer.
But the statistics tell the tale, don’t they? Franco was better than Gossage. Better than Eck. Better than Sutter. Better than Fingers.
The ERA+ and save totals don’t lie. They reveal the Greatness of Franco.
John Franco for the Hall of Fame. Maybe Rich Lederer can start working on it right away!
Tommy, now that we’ve succeeded in getting you to change the subject. . . .
One trick of rhetoric is to try to slip an assumption past the other side. But many of us do not assume that past Hall voters have done the right thing with relief pitchers, or that anything approaching “standards” have been unofficially established for career saves or relief ERA+. Can we even distinguish yet what constitute the periods of different relief usage, with that usage still changing? A “save” is not always a “save”: one inning or two, one pitch or twenty, 70 chances or 40?
At this point, I’d put in Wilhelm, Gossage, Eckersley, and Rivera, and hold off on everyone else until some more dust has settled. And no, I don’t want to try to explain why only these four. . . .
@Tim in post #145 — I’m one of the biggest anti-Morris for the Hall people there is. After reading what you’ve wrote, I have not changed my opinion. However, I will say that your post, more than anything ever written by any sports writer or said to me by any colleague or contemporary (I live in Metro Detroit, where Morris is very popular and it goes without saying that he should be in the Hall, generally) is the most compelling argument that I’ve ever read for Morris to be in the Hall, and if you were a sportswriter and had a vote and issued it for Morris and then wrote an article that presented the content of your post in that manner: I would lay down my arms and not begrudge your vote.
Bert Blyleven was an excellent strikout pitcher with a great curveball. He threw a lot of innings and complete games in a 22 year career.
Over his career he had annual won-loss record of 14-12. He played on competitive team through the majority of his career with a number of Hall Of Famers.
He was rarely an All-Star and rarely received CY Young consideration during a 22 year career.
His HOF vote support has only picked up steam in the last few years…somewhat do to Rizzuto like campaigning as a member of the baseball media.
How is it that the writers who covered him during his career rarely honored him with All-Star or CY Young support. How is it there after his long career, when they had ample time to review his career in full… they gave him pretty lousy support for HOF consideration?
What’s the deal with Bert?
I’d love to know why those writers never felt compelled to say Bert was among the best for so many of the individual season of his career and his career in full measure.
Just discovered Joe Posnanski. This particular blog entry, and the comments, demonstrate what a fascinating game baseball is, and why it will forever hold America’s sporting public in its grip with.
I saw Bert Blyleven pitch against and for my Cleveland Indians. He was an outstanding pitcher, and yet, when he was up for the HOF, I inventoried my subjective memory of his performances and asked myself if they were of HOF caliber.
It was a bit of a mixed bag. And that is reflected in the various statistics cited by Mr. Posnanski and his readers.
As this blog proves, you can run around in circles all day comparing the various statistical measurements of baseball success. However, for me, what trumps just about everything else in this particular case, is a statistic that is far less dependent on input by a pitcher’s teammates that W-L record, and I’m guessing somewhat less than ERA as well.(I’m no statistician and would welcome any insight into the comparison) For me, the elephant in the room is career shutouts. He had 60, the 9th highest of all time. Pitchers 1 through 8 comprise a staff for all time.
The career shutout numbers just jump off the page, and are impossible to ignore. Sure, defense has something to do with those stats, but it is not impacted by the team’s offense like wins and losses is. And even though defense contributes to that statistic, whereas it is mostly factored out of ERA, a bad defensive play can cost a shutout just as easily as a great defensive play can preserve one.
So, had I a vote, Blyleven’s career shutout record would compel me to vote for him. I hope he makes it next year.