Tom and Cherry (Picking)
Posted: January 9th, 2010 | Filed under: Baseball | 100 Comments »
A couple of days ago, you might recall, I wrote a blog post about how, with a little sleight of hand, you can make the Hall of Fame numbers say more or less what you want them to say. Well, I’ve got an example I have to point out — one made by my colleague Tom Verducci, who I think is the best baseball writer in the business. The best. But, hey, several people emailed it to me or mentioned it in the comments, and I think it is pretty egregious.
Here is Tom’s argument about Edgar Martinez, in a nutshell:
Martinez did put up appealing-looking rate stats. (The .300/.400/.500 thing stirs our predilection for round numbers.) But the mass of his hitting isn’t as impressive as the rate of it. Even as a DH, Martinez had trouble going to the post. Only four times did Martinez play in 150 games and put up an adjusted OPS of 120. Since 1987, the year he broke in, that ties Martinez for 36th with, among others, Richie Sexson.
Now, look, it is true that Martinez did not become a regular until an advanced age, and he had some injuries, and he did not have many 150-game seasons. It’s a fair point, it really is, and if you want to say that Edgar Martinez did not quite play long enough or in enough games to make the Hall of Fame impact, well, I disagree, but reasonable minds still can disagree, I hope.
Still, come on: You have to make your point in better faith than that. Now you may think that the problem here is that 150-game limit — and, sure, that’s one problem. It’s true that Martinez only played 150 four times. Sure. But in 1995, he “only” played 145 games — and that LED THE LEAGUE. We’re surely not blaming Martinez for the strike now. The 150 games thing is an artificial boundary — and as artificial boundaries usually go it tends to cut off at a certain point to make the player involved look better or worse. Martinez had seven more seasons between 135 and 149 games.
Tom in his next paragraph did drop the boundary to 140 games just to continue his point … but my real problem with his statistic is not the number of games. If you want to say Martinez did not have a long-enough career and did not play enough games to be a Hall of Famer, hey, that’s fine.
No, the egregious part is the other part of the formula, the 120 OPS+ part. Here are Martinez’s OPS+ numbers for those five seasons (including the 145-game season in 1995):
1991: 138 OPS+
1995: 185 OPS+
1997: 165 OPS+
1998: 158 OPS+
2000: 157 OPS+
And here are three other seasons where he got at least 600 plate appearances:
1996: 166 OPS+
1999: 152 OPS+
2003: 141 OPS+
Now, what do these seasons have in common? Right: NONE OF THEM IS CLOSE TO 120 OPS+. Not even close. How did Tom come up with a 120 OPS+ as a baseline? There are many ways to mess around with the numbers and one is to make the qualifying standard way below a player’s standing. If you do that, you can come up with all sorts of crazy stuff.
To give you an extreme example: “Most seasons with 10 or more home runs:”
24. Babe Ruth: 17
24 (tie). Chili Davis: 17
Well, how could we put Ruth in the Hall of Fame when he’s tied for 24th with Chili Davis? Is Chili Davis a Hall of Famer? Well, is he?
Or how about this: Seasons with at least nine homers and nine stolen bases.
Devon White, 13
Amos Otis, 13
Willie Mays, 12
Claudell Washington, 12
Johnny Damon, 12
Wow, who knew that White and Otis were better power/speed combinations than Willie Mays!
One more — seasons playing more than 155 games with a 110 OPS+:
Richie Sexson, 5
Stan Musial, 4
Willie Mays, 4
Hank Aaron, 4
Lou Gehrig, 3
Ty Cobb, 2
Babe Ruth, 0
Damn, that Richie Sexson was good! He was … oh, wait, the season was only 154 games in them olden days? Oh, well, whatever.
Richie Sexson, since he was brought up here, peaked at with a 144 OPS+ season in 2005. Edgar’s CAREER OPS+ was 147. This, I fear, is playing with numbers to an extreme. I mean, you could go the other way too and look at most qualifying seasons with 150 OPS+ or better. Suddenly Edgar has eight seasons, which ties him for 22nd all-time, ahead of, among others, McCovey, Killebrew, Boggs and Yaz.
I like playing around with baseball numbers, I think everyone here knows that. I like playing around with baseball numbers because sometimes the result strengthens a hunch, and because sometimes the result seemingly quashes a theory, and because sometimes you just find something that seems fun and interesting and counter-intuitive — like Bert Blyleven’s 15 1-0 victories or that Tim Raines reached base more times in his career than Tony Gwynn.
More to the point: I like playing with baseball numbers because I like thinking about baseball. I like challenging my own convictions about the game. I like the way the numbers can help me remember Bert Blyleven’s cartoon curveball and the way Rickey Henderson would battle a pitcher and the opposite field home runs of Dale Murphy. I like the way that the numbers can be like baseball shorthand. If someone asked me (as people have asked me): “What kind of player do you think Scott Podsednik is?” — I could respond with a long scouting report. Or I could say that he led baseball last year with 30 groundouts to the pitcher. That doesn’t give you every bit of information that you might want or need about Scott Podsednik, but I think it does offer a glimpse.
And to me, the best numbers, the best stats, have a cutting honesty about them. I was — long story — talking with Bob Costas the other day about the now famous Andre Dawson number: He’s one of three players with 400 homers and 300 steals, and the other two are Willie Mays and Barry Bonds. We were saying that while the number is interesting in a quirky way (and Bob thinks Dawson IS a Hall of Famer), it’s not real. Dawson wasn’t nearly as good as Mays and Bonds. There are a thousand different numbers that show that. Not that there’s anything wrong falling short of Mays and Bonds — two of the 10 best players in baseball history — but the point is that if you don’t acknowledge the larger picture, then the whole thing feels like a making a handkerchief disappear and pulling coins out of the air.
Tom wonders if the length and breadth of Edgar Martinez’s career falls short of the Hall of Fame, and I think that’s a strong point and one worth arguing about. But let’s argue it fairly. The guy was also a savage hitter. He was no Richie Sexson.
Loading ...
Let’s see…if I were to tie this post in a neat little knot, then it would be best to state that Mickey Mantle only had four seasons with more than 150 games played. Therefore, Mantle equals Edgar and Edgar equals Mantle. Did I get that all right?
Just joking. Mr. Posnanski, you’re the best.
Oh man, I had the chance to do a circle me bert thing. How stupid of me to waste it. [eyeroll]
I wonder if many writers* out there do some of this counter-intuitive number play to try and prove some point about the weaknesses of using numbers.
*I’m not including Tom Verducci in that; he’s one of the best and the other reason I spend more time reading about baseball at si.com than anywhere else. Jon Heyman is reason number 4,083.
In Verducci’s case, though, I wonder if it was more of a mistake to miss the strike year. If you’re reading down a whole list of those numbers, particularly if they seem to be agreeing with your hypothesis, it’s easy to overlook something like 1995 as the post-strike year. Doesn’t excuse the fallacious result, though.
Career wins
Bert Blylevin: 287
Babe Ruth: 94
Need I say more?
“It’s true that Martinez only played 150 four times. Sure. But in 1995, he “only” played 145 games — and that LED THE LEAGUE.”
Not to quibble, because I really don’t have a dog in this hunt, but I’m pretty sure that Cal Ripken Jr. was still in his record breaking run at that time (since I believe he broke the Iron Horse’s record streak later that year – 1995) and went on to play over 2600 consecutive games. So, perhaps I misunderstood the “led the league” with 145 games played statement but if not, then you might want to relook at that one, Joe.
@stp:
Ripken played in all 144 Orioles games in 1995. The Mariners had a one game tiebreaker with the Angels for a 145 game season.
Why do you make such a big deal out of Blyleven’s 1-0 wins? Are we supposed to give him credit now that his team couldn’t score runs?
Let’s look at 1-2 defeats, 0-1 defeats, etc.
Ok. Went back and looked. I get what Joe was saying. EM played all the games that were played in that strike shortened season. However, it was 144 games & not 145. And he was tied with CRJr (which is almost a moot point – you have to remove CRJr from the equation). So I stand corrected.
@ stp
1 game playoffs, according to MLB rules, count towards regular season statistics. Edgar led the league all by himself.
It’s a different facet of the Edgar Martinez debate, but I like Tom Tango’s simplified take regarding designated hitters’ suitability for the HOF.
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/how_to_justify_voting_for_a_dh_for_the_hall/
Did you really go back and look though? Martinez was tied with Frank Thomas for the league lead with 145.
I was just talking about the 400/300 club with someone the other day. Not only does Dawson have by far the fewest HR in that club, he has by far the lowest career OBP, the lowest career OPS+, *and* he has the fewest steals (though not that far behind Mays who himself is somewhat barely in the 300 club) and the worst SB success rate. Including him in some arbitrarily-set “club” to try and make him look more impressive does a disservice to history.
Consider me caught, Guy. I thought I’d save time by foolishly presuming that no one else in that extra game had played each of the previous 144.
Hmmm, a writer who would like to abolish the DH would never make an intellectually dishonest argument to deny the best DH ever a hall of fame slot….
Edgar had interleague play too. I don’t know how many games that took away from him.
#2 William:
“Oh man, I had the chance to do a circle me bert thing. How stupid of me to waste it. ”
Er, I think you actually *did* do one.
(Wait, does that mean I just did one?)
Edgar also had idiots who prevented him from becoming a regular until he was 27.
I thought there was something funny about that Verducci statistic when I read it, so thanks for pointing out the problem. I am not sold on Edgar Martinez as a Hall of Famer, but I am in favor of fair arguments.
I think “Circle Me, Bert” is like the new “The Game.”
One of my faves is “Yaz was the first ALer to have 3,000 hits and 400 homers in a career.”
The importance of that stat was made up as soon as Yaz did it.
So much so that Al Kaline retired with 3,000 hits and 399 homers without even thinking about it.
Sometimes I wish the Baseball Hall of Fame was just a museum with a collection of great photos and memorabila from great teams and players from baseball’s past.
I get tired of the “this guy was better than this guy crap” and “why isn’t this guy in” and “how the heck did that guy get in” The whole institution is basically B.S.
The whole institution is arbitrary, and it’s been that way bascially from the begining. Once you start electing Fred Lindstrom, Travis Jackson, George Kelly, George Kell, Lloyd Waner, etc. you lose your prestige.
Andre Dawson is an o.k. choice but seriously there are about 30 better eligible position players not in the HOF, (Santo, Allen, Trammell, Whitaker, Bill Dahlen, Raines, Alomar, Larkin, Grich, Darrell Evans, Dwight Evans, Keith Hernandez, Will Clark, Graig Nettles, Ken Boyer, Stan Hack, Joe Torre, Ted Simmons, Jimmy Winn) That’s 20 just off of the top of my head.
“Why do you make such a big deal out of Blyleven’s 1-0 wins? Are we supposed to give him credit now that his team couldn’t score runs?”
Go here: http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/09/12/pitching-to-the-score/
MikeN: “Why do you make such a big deal out of Blyleven’s 1-0 wins? Are we supposed to give him credit now that his team couldn’t score runs?”
When you are done with Joe’s blog listed above, go here:
http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=1815
“The whole institution is arbitrary, and it’s been that way bascially from the begining. Once you start electing Fred Lindstrom, Travis Jackson, George Kelly, George Kell, Lloyd Waner, etc. you lose your prestige.”
Yep…you have to blame Frank Frisch for some of that. Near the end of his life, he was the chairman of the Veteran’s committee, and pulled some strings to get his very good best friends into the Hall. That would explain Lindstrom, Kelly, and to some extent Stonewall. Not sure about Lloyd Waner, although having a famous brother helped. And well…there was a time when people felt Kell was the best 3rd baseman in the AL.
@Spud Phenomenal point.
I know this isn’t really the subject of this post, but… it’s appalling to me that anyone – especially anyone with a vote – would dock Edgar for being a DH. There are so many reasons it’s dumb, including:
- What about terrible defenders who are amazing hitters? Steroids aside, would voters fail to elect Manny for being an absolute butcher in the field? Not a chance.
- What about pitchers, who can’t/don’t hit at all? What about relievers (hello Bruce Sutter!) who don’t play every day and when they do, only face a few batters?
- The DH is not only legal, it’s used by every single AL team in every single game with almost no exception. So essentially you’re saying that 1 out of 10 players (very roughly, of course) is ineligible for the Hall of Fame.
If he’s not eventually elected it will be a crying shame. His stats were truly mind-boggling for a long period of time, and you throw in his character (because hey, you’re supposed to vote on that too!) he’s a shoe-in. Or should be.
Babe Ruth played in the major leagues.
Yuniesky Betancourt is currently playing in the major leagues.
Therefore, Betancourt = Ruth.
When you hire someone to do a job (DH, relief pitcher, punter) that was established by the rules of employment, and that person does the job better than just about anybody else, shouldn’t that be acknowledged in the same way that others with different jobs (outfielders, infielders, catchers, starting pitchers, quarterbacks, tackles, etc.) have been acknowledged?
Edgar Martinez, Ray Guy both belong in their respective HOFs.
Sorry, Bryz, but you miss the important point. Babe Ruth was an outfielder. Yuniesky Betancourt has his name put on a lineup card as a shortstop. Thus, with a mandatory positional adjustment, Betancourt > Ruth.
My colleague Doug Drinen wrote an article almost 10 years ago on the misuses of statistics in sports.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/articles/damnlies.htm
I don’t care how good a writer someone is. If their content is illogical, stupid, and possibly agenda-driven then, to me, they might as well pick another profession.
I was referring to Verducci, Noble, Heyman, etc… Granted I don’t read them, so recently this might be an aberration, but I doubt it.
@ 7 Mike N,
Here’s an excerpt from one of Joe’s past columns. It’s only valid if you’re comparing him to Jack Morris and you believe Morris to be a HOFer.
“When Jack Morris’ team scored 1 run, he was 5-49. OK? He won five times, 1-0, and lost 49 other times by scores ranging from 2-1 to 13-1. That’s an .093 winning percentage. Is this good? Is this pitching to the score? I can only go by Bert Blyleven, who is not yet in the Hall of Fame despite eye-popping career numbers. Blyleven’s flaw in the eyes of the voters seems to be that he wasn’t a winner, that statistics like ERA (3.31 — more than a half run better than Morris) and strikeouts (3,701 — fifth all-time) do not reflect his true self — his true self being a good but not great pitcher who could not raise his game when his teammates struggled and pull back and enjoy the ride when his teammates scored big.
Blyleven’s record when his team scored 1 run? You betcha: 15-65. That’s a .188 winning percentage — quite a bit better than Morris’. Blyleven won 10 more 1-0 games than Jack Morris.
How about when the team scores 2 runs? That is after all the essence of the pitch to the score cliche — “He’ll beat you 2-1, and he’s beat you 8-7.”
Morris’ record when his team scored two runs: 12-37 (.244 winning percentage)
Blyleven’s record when his team scored two runs: 24-57 (.296 winning percentage)”
Lost tons of respect for Verducci when his writing started showing how much he truly hated Barry Bonds. Not that Barry needs to be loved or admired, but articles about the whole time should have been written by someone who was evenhanded in their writing.
It’s like having Rush Limbaugh write an article about Obama’s health care bill attempt. It is no longer an article, it’s an opinion piece.
A-O! A-O! A-O!!!
Yes. Thank you, Joe. My biggest pet peeve with sportswriters is when they cherry pick arbitrary numbers to make an argument.
Excellent post, Joe. Nothing I love more than demonstrating fallacies in the silly arguments people make about baseball. Tom’s was a doozy.
Using a cumulative statistic like WAR helps us mitigate the playing time issues. Gar’s WAR numbers are interesting:
He has 9 seasons of 5 or more WAR, which is pretty impressive. Only 43 players have achieved that; among hitters it ties him with Al Kaline and George Brett.
On the other hand, he only has one season with a WAR of 7, which is not too impressive at all. Four hundred and fifty eight players have done that.
Cutting it in the middle, Gar has 4 seasons of 6+, which ties him with 145th, and although most of the players with 4+ are hall of famers: Carl Yastrzemski, Bob Feller, Pete Rose, Mike Piazza and a slew of others, most of those players’ four included seasons well above 6; Yaz had two seasons above 10.
So I don’t know. Eight seasons of 5+, with 4 seasons at 6+ and 1 season at 7+, and no seasons higher than 7.7. Is that a hall of famer? I have no idea.
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!
Franco is 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. And none of the current HOF relief pitchers quality for this select group.
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. Heck, even the “he pitched for bad teams” applies more to Franco than Blyleven; Blyleven never pitched for a team as consistently bad as the ’90s Mets.
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! Whaddya say, Poz?
In an article that criticizes cherry picking statistics, the argument for Franco includes more 10+ save seasons than Mariano Rivera… Most of the HOF relievers mentioned have significant innings advantages over Franco, and past mistakes shouldn’t be used to justify more in the present. Franco was a very fine pitcher and not unworthy of consideration, but Bert Blyleven was an elite pitcher who never should have been marginalized by the HOF voting process. That is the motivation for the voracity of the Blyleven campaign, and does not apply to Franco who is a fringe candidate from an inclusive Hall perspective.
@Tommy in CT, I can’t tell if that was tongue-in-cheek or not. I certainly hope so. Even as a huge Mets fan, I would not even think about John Franco as a hall of famer. He was an average closer for a long time, woo hoo. Having a lot of saves doesn’t mean jack.
Actually, Franco has more IP as a reliever than Sutter and Eckersley, so that can’t be an issue.
And your claim that Bert was an elite pitcher simply isn’t true if you’re comparing him to existing HOF pitchers. His ERA+ – the stat most often cited by Bert Fanatics – is simply pedestrian by HOF standards. By contrast, Franco has more saves and a better ERA+ than Eckersley, Fingers, Gossage and Sutter.
It is Bert who is a marginal candidate for the Hall, as evidenced by his ERA+, his W-L record, and every other measure. Franco is the elite candidate, exceeding all current HOF relief pitchers in the msot significant statistical measurements of relief pitchers.
Oh, good, I was worried that Tommy would only be trolling in the previous HOF thread.
No, no, no. I don’t buy the short career argument. Edgar Martinez had 8,672 plate appearances. That’s a pretty lengthy career. From 1901-2009, only 145 major leaguers have ever had a longer career.
How ’bout maintaining a .300/.400/.500 line over 8,500 PA?
14. That’s 14 total players since 1901 have been able to maintain that rate for THAT LONG. Everyone eligible on the list is not only in the HOF, but they’re first class HOFers.
What if we drop the PA’s down to just 1500? Well, there’s still only 20 players who’ve finished their careers with such a batting line.
19….since 1901. All that are eligible on that list, are in the Hall of Fame….except Edgar (so far).
How many hitters kept a 145 OPS+ over 8,500 PA’s?
26. All of them are well known names (except maybe Sam Crawford).
If you drop the PA’s down to just 5000, you still only have 37 players who’ve ever kept their OPS+ over 145 for that long. Most are in Cooperstown. The only eligibles on this list who aren’t in the Hall, are Dick Allen and Mark McGwire.
I looked this up last month to see how Martinez compared to some of the All-Time greats, and honestly, I was surprised at what I found. I made brief mention of this on my blog but nobody reads my site, so I’m mentioning it here. People need to know this stuff about Edgar!
His career wasn’t too short.
His rate stats aren’t mediocre.
Sell it folks, to every writer you know who doesn’t get it.
Maybe I should write a baseball book.
Funny, Joe, I thought you were the best baseball writer. I like Verducci, but his strengths do not lie in statistical analysis. His strengths are describing the feel and the preciousness of the game. His writing is evocative of the feelings and mystique surrounding the game. That’s why he’s good. And thanks for taking him to task in this post.
I didn’t realize that (Tommy in Ct.) comment was simply the latest amongst many posts grinding the same ax.
“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… John Franco”
Since there doesn’t appear to be a possible reasoned agreement on the subject, I’ll just say it won’t happen because almost no one in the Blyelven camp shares your perspective.
The fallacy of the argument against DH’s in the hall is that many of our HOF’s were negatives in the field. They were actually worse players for their team because of being in the field.
As far as Edgar’s playing time goes, while he did get a late start to his career, he was dominant when he did play. From 1990-2001 (His first full season to his age 38 season) He averaged 570 plate appearances per year despite missing an entire year due to injury, and a portion of one because of the strike. During that time he had an OPS+ of 155 an On base + Slugging of .966 (.321/.429/.537) and an offensive winning percentage of .738.
During that period (age 27-38) Edgar ranks 20th in OPS+ and 13th in Runs created (for comparisons sake Andre Dawson is 134th and 88th.) For his total career, Edgar is 31st and 52nd (Dawson is 245th and 71st) He created more runs than all but 51 players despite his short career.
Every player who is eligible on both lists who is ahead of Edgar is in except for Dick Allen and Mark Mcgwire (OPS+ both had shorter careers-as did 5 who are in) and Fred Mcgriff and Tim Raines (RC Between the two of them they averaged 39 more runs in 1594 more plate appearances) No one who is not in as ahead on both.
Edgar is a Hall of Famer.
PS I used 4860 plate appearances (the equivalent of 10 qualifying seasons) as my floor for the above rankings
Thanks for explaining the standard you used, Khazad. Unlike Verducci’s article, the standard you pick isn’t arbitrary, it is literally what puts you on the Hall of Fame ballot in the first place. Edgar is my favorite player all-time, so I honestly can’t involved in these arguments in a rational way; it’s nice that others are able to, and I’m actually surprised at how well the numbers stack up for him. Doubles and walks show up in most advanced statistics pretty well, and Edgar wasn’t called Doctor Double for nothing.
On a related note, I now have a greater appreciation for what a good player Richie Sexson was!
We might not remember him as such, but he really was an outstanding hitter for a few years.
He’s no Hall-of-Famer, of course, but he did have more HR and a better OPS (not era-adjusted) than Don Mattingly, a guy who’s still pulling in some votes. (Coincidence: They had the exact same number of walks and stolen bases.)
I feel like everytime the Edgar conversation comes up, the first comp should be Paul Molitor.
Because let’s be honest – there is already a DH in the HOF. Molitor was a DH, it is a complete illusion that he is in the HOF because of his time as a position player.
He was also first ballot with 85.2% of the vote, meaning there are a whole subway system full of writers who voted for Molitor but aren’t ready to vote for Edgar.
Paul Molitor played in more than 150 games 8 times in his career (and in 130 in 1995). His BEST OPS+ in one of those years? 147.
Just a reminder – Edgar’s career OPS+ is 147.
The arguments against Edgar Martinez really all boil down to the DH myth. I wish writers would start acknowledging that they broke the DH barrier in 2004 with Paul Molitor.
As a White Sox fan, my all-time favorite cherry pick. Not that it isn’t valid…
The complete list of AL players with at least 2,866 hits, 384 home runs, and 1,628 rbis
1. Carl Yastrzemski
2. Cal Ripken
3. Harold Baines
That’s it. If you drop the hits threshold to 2,860, you can add Babe Ruth……
pretty sure Rafael Palmerio did too
Rafael only had 2763 hits in the American League. The rest came in the National League.
Well said, KHAZAD.
I understand why people have an innate bias against voting for a DH. They’re viewed in the same way as a kicker in the NFL. They’re important, and you’re screwed without a good one, but it’s hard to call them valuable because they just don’t contribute as often as other players.
But if a great batter is a defensive liability, can they really be credited with contributing more than a DH? Shouldn’t a DH just be counted as a fielder who was exactly perfectly average all year long? They made a positive contribution with their bat and didn’t have any effect on defense, which is more than you can say for Manny or Jeter.
A 5 tool star is still ideal, but in an era full of oversized human cannons with wooden hands and concrete feet, maybe nothing is better than a negative something.
Joe Posnanski said:
“with a little sleight of hand, you can make the Hall of Fame numbers say more or less what you want them to say.”
Well, yes, that´s what I have been saying all along. We have the same problem here with gene numbers, they don´t automatically work in real life.
He also said:
“I was — long story — talking with Bob Costas the other day about the now famous Andre Dawson number: He’s one of three players with 400 homers and 300 steals, and the other two are Willie Mays and Barry Bonds. We were saying that while the number is interesting in a quirky way (and Bob thinks Dawson IS a Hall of Famer), it’s not real.”
Exactly. That´s exactly how I feel about Posnanski´s opinion on Raines and Clemente. And SB and HR´s are solid, simple stats.
Moreover:
“(Stats) doesn’t give you every bit of information that you might want or need about Scott Podsednik, but I think it does offer a glimpse”.
That´s about it. A glimpse. The way some bloggers and statisticians talk nowadays, you would think numbers are a mystical truth revealed to the initiated. Almost none of these people mention anything about actually watching the bloody game.
Finally:
“But let’s argue it fairly. The guy (Martinez) was also a savage hitter. He was no Richie Sexson”.
You could say it louder, but not clearer than that. Exactly the same argument works for Raines: he was no Clemente. Blyleven was no Pedro and Dawson was no Mays. Even if the numbers suggest so.
“People often use statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost — for support, rather than illumination” — Roger Clemens.
No, sorry, Samuel Clemens
No, Clarence Clemons. Haven’t you ever seen the E Street Band members leaning all over one another?
I like how you described the way numbers allow you to think about baseball in different ways, sometimes confirming a hunch, sometimes quashing one.
As a lifelong M’s fan (going back to the early ’80’s), I’ve always known what a masher Edgar was, without any need to resort to statistics. The thing that sticks out in my mind is that, in those insane lineups of the ’90’s, where you had Junior, A-Rod, Buhner, Tino, et al, Edgar was the guy I wanted stepping to the plate when we really needed a big hit.
Sure, Junior and A-Rod were better players, but Edgar was the one that I (and I suspect at least 99% of my fellow fans, Lou included) had faith in.
How this relates to numbers is simple–call it the anti-Podsednick stat. Sure, I could cite all the statistics, describe his perfecct swing and even more perfect approach, regale with stories from the clutch, as Pos and many others have done so well of late in support of his HOF candidacy.
Or, I could just point out that for his career, he put up a line of .625/.700/1.188/1.888 against Mariano Freakin’ Rivera!
I think that, too, offers a glimpse.
Edgar was a great player, and all this “he wasn’t feared” balogna that guys like Shaughnessy throw out there is just that.
But especially in light of new discoveries about how important (and undervalued) defense is, I think he just misses for me. Some people choose to look at it as “Don’t penalize Edgar for not hurting his team with the glove, which is essentially what he did when he played DH.” I see it as “Because Edgar was so bad with the glove, the Mariners had to find other, lesser hitters to play defense.”
Great hitter, just not quite great enough to make up for the absolute lack of defensive value and the relatively short career.
Daniel at 59, Edgar did not hurt his team when he was in the field. He was an ABOVE average defensive 3rd basema.
The Mariners moved him to DH because his bat was so VALUABLE. Since he missed time with two “freak” injuries (catcher ran over him while Edgar was catching a popup along the 3rd base line and a pulled hamstring on a very, very bad Vancouver Canada field in an exhibition game days before the season started).
In the end, I don’t consider John Franco to be a hall of famer, but there should at least be some discussion about him. The career ERA+, innings, and saves totals do place him in the conversation.
The case for or against Martinez depends considerably on how you weigh counting vs. rate stats. The rate stats are phenomenal. The counting stats are less so.
The premise of this article is spot-on though – use stats as correctly and honestly as possible.
@55- This “just watch the bloody game” myth has GOT to die. It’s such a farce. 65 years ago, how much access did a vast, vast majority of people have to watching a large percentage of games? The access wasn’t there. What did baseball fans rely on? Reading about it. Reading box scores. NUMBERS. And you know what those passionate fans did when they grew up? They kept eating up statistics… and watching games.
It’s just ridiculous to say that anecdotal evidence always trumps statistical evidence. Anecdotal evidence can tell us lots of things. Big things. Statistical evidence tells us what actually happened, or at least tries to. Neither bit of evidence is infallible.
But when statistics clearly and loudly say that we maybe were too powerfully persuaded by what our eyes saw, we have to listen to those statistics. Raines wasn’t Clemente. Joe never said they were equal, just that they were a heck of a lot closer than people want to remember. Of course Blyleven wasn’t Pedro. NO ONE was Pedro. And I think you just made a mistake with your example, but no one believes Dawson was even CLOSE to Mays. Joe certainly doesn’t. He didn’t think he was a Hall of Famer.
Our memories are valuable. I think people end up fighting over so much of what those memories, those players made us feel. And no statistics can take away those memories, those feelings. But statistics absolutely must be taken advantage of when you start saying, “He was as good as this guys, or this guy was the 5th best” or whatever. Because the reality is, your memory, my memory, our memories, can be too powerfully influenced by a very small sample size. We end up thinking Clemente was a baseball god, an untouchable, when he was just a really good player, a great player who did some things very well. He was no baseball god, no matter how well (we think) we remember that ball flying in at the speed of sound to nail the guy at third. Stats remind us of that.
So, please, stop imagining that some people are walling themselves off from the real game and just reading box-scores (wait… doesn’t that describe every hardcore fan a long time ago) and not watching the game. We just need help interpreting what we see and what we remember.
Denying that you do is hubris.
Alex:
“But let’s argue it fairly. The guy (Martinez) was also a savage hitter. He was no Richie Sexson”.
You could say it louder, but not clearer than that. Exactly the same argument works for Raines: he was no Clemente. Blyleven was no Pedro and Dawson was no Mays. Even if the numbers suggest so.
The exact argument doesn’t work for Raines/Clemente. You conveniently clipped three paragraphs of empirical data demonstrating Martinez’s superiority. You have not, during your week-long campaign, offered any empirical evidence to suggest the Clemente was vastly superior to Raines.
No one likes to be told that their memory may be faulty, but scientific studies have repeatedly shown that we often construct our memories after the fact; we are susceptible to suggestions from others that help us fill in the gaps in our memories. There isn’t even a correlation between feeling certain of a memory and the likelihood that that memory is accurate. In fact, memory is so notoriously inaccurate that one must be careful when claiming certainty about a memory without corroborative evidence.
Here’s some data on the Raines/Clemente imbroglio. My thesis is that they were players of roughly equivalent value.
Clemente reached base 3656/10212, .359. For Raines it was 3977/10359, .384. Clemente made out .678, Raines .659. Since these include hitting into dp’s and caught stealing, the totals exceed 100%. Modest advantage, Raines.
Now, where were they after they reached base? After adding steals and subtracting caught stealing, Clemente was on 1st base 2681 times, Raines 2310. 2nd base, C 523, R 1238. 3rd base, C 166, R 113. Home run, C 240, R 170. On 2nd base, 1238 x’s to 523!
Yes, Clemente hit with slightly more power. But, counting EBH and steals and subtracting hitting into DP’s and caught stealing, Clemente created .481 base advanced for each PA. For Raines the number is .547/PA. Offensive advantage, Raines.
By himself, Raines scored or got himself into scoring position 1521 times to Clemente’s 929. And each additional time that Raines is on second base, he puts more pressure on the pitcher and makes it impossible for himself to be part of a double play. (I assume, incorrectly, that each steal was a steal of 2nd, but steals of 3rd or home would be just as valuable, no?)
As to defense, Roberto Clemente was a great right fielder. By my estimation and by Bill James’s win shares calculation (377 ws Clemente in 147 fewer PA’s than Raines’s 390 ws), the two have roughly equivalent value as baseball players.
“the Raines/Clemente imbroglio”
What about the Brock imbroglio?
“You should always bear in mind that when the question is which to believe — official economic statistics or your own lying eyes — the eyes have it.”
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize for economics 2008.
@67-
Wow. Way to take something COMPLETELY out of context, assume it applies to all statistics, including the kind we’re talking about, and just slap it out there as the be-all, end-all rebut.
You should look up Paul Krugman. I think you’ll get the picture that he does not, in fact, have anything against statistics. Just that they can be manipulated.
Like your memories. (See the book Blink for a pop-sociology/psychology analysis of how easy it is to shape your “analysis.”)
I think that’s what’s wrong with the whole no-on-Edgar campaign. The data in regards to value supports his candidacy, but they still have their issues (too injured, DH, short career). So rather than looking for what he actually contributed to winning, they plug and chug numbers that help support their previous opinion.
The ONLY argument against Martinez is if you’re a small-Hall guy in the first place. Production-wise, value wise, Martinez is right in line with plenty of HoF’rs.
One fun “junk” number I’ve seen around is “Wins Above Excellence”, or # of wins provided in a season over a certain standard of excellence, and using 0 for any season below that. I’ll use 4 as my number and compare Edgar to Dawson using Sean Smith’s data:
Dawson: 11.8 WAE
Martinez: 18.1 WAE
Now, let’s subtract out 4 wins per 700 PA of their WAR totals to see what their career rate of excellence was.
Dawson: -3.9
Martinez: 18.1
Dawson was good. I like that he’s in the Hall. Martinez was better.
(FYI, don’t take this “analysis” seriously, I basically just did what Verducci did, except in another way).
What would sportswriters do for subject matter if not for these never-ending Hall of Fame columns/arguments?
TIRED!!!
Joe,
For the life of me, I can’t remember you writing much, if anything, about college basketball.
How about a Big 12 roundup?
Yes, my eyes tell me the economy is in great shape. I have a job; I don’t know anyone out of work. Unemployment figures–mere statistics that don’t really tell the story. I prefer to go with my own impressions.
My eyes also tell me that Jeff Francouer is a great clutch hitter. He once hit a walk off grand slam. He must be a great hitter.
Brilliant arguments.
I guess Larry Walker should go in the Hall as well. Career .313/.400/.565 compared to Edgar’s .312/.418/.515. In 1988 games and 8030 PA’s he had 471 2b’s and 383 HR’s to 2055 games and 8672 PA’s with 514 2b’s and 309 HR’s. 140 OPS+ to 147 OPS+ for their careers. 230 SBs with 76 CS for Walker to 49 and 30 for Martinez. 117 IBB to 113. 153 GDP to 190. 3904 TB to 3718. Walker played average-to-above-average defense for his entire career while Martinez didn’t play much defense. Walker won the RoY and an MVP while finishing in the top 10 three other times and 11th once. Walker is 58th in Runs Created all time while Edgar is 55th. Basically pretty comparable hitters with Walker being a good fielder. I guess Walker just wasn’t feared enough to have his case discussed for next year. I should state I think neither deserves to go in the Hall, excellent players though they were. I also say Frank Thomas was the best DH there was, but that’s just, like, my opinion, man.
First take on Big Mac?
Alex,
Joe did not say “(Stats) doesn’t give you every bit of information that you might want or need about Scott Podsednik, but I think it does offer a glimpse.”
He said “(this one ’stat’, which is actually more of a tidbit of information) doesn’t give you every bit of information…”
To try and use that one bit of info to evaluate Pods instead of relying on a variety of statistics is probably about as telling as forming an opinion based on watching a handful of at-bats. Some people might watch Pods go 12-for-30 while others might watch him go 3-for-30. Neither would have much of a sense as to what kind of player he is.
Also, and this is an important distinction, no one would suggest that stats are the be-all and end-all. They measure what actually happened on the field and are therefore more instructive than completely subjective evaluations. More instructive, I’d suggest, than just watching games and refusing to tabulate or acknowledge stats. If the numbers weren’t there, could you honestly guess at how successful a player is? You might guess that Jeter was better than Yuni Betancourt, but you’d have no idea how much better.
Stats quantify what happened. As Joe said, when used properly they offer a sober, objective view of the game and the players. If that contradicts what you believe to be true, maybe you need to examine some of your own preconceived notions.
I’d like to add that this piece of Poz genius should be required reading for anyone who still adheres to the “mom’s basement” trope:
“I like playing around with baseball numbers because sometimes the result strengthens a hunch, and because sometimes the result seemingly quashes a theory, and because sometimes you just find something that seems fun and interesting and counter-intuitive — like Bert Blyleven’s 15 1-0 victories or that Tim Raines reached base more times in his career than Tony Gwynn.
More to the point: I like playing with baseball numbers because I like thinking about baseball. I like challenging my own convictions about the game. I like the way the numbers can help me remember Bert Blyleven’s cartoon curveball and the way Rickey Henderson would battle a pitcher and the opposite field home runs of Dale Murphy.”
The Big Hurt was better than Edgar, but his best seasons were as a 1B.
Thomas playing first base: .337/.453/.625
Thomas playing DH: .275/.394/.505
Nick B,
I wouldn’t sell Larry Walker’s HoF case short, particularly given voting over the past couple of years. He was a better player – by far – than Jim Rice (his home-road splits were more pronounced, but his overall numbers AND his road OPS was far better than Rice’s.)
Of course, the voters who refused to dock Rice for being a beast at Fenway and Greg Vaughn on the road probably will probably criticize Walker for being a Coors Field creation.
I don’t think he’ll make it, but he’d be a better than two of the three OF voted in by writers over the past two years.
I’ll add a nit-pick: Frank Thomas was probably not the best DH ever, given that he was predominantly a first baseman during most of his prime years. He was a better hitter than Edgar in his prime (hell, he was a better hitter than Pujols,) but he wasn’t a DH for most of that time.
And a thought about Todd Helton: if he has two or three more seasons like 2009, he has Hall of Fame-level achievements, right?
Except that we already know that he doesn’t have a shot because of Coors Field.
Nick B. has done a good job showing the similarities in value between Walker and Martinez. Their playing time, peak, and unique factors (Coors and DH) make them quite similar. They are close in measurements such as Win Shares and WAR too. It seems that either both should be in or both should be out.
Watching McGwire’s votes received will be interesting next year.
Is the sentence “The best” in the first paragraph to be read in the style of Seinfeld’s Kenny Bania — “The best, Jerry. The best.”
In regards to McGwire, I think he’ll slowly creep into the Hall. Next year it’ll be Blyleven and Alomar, the year after that Larkin, and then maybe the year after that Raines. I’ve also read about Fred McGriff garnering a lot of support. I always thought of him as a nice piece of the puzzle, not the be-all end-all of your club.
I admit, the Thomas comment was off the cuff. Edgar as primarily a DH batted .316/.430/.541 while Thomas batted .276/.389/.515. Not really close. OPS+ was 153 to 133. I used the years ‘95-’04 for Martinez and ‘98-’08 for Thomas, the best I could tell when both played most of their games as DH.
Anyway, my original point is that Walker is just as deserving as Martinez, and I don’t think either one belongs. Yes, Walker may be better than Rice, and may be better than Dawson, but that doesn’t mean he should get in. As he is so close to Martinez and played the field his entire career without detriment to his team, Martinez doesn’t really deserve to get in either. Past errors don’t excuse future mistakes.
The man ratifies the numbers. The numbers cannot ratify the man. The problem is people are getting into the HOF because of numbers that are similar to legendary players, not because they themselves were legendary. BB was never legendary. Morris was. Randy Johnson was. Nolan Ryan was. Reggie Jackson was. You didn’t need to know how many shutouts or strikeouts or home runs the latter three had, because they were legendary (and yeah, you can’t quantify legendary; it’s like porn, you know it when you see it.).
Tom Boswell on BB: “The push for Blyleven drives me crazy. I followed his whole career. His reputation was that, more than any other top stuff pitcher, he would find a way to lose or not to win. He’s just not a HOFer, in my book. He only won 20 games one time and more than 17 only twice! And he pitched in the era when top starters got 4-5 more starts a year and 20 wins was easier. BB had nine seasons with 36-to-40 starts and averaged 38 in those years. When Chuck Tanner got him in Pittsburgh the word went around that Chuck had decided, over BB’s protestations, to take him out of late-and-close games because he’d never had the stomach for it. “Take him out before he can lose.” Tanner never said it in public. But BB’s winning percentage gets better. “
@ r_m_l
Another one lost to the porn/baseball greatness analogy. What is it about this comparison that makes it so attractive?
Wow, just read the McGwire confession.
Impressive, isn’t it?
Baseball needs more than a testing policy, it needs a “truth commission” like in South Africa, to know what happened exactly, since when, who did it and for how long.
At least that is how I feel.
Regarding stats, I love them, really. They allowed humankind to decipher the genome and now cancer… But then again, they are not the whole picture. In baseball they are the “in” thing now, but in a few years people will be talking about how to handle Palmeiro and Clemens, instead of making cases for borderline HOF candidates.
r_m_l:
I suppose the difference lies in whether you feel the Hall should be used to recognize the best baseball players or to celebrate memories (which will be obsolete to future generations – how many people under 25 have warm, fuzzy feelings about Morris’ 10-inning shutout in Game 7?) and perpetuate myths about the game.
Depending on whether you want the Hall to celebrate greatness or celebrity, you’ll either opt for Blyleven or Morris, Paul Molitor or Kirk Gibson, Eddie Murray or Bo Jackson, Don Sutton or Doc Gooden, Gaylord Perry or Fernando Valenzuela.
To choose guys like Randy Johnson, Reggie or Ryan is kind of disingenuous, since their on-field accomplishments made them worthy of enshrinement in either hall.
Alex:
I don’t know that you can really use South Africa as a parallel to baseball, but either way, I don’t think we’ll ever know who did what, when and for how long. Out of the thousands of players who have played MLB since steroids entered the league, how many have used? I’m sure the number’s far higher than most people want to think, and I’m sure most used on their own time, without any (or many) witnesses.
How many of them will admit they used, and how many of those will offer full disclosure instead of some lame “I tried it once” or “I just did it to stay healthy” crap? I’m quite positive that only a very tiny percentage of users have come clean, either by choice or because they were backed into a corner, and an even smaller percentage of those have been forthright and honest in their admissions.
The best thing about the McGwire admission is that it will hopefully stop all the in-denial Cards fans from polluting message boards with the “there’s no proof!” talk. Now, let’s talk about Larussa and how much HE really knew about it…
OT, but — Joe, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I think you’ve been flattered:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-hsdroyals011010&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Justin @86: “I suppose the difference lies in whether you feel the Hall should be used to recognize the best baseball players or to celebrate memories (which will be obsolete to future generations – how many people under 25 have warm, fuzzy feelings about Morris’ 10-inning shutout in Game 7?) and perpetuate myths about the game.”
But those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Why can’t the Hall be both of those things? Why can’t we induct Bert for his incredible stats and Jack for his decent stats and special “moments” he created?
Whose special moments count? If you want Morris in the Hall, then I want Hershiser. His greatness in 1988 stands out to me more than Morris’ big game. It all becomes too subjective without stats to keep us honest.
r_m_l – I’m not sure why Bswell said that, or when… but Tanner obviously hadn’t decided on that strategy at the end of 1979, as was discussed near the end of an earlier thread – Bert’s six starts in that September stretch run were 2 wins, 2 no-decisions that the Pirates won, and 2 complete-game losses. Tanner chose not to go to Tekulve or anyone else from his strong and veteran bullpen. His team won two-thirds of them, so I’d call it a success.
(Incidentally, the season before, Blyleven had 11 CG and 4 shutouts, and in ‘79, only four complete games with no shutouts. A few seasons later, he led all of the AL with 24 CG and 5 SO. If Tanner really did think what Boswell attributes to him, then he picked a most curious time to change his mind…)
But the funniest thing about your quoting Boswell: he says that Bert only won more than 17 games twice – a cherry-picked stat if I ever heard one. Bert won exactly 17 games FIVE times, 16 once, and 15 twice. But Boswell would get nowhere fast if he said, “Hey, that choking Blyleven only won 15 or more games ten times in his career.” He picks a cutoff that distorts the overall record, and makes no mention of the kinds of mediocre offenses failing to score runs for Bert.
It turns out that only 25 pitchers in all of baseball history have managed to win 15 or more games in ten different seasons. (For the record, Jack Morris did it 12 times, so he does have that going for him… which is nice.)
John in Philly,
You could do that. Once again, it all boils down to the kind of Hall you want. Personally, I think the inductions should be for the best players, with the rest of the museum dedicated to mementos highlighting signature events, as is currently the case.
A lot of people (and I’m not lumping you in with this group) seem to think the Hall is just a wall of plaques, which would make for a pretty disappointing museum. When I went to Cooperstown several years ago, I checked out the plaques, sure, but the bulk of my visit was checking out the other exhibits that run down the history of the game.
I enjoyed seeing artifacts (bats, gloves, spikes, game cards) to help remember (or enlighten me about) Morris’ game 7, the Shot Heard ‘Round the World, Joe Carter’s series-winning home run and so on. For me, that’s more instructive than having plaques saying “Morris pitched a great game 7″ or “Bobby Thomson hit this historic home run” and so on and so forth.
As pacbellpilgrim said, there’s also the question as to what constitutes a “moment.” There are so many, how do we whittle that down? I think there would be even more disagreement over who’s worthy than there is now. Carter’s home run was one of the absolute highlights of my sports-watching life. For Blue Jays fans, it’s one of those “where were you when?” moments, but I wouldn’t in a million years tout Carter for the HoF.
pacbellpilgrim @89: “Whose special moments count?”
Well, right now we count on the members of the BBWAA to get it right. I’m generally OK with their selections (the last two years being, to me, the worst choices in quite a while.)
Justin @91: “You could do that. Once again, it all boils down to the kind of Hall you want. Personally, I think the inductions should be for the best players, with the rest of the museum dedicated to mementos highlighting signature events, as is currently the case.”
Yep, it’s definitely a “what do you want’ question. Mostly, I was just pointing out that you posed the two choices as an either/or scenario when it really isn’t.
“I enjoyed seeing artifacts (bats, gloves, spikes, game cards) to help remember (or enlighten me about) … Joe Carter’s series-winning home run.”
I try very hard to forget that moment. Thanks a lot for reminding me!
This is the single biggest problem with the steroids era. The fact of the matter is that baseball is a numbers game. Always has been. Always will be. No other sport is dissected the way that baseball is. I am 38, so when I was a young buck, I used to read the newspaper religiously for the box scores. Checked out the Sunday paper to see what guys were hitting, to the thousandth of a point to see where Wade Boggs was as compared to Tony Gwynn.
Us numbers people kept up our own numbers, including mysterious things like on base percentage, long before it was so popular in the “computer age”. As a matter of fact, I consider myself much better at Math because of all the time and energy I spent figuring things like that out when I was a kid. I always followed the leaders, and watched as much as I could, although at that time, we didn’t have cable, let alone any “MLB Package” that would allow you to watch every single game.
That is why the “steroid era” has ruined it for those in their mid to late 20’s. All their numbers are skewed compared to the past. 14 of the top 25 in ALL TIME CAREER OPS played in the “steroid era”…had their PRIMES DURING the “steroid era”.
Pujols, Bonds, Manny, Helton, McGwire, Thomas, Berkman, Walker, A-Rod, Ryan Howard, Thome, Vlad, Bagwell, Chipper.
How do we know whether each and every one of those guys hasn’t done steroids…hgh…any other performance enhancing drug? Maybe they are better at getting HGH…maybe Pujols is smart and his doctor doesn’t do stupid things to get caught by the FBI. Maybe Ryan Howard and/or Frank Thomas are naturally big…or maybe they are/were the best at masking their use of PEDs.
The point is that we just don’t know, and probably never will know…and that is what is so sad. I still say that you can’t keep McGwire out without keeping out Bonds, Clemens, and yeah, I’ll even say Frank Thomas. You can’t assume anyone is dirty…but you also can’t assume anyone is CLEAN either.
Jon, since Blyleven missed by so few votes, and there’s no guarantee that he’ll make it next year, I implore you to work on Jon Heyman. Heyman’s case for leaving Blyleven out of the HOF is what Heyman observed. Here is the text of an email I just sent Heyman: “Jack Morris was a great pitcher, an innings eater with nine straight seasons (giving him the strike season) of 200+ innings pitched (as many as
293.2) with an ERA as low as 3.05 (in the strike season) in the AL. I can understand why you’d vote for him. An innings eater with ten straight seasons (not giving him the strike season) of 200+ innings (as many as 325) with six of them AL seasons with an ERA under 3.05 would seem an even better pitcher and better innings eater. Weren’t you in high school when Blyleven was putting up much better numbers, both quantity and quality, than Jack Morris ever achieved? Blyleven’s best seasons came when you were twelve and sixteen years old, and he threw 3,000 innings before you graduated from college. Do you really think it’s fair to judge Blyleven’s career based on what you saw when he was declining? His HOF credentials were established by an early stretch of six straight years with 275 IP or more and 3.00 ERA or less for the Twins, starting when you were ten years old. I’ll give you smart, I’ll even give you precocious, but were you really capable of recognizing a small market HOF caliber pitcher before you entered high school?” My degree is in history, and this is one of the things we studied in historiography. People always think what they observed is more valuable than what they didn’t observe. For example, my sister’s best friend died in the 747 crash in the Virgin Islands back in the 1970s, and one of our best friends, a woman who was like a sister to me, was on Pan Am 103 when it was blown up over Lockerbie. It would be REALLY easy for me to never fly again, if I allowed the personal to influence me. However, the statistics are that flying is safer than driving, and (as Terry Pratchett has written several
times) personal isn’t the same thing as important. The major part of Blyleven’s HOF statement all occurred before Jon Heyman graduated from high school. Remove those early years, including the two times with ERA+ above 150 (I know, Heyman doesn’t like ERA+), the season he led the league in WHIP (I know, Heyman doesn’t like WHIP) and the season he led the league in shutouts (come on, even Heyman has to like shutouts) and Blyleven isn’t a legitimate HOF candidate. But Heyman does like wins. In 1973, for example, Blyleven won 20 games for a team that won only 81 games. Blyleven had 25 complete games and only 20 wins; think about the kind of support he got with those numbers. He had 40 starts and averaged more than eight innings per start; Morris never had 300 IP in a season, 40 starts, or averaged 8 IP/start. Blyleven threw shutouts in nine of those wins and led the league in ERA+. Heyman turned 12 that year. Was Heyman even allowed to stay up late enough to listen to the Yankees when they played night games in Minnesota in 1973? That is the argument you have to make. Heyman is judging Blyleven on what Heyman saw after Blyleven had thrown 3,000 major league innings. If Blyleven had retired after the strike season of 1981, he would have had 12 seasons averaging 250 IP with a career ERA under 3 (high of 3.80) and a career ERA+ about 127. You know who would be the best career comp to those numbers? Koufax. Blyleven wouldn’t have had highs as high, but he also threw a whole lot more innings, got more wins, had a couple more shutouts, got about the same career ERA+ and Ks, and his lows were better than Koufax’s lows. So Blyleven had career totals equal to Koufax before Heyman graduated from college. I’m not trying to compare Blyleven to Koufax. I’m just trying to show that because Heyman didn’t start watching Blyleven professionally until after Blyleven had already thrown a Koufax career towards his HOF stats, and whose best seasons were already behind him, that Heyman is not giving Blyleven a fair look. And Heyman’s keeping a closed mind to the notion that Heyman at the age of 12 couldn’t recognize Blyleven’s 1973 as one of the better starting pitching seasons since the dead ball era.
In Verducci’s defense (purely playing devil’s advocate, because he did some cherry picking) I take OPS+ or ERA+ of 120 or higher as being the bottom standards for an All-Star possible season. If Verducci unthinkingly did the same, that would explain his picking that number.
That said, I doubt anybody writing about the HOF does so without thinking about things. I try hard not to cherry pick my arguments, even though it’s very difficult not to sometimes. So yeah, Verducci was being disingenuous. Do I agree with him about Edgar? I’m still on the fence.
Foo, emailed to work to post because slow connection at home prevented posts from taking, and the transfer lost my formatting. Lets try it again.
Joe, since Blyleven missed by so few votes, and there’s no guarantee that he’ll make it next year, I implore you to work on Jon Heyman. Heyman’s case for leaving Blyleven out of the HOF is what Heyman observed. Here is the text of an email I just sent Heyman:
“Jack Morris was a great pitcher, an innings eater with nine straight seasons (giving him the strike season) of 200+ innings pitched (as many as 293.2) with an ERA as low as 3.05 (in the strike season) in the AL. I can understand why you’d vote for him. An innings eater with ten straight seasons (not giving him the strike season) of 200+ innings (as many as 325) with six of them AL seasons with an ERA under 3.05 would seem an even better pitcher and better innings eater. Weren’t you in high school when Blyleven was putting up much better numbers, both quantity and quality, than Jack Morris ever achieved? Blyleven’s best seasons came when you were twelve and sixteen years old, and he threw 3,000 innings before you graduated from college. Do you really think it’s fair to judge Blyleven’s career based on what you saw when he was declining? His HOF credentials were established by an early stretch of six straight years with 275 IP or more and 3.00 ERA or less for the Twins, starting when you were ten years old. I’ll give you smart, I’ll even give you precocious, but were you really capable of recognizing a small market HOF caliber pitcher before you entered high school?”
My degree is in history, and this is one of the things we studied in historiography. People always think what they observed is more valuable than what they didn’t observe. For example, my sister’s best friend died in the 747 crash in the Virgin Islands back in the 1970s, and one of our best friends, a woman who was like a sister to me, was on Pan Am 103 when it was blown up over Lockerbie. It would be REALLY easy for me to never fly again, if I allowed the personal to influence me. However, the statistics are that flying is safer than driving, and (as Terry Pratchett has written several times) personal isn’t the same thing as important.
The major part of Blyleven’s HOF statement all occurred before Jon Heyman graduated from high school. Remove those early years, including the two times with ERA+ above 150 (I know, Heyman doesn’t like ERA+), the season he led the league in WHIP (I know, Heyman doesn’t like WHIP) and the season he led the league in shutouts (come on, even Heyman has to like shutouts) and Blyleven isn’t a legitimate HOF candidate.
But Heyman does like wins. In 1973, for example, Blyleven won 20 games for a team that won only 81 games. Blyleven had 25 complete games and only 20 wins; think about the kind of support he got with those numbers. He had 40 starts and averaged more than eight innings per start; Morris never had 300 IP in a season, 40 starts, or averaged 8 IP/start. Blyleven threw shutouts in nine of those wins and led the league in ERA+. Heyman turned 12 that year. Was Heyman even allowed to stay up late enough to listen to the Yankees when they played night games in Minnesota in 1973?
That is the argument you have to make. Heyman is judging Blyleven on what Heyman saw after Blyleven had thrown 3,000 major league innings. If Blyleven had retired after the strike season of 1981, he would have had 12 seasons averaging 250 IP with a career ERA under 3 (high of 3.80) and a career ERA+ about 127. You know who would be the best career comp to those numbers? Koufax. Blyleven wouldn’t have had highs as high, but he also threw a whole lot more innings, got more wins, had a couple more shutouts, got about the same career ERA+ and Ks, and his lows were better than Koufax’s lows. So Blyleven had career totals equal to Koufax before Heyman graduated from college.
I’m not trying to compare Blyleven to Koufax. I’m just trying to show that because Heyman didn’t start watching Blyleven professionally until after Blyleven had already thrown a Koufax career towards his HOF stats, and whose best seasons were already behind him, that Heyman is not giving Blyleven a fair look. And Heyman’s keeping a closed mind to the notion that Heyman at the age of 12 couldn’t recognize Blyleven’s 1973 as one of the better starting pitching seasons since the dead ball era.
Chris @ 93 says:
“That is why the “steroid era” has ruined it for those in their mid to late 20’s. All their numbers are skewed compared to the past. 14 of the top 25 in ALL TIME CAREER OPS played in the “steroid era”…had their PRIMES DURING the “steroid era”.”
A couple of thoughts on this:
*No one really knows how much of the offensive surge of the ’90s can be reasonably attributed to steroids…so many other factors are at play here. Expansion, bandbox ballparks, body armor, shrinking strike zone most likely have a bigger effect than steroids.
*McGwire mostly got it right yesterday…he just didn’t connect the dots that he hit more home runs because of steroids, just not in the way most people think (ABs were the key for him, not added length). He was ALWAYS a prodigious HR hitter, so unless you think he was on a steroid program in high school (which he could have been), I’d tend to buy the therapeutic angle.
*Historically, we’ve seen such surges in offense before (late-20s through the 30s)…w/o checking, I’d wager that most of the other top OPS folks in history played in this era. I think OPS+ is a better measure for evaluating a player than pure OPS.
One more thought about the HOF. This thought is about numbers. Not statistics, but quantities.
When the HOF first was created, IIRC the nation’s population was about 165,000,000 people. Statistics were shoddily kept on some of the old timers. Many people were not allowed to play baseball because of the color of their skin. Baseball was almost exclusively American. And there were 16 teams: 40 major league players.
Today the domestic US population is more than double what it was when the HOF was opened. There are 34 MLB teams. We don’t exclude players from playing baseball for racial reasons. Baseball is increasingly international. Bert Blyleven was born in the Netherlands. Ichiro Suzuki will be the first HOF member from Japan. Lots of great players from Latin America are or in a relatively few years will be in the HOF. And yet we still vote for extremely few players.
I argue that since the population pool feeding MLB is now much more than twice as large, we should have twice as many recent players going into the HOF. I mean, if MLB felt there wasn’t the talent pool to justify more than twice as many teams, then they would be cheating the fans.
And yet some voters still vote as if the HOF is almost full and players today are not as good as players of yesteryear. I would argue the contrary. Players today make more money, train year round, have much better nutritional understanding, have much better surgeries to extend their careers and even much better eyeglasses to help them see. The reason stats haven’t exploded is because there are better pitchers as well as better hitters. So competition stays about the same, but just on the basis of numbers, we *should* be electing twice as many players to the HOF.
Voters who can’t find close to ten great players, players who with era and park adjusted stats deserve entry into the HOF, are doing a disservice to baseball. MLB should be electing at least three players every year, and perhaps more.
There are legitimate reasons to vote for about a dozen players on this year’s ballot. One was elected. HOF electors need to adjust their standards or we’ll need to appoint a Veteran’s Committee in 2030 to start electing the guys the voters of today neglected. And we’ve seen that for every good VC HOF entrant, there are also some of the worst HOF entrants of all time.
I call upon the HOF voters who left half or more of their ballot blank to get with the times. We don’t limit MLB players to perhaps 70,000,000 Americans any more. We get the full gamut of all male Americans, plus far more potential players from outside the USA. With that many more players, there must be that many more great players. Stop shortchanging the modern players! When I take my grandkids to Cooperstown, I want my era properly represented. The way folks are voting, they won’t be.
Mikey@97: Bandbox ballparks are one of the major reasons for the offensive surge, I believe. The quintessential bandbox park, Fenway Park, has had little change in scoring since the 1930s. Here are the numbers, by decade as runs/g per team:
30s: 5.13
40s: 4.87
50s: 5.16
60s: 4.68
70s: 4.81
80s: 4.93
90s: 4.96
00s: 5.11
Fenway has always been a hitter’s park. It drops a bit in the 60s, but otherwise it’s been pretty constant.
Compare that to AL runs/g by decade:
30s: 5.15
40s: 4.51
50s: 4.44
60s: 4.05
70s: 4.16
80s: 4.47
90s: 4.87
00s: 4.91
You can see runs/g in the AL as a whole varies greatly by era. Current times are similar to the 30s hitting era, while the ’60s and ’70s are nearly a run/g lower.
The key is that in the 90s and 00s, the entire AL was playing in a hitter’s park. In the 00s, teams in Fenway averaged 5.1 runs/g and teams in the AL overall averaged 4.9 runs/g. Compare that to the 4.8 runs/g scored in Fenway Park in the 70s, a time when it was giving a huge advantage to hitters. Thus, AL parks today are better hitter’s park than the greatest hitter’s park of them all from the ’70s. OPS+ and things like that try to bring that back into balance, but things like HR cannot be adjusted.
Tom Boswell, I can’t believe this is the man that first calculated Total Average.
Ugh.
So because Bert Blyleven didn’t fit the bill of greatness (aka the bill that writers like him arbitrarily assign to certain players regardless of actual performance), he doesn’t get in the Hall of Fame. I wish these guys would be confronted with their words.
Blyleven should be punished for playing most of his career in Minnesota, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh.
If he was a Yankee, or Red Sox, or Dodger, or hell, even a Cardinal, would there be any doubt?