Dave Stieb HoF??
daltex
Posts: 3,486 ✭✭✭✭✭
Before we get started, my answer is no, but it occurs to me that he belongs in the spot that Jack Morris has. Morris was apparently inducted on the dubious basis of being the best pitcher who pitched the entire decade of the '80s. There are a couple of other HoFers who pitched the whole decade, like Ryan and Blyleven, but perhaps because their best years were in the 1970s, they get a pass.
The thing is, Stieb was quite a bit better. Stieb was likely the best pitcher in baseball from 1982-85. I'll entertain nominations for others, but I looked up the likeliest suspects, those who received many Cy Young votes, and none of them had more than one year that was even competitive with Stieb. Consider Gooden. In 1985 he was vastly superior, but not nearly as good in 1984, and of course not good enough to play in the big leagues before that. Fun fact: each of those four years was better than any season Morris ever pitched, and yet if you remove those from Stieb's career, he's still better than Morris, though it becomes close.
So Stieb and Morris were almost exact contemporaries. Morris started two years earlier ad finished a year later, except for Stieb's encore year five years later which hardly adds to his career. Both almost entirely in the AL East. It appears that Stieb had the career that voters thought Morris had. It is my considered conclusion that Morris got enshrined for only one game, which mostly comes down to getting Sid Bream to ground into an inning ending bases loaded double play. A great play, but hardly something to make a HoF career on.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that Stieb was any Rick Reuschel or anything, just that he was likely the best pitcher in baseball for a four year period and that he fills the "Jack Morris" criteria far better than Morris did. Like Reuschel he is better than a number of HoF starters, though not as many or by as clear a margin.
Comments
justifying one player's inclusion in the HOF based on him being better statistically than another HOF'er that probably shouldn't be there is rather illogical. as I said in another thread: inclusion in the HOF should require a player to be head-and-shoulders above his peers and most others ALL-TIME, not just statistically better most guys.
taken as a whole, Dave Steib had a career that was little more than above average. look at his 162 game average, 14-11 with a 3.44 ERA.
Stieb ERA+ of 122 in 2,895 IP is really good.
After 2,987 IP Steve Carlton sat at a 120 ERA+. Then Carlton added another 2,230 IP at the rate of 110 ERA+
I used Carlton because to me he exemplifies what a HOFer is...a guy with an excellent peak, and then also sustained success for a long career. Carlton basically had a Stieb career, and then added(nearly) a Jack Morris career for good measure.
You can make the case that Steib is neck and neck with Carlton for 2,900 innings, and use that as your definition for a Hall of Famer, and if that is your definition you won't be wrong(but you would have to extend that definition to others on the outside looking in as well).
Stieb's 1.61 K/BB ratio leaves a little to be desired for my taste. Even for his era that is low as his best league finishes were 9th and 10th and no other top tens.
One guy of note who is outside and looking in as well, is Bret Saberhagen, and I put him ahead of Stieb.
Saberhagen ERA+ 126 in 2,562 IP
Saberhagen strikes me more as a HOFer than Stieb as he has two deserved Cy Young awards in addition to innings and rate stats in line with Stieb.
However, it is Saberhagen's lifetime 3.64 K/BB ration that really gives him the edge over Stieb as we know that is the main thing that is in 100% the pitchers control. He also led the league three times there.
Stieb and Saberhagen both lost time due to players strike.
They both got injured later in their careers.
Saberhagen missed nearly TWO full seasons due to injury and came back effectively for two more seasons and was done again.
Steib got injured and he was basically done.
In summation, especially accounting for Saberhagen missing two years due to injury(and still being good enough to come back afterwards and do well), and saberhagen missing about 18 starts due to the strike...I think Saberhagen is more deserving than Stieb.
Putting Hunter and Morris in open the flood gates so we just have to chalk those two up to mistakes.
WAR for pitchers is an absolute joke because they attempt to incorporate the teams' defense in that equation. They can't even remotely accurately portray an individual players' defensive value, let alone an entire team. If you use the new RAA on baseball reference, that also includes team defense adjustment, so they ruined that stat which was good at one time when it was just league ERA compared to individual ERA and then the IP of the pitcher(and then a park factor which can get dicey too).
I remember Stieb as being better than Morris and then kind of disappearing.
In looking at their stats that's pretty much the case.
Both real good pitchers but not quite up to HOF level, even though Morris is in.
If I HAD to put one of the two in, I would vote for Morris.
Not nearly as good in 1984? Gooden was 17-9 with a 2.60 ERA and 276 strikeouts. Stieb was 16-8 with a 2.73 ERA and 198 Ks.
And before 1984 Gooden was “not good enough to play in the big leagues?” He was barely out of high school.
Stieb and Morris were contemporaries indeed. Like it or not Morris's two World Series and the 1-0 extra inning WS game with the Twins is what people remember. Morris's raw win total helped as well
Personally neither was worthy IMHO but it is what it as. Don't compound the error by adding Stieb
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
An emphatic "yes" from me. Stieb should have won the AL Cy Young Award in 1982, 1983, 1984, **AND **1985. He won none of them, never even came close, because he pitched in a hitter's park for a team that nobody paid any attention to and never led the league in "wins". Several years ago I posted my Top 100 pitchers, and Stieb ranked 26th, just below Steve Carlton. He didn't have a long career due to tendonitis, but he was - by far - the best pitcher of the 1980s and his peak from 1982 to 1985 just screams Hall of Fame.
Stan Hack and Dick Allen are the only two eligible players who can claim "best in baseball" status for an entire 10-year period who are not in the HOF; they each had a single 10-year period in which they were the best. Dave Stieb was the best pitcher in baseball from 1980-1989, 1981-1990, and 1982-1991. Absolute, no doubt, slam dunk Hall of Famer, and Jack Morris should feel honored to be allowed to shine Stieb's shoes for the ceremony.
I was just looking more closely at those Cy Young races, and you are right....he does deserve wins from 1982-1985. In fact, he is way ahead of the winners in '82 and '83. 1984 was a little tighter as Blyleven and Boddicker were close, but Stieb beat them both in IP and ERA+. 1985 he had 30 more IP than Saberhagen and Stieb had a 171 ERA+ to Saberhagen's 143....so I would have to pull back a little on Saberhagen saying he deserved TWO Cy Youngs.
In 1982 and 1983 they simply gave the awards to the pitchers with the most wins on the division winners. Of course, that was par for the course back then.
Yeah, you make a good case for the HOF even with the short career. He really did fly under the radar.
And Stieb is the perfect example of what really gets me angry about HOF voting. The sportswriters in 1982-1985 were idiots, they had no idea how to tell if one pitcher was any better than any other pitcher, and they made idiotic choices for the CYA. Then, when Stieb's career is over, the HOF voters look at Stieb and say "he never even finished in the top 3 in the CYA voting in any season; he must not have been very good", so they don't vote for him.
There is absolutely zero doubt that had Stieb won the CYA four straight seasons he would today be in the HOF. Zero doubt. In this way the HOF is now determined not by a pitcher's greatness, but by the idiotic opinions of a handful of sportswriters a generation in the past. Stieb SHOULD have won more Cy Young Awards than any pitcher in history (at that time), and he SHOULD be in the HOF.
Of course that is my entire point. I didn't say that Stieb should be in, just that he was the pitcher people thought they were enshrining when they voted for Morris.
Big difference between pitching in Toronto and the AL and Flushing and the NL. There is just too much going on to compare raw numbers like that. This is the case for every one except possibly teammates and i one season.
Did you miss the part where I talked about subtracting Stieb's best four years and still having a better pitcher than Morris? Stieb was "real good". Morris was not.
Stieb should have won the AL Cy Young Award in 1982, 1983, 1984, **AND **1985
judging the simple numbers below and not getting wrapped up in + this that or the other thing, I'd say the choices made for the CYA in the years in question were solid. Stieb is sort of like playing poker, there's no real reward for being second best.
1982
Dave Stieb --- 17/14, 3.25 era.
Pete Vukovich --- 18/6, 3.34 era.
1983
DS --- 17/12, 3.04 era.
LaMarr Hoyt --- 24/10, 3.66 era.
1984
DS --- 16/8, 2.83 era.
Willie Hernandez --- 9/3, 1.92 era in 80 appearances and 140.1 innings, very good for a reliever.
1985
DS --- 14/13, 2.48 era.
Bret Saberhagen --- 20/6, 2.87 era.
For the love of God, throw out W/L record if you want to compare how well two pitchers pitched. There is no doubt that the CYA voters looked at W/L records, and no evidence that they looked at anything else, but that's why they made such idiotic choices. Dave Stieb was the best pitcher in the AL in 1982, 1983, 1984, AND 1985. A 4-year run as the best pitcher in the league in each and every year is historic, and the kind of thing that a Hall of Fame ought to honor. The rewards for Pete Vuckovich and Lamarr Hoyt were in being lucky enough to be on winning teams despite not pitching particularly well. They do not need, and certainly do not deserve, the added reward of being proclaimed best pitcher when they so obviously were not. If there is an award for pitching "very good for a reliever", by all means give it to Hernandez in 1984. But best pitcher? He wasn't even in the conversation. 1985 is the only year in that run where anyone made a serious challenge to Stieb as best pitcher. Saberhagen got the CYA because of his W/L record, but even correctly throwing that in the garbage, he did have an excellent year in the stats that actually matter. In the end, though, Stieb was better, if only by a little bit.
Stieb had a better ERA and more IP than each of those Cy Young winners....how does that equate to being second best?? No + even needed. In some of those years he had a ton more IP at a better rate.
I fixed the simple numbers for you and added innings pitched and how much run support they got that lead directly to more wins.
The run support Vuck and Hoyt got over Stieb is a joke. That is the sole reason for them having a better W/L record. At least Saberhagen was closer, but Stieb had a much better ERA and 30 more innings pitched.
I understood the fact of run support leading to 'wins' back then, and it is criminal now to not understand it. The writers didn't understand it back then either.
Another factor in wins is relievers blowing leads....which is the other factor leading to less wins for Stieb.
So even if you ignore that Hoyt etc pitched in a pitchers park etc and Stieb didn't...Stieb still did better in the 'simple' numbers.
I don't see Stieb as a HOFer but he is criminally underappreciated, no question. Nearly tied Johnny Vander Meer - threw back-to-back 26-out no-hitters. He had a perfect game broken up after 26 outs as well. And another no-hitter broken up in the ninth. And did eventually throw a full no-hitter, too.
Willie Hernandez was the right pick in 1984, FWIW.
I noticed 1984 and 1985 where he had a tremendous ERA+ and now I see where he was equally deserving in comparison with other starting pitchers in 1982 and 1983. He certainly should have won at least twice and four times would not have been a mistake.
He got beat by the writers voting for W/L records and relievers who imo don't belong in the Cy Young award category.
Too bad. It's a shame when the best guy doesn't win, but four years in a row!?!?!?!!?
1982- 1985 American League CY Young Award voting
In 1983 he got zero votes. In 1984 and 1985 he got a random vote. In 1985 teammate Doyle Alexander got more votes then Stieb.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
FWIW, no relief pitcher has ever been the right pick. John Hiller in 1973 came closest, and he was a hell of a lot better than Hernandez in 1984, but Blyleven was the best pitcher.
The writers simply picked the guy on the team with the most wins. Stieb had a full run better ERA than Doyle. A full run is a mountain in baseball.
If you look at Stieb's game logs that year you see his losses and ND have a bunch of poor run support and the bullpen blew several leads for him too that he left with a win in line. That happens to all pitchers of course, but bites more than others in a given season or three.
There were a couple blown wins where the pen gave up five and six runs in last inning to lose 'wins' for Stieb.
Stieb had just one cheap win that year where he pitched poorly but still got a win.
The luck factor of a pitcher earning a 'win' is just too great to put so much emphasis on it...or any emphasis on...unless a pitcher doesn't get wins because he doesn't pitch a lot of innings...but all you have to do is look at Innings Pitched to know that, and Stieb pitched more innings than all those guys and with a better ERA. Not much else a pitcher can do.
All that maybe true but the fact remains Stieb not getting the Cy Young wasn't very controversial during his prime. Wasn't on the radar. As a Tigers fan I always thought he was better then Morris. Again, I didn't think Morris belongs in the HOF and IMHO I don't thing Stieb does either
Dave Stieb was an ace and a very good pitcher.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Yup...was basically the most wins award and a slam dunk if you were also on a division winner. When writers were voting from that criteria it shows why a superior pitcher was not voted to win the award year after year.
This.
Mike McCormick in 1967 probably remains the worst starting pitcher to win the CYA, but Lamarr Hoyt in 1983 is certainly in the conversation. What they each have in common, besides unearned awards, is that neither of them was even the best pitcher on their own team in the year they won. Rich Dotson was the best White Sox pitcher in 1983 and Gaylord Perry was the best Giants pitcher in 1967. Dotson even had a better W/L than Hoyt, so he more or less proves that CYA voters didn't even look past the W column. Gaylord Perry was 15-17 while McCormick was 22-10, just to show how wide the margin of random variation is in W/L even among pitchers on the same team in the same year. To the surprise of nobody who understands how baseball is played, McCormick had over a full run greater support in his starts (4.4 vs. 3.3 for Perry). Jim Bunning, who was 15-17, was the absolute runaway best pitcher in the NL in 1967 and it earned him a single CYA vote to McCormick's 18.
Really? Worse than 1982 Pete Vukovich or 1990 Bob Welch? Welch was actually a good pitcher, but not in 1990.
OK, I'm starting to see the light. it's the starting pitcher's fault if the Team doesn't score enough runs for him!!! what a bunch of BS. maybe Stieb needed to wise up and start taking the Team out for drinks. DS was just a good pitcher on a not so good Team.
BTW, Willie Hernandez was a RELIEF PITCHER so the disparity in innings pitched isn't a joke, Willie answered the call on average about every other day. I now suppose it's his fault that he was so good that year it only required him to pitch 1-2 innings each time he strolled out to the hill.
Calling Stieb "good" or "great" is semantics, but he was "better" than the guys who won the award.
he was "better" than the guys who won the award
then kick those others out and stop adding to the problem by putting undeserving guys like DS in. we discuss this constantly here, that HOF's in all sports are constantly watered down, why so many want to continue that trend is confusing to me.
You keep using the phrase "watered down". I do not think it means what you think it means. How many pitchers do you think would be left in the HOF if we kicked out everyone who wasn't the best pitcher in his league four times? Stieb would elevate the HOF; leaving him out makes it look silly.
I look at it the opposite way. I believe it is an honorable thing to shine recognition onto players like Dave Stieb that have been previously shunned due to ignorance or bias from the writers/media (that then trickled down to fans).
Most of the non-baseball Halls of Fame are silly because they require induction of certain types/numbers whether they are deserving or not. I can see all sides of this issue. What qualifies someone for the Hall of Fame is determined by where we should draw the line on size. I can accept the argument that the HoF is for guys like Ruth and Bonds, so Stieb doesn't belong. Even if you expand it to include the likes of Williams and Mays. How many people do you think should be in the HoF? If you're in the "Vic Willis and Don Drysdale are HoFers" group, it's hard to claim Rick Reuschel doesn't belong. And if you think Catfish Hunter, Steve Garvey, and Don Mattingly should be in, then it is hard to keep, say, Will Clark and Norm Cash out.
Just remember regardless of the size of any HoF there will be mistakes inducted. If you try to make the kind of HoF where one person is inducted every three years, someone like Derek Jeter will slip in. That doesn't mean you should "fix" that by inducting everyone better than Jeter. The Hall currently has 333 members, or roughly ten times the amount posited above. There are still mistakes elected by the BBWAA, and tons of them elected by the various committees. W should not say "Jim Bottomley is in. Jason Giambi was better than Bottomley. Giambi should be in." Now Giambi was A LOT better than Bottomley, and Bottomley is far from the least deserving enshrined, but Giambi doesn't belong anywhere near Cooperstown, at least not with the size of Hall we have now. If we wanted to induct five people per year, there would probably a place for Giambi.
FWIW, Willie threw 3+ innings 14 times that year.
He was also perfect in save opportunities up until the last meaningless game he pitched in. It was a big deal during that time. He was fantastic that year.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
You could argue he was actually more deserving of the MVP than he was of the CYA. His presence in the bullpen, and his performance there, completely changed the team. In getting him, they added 140 innings of GREAT performance that changed everything - it moved Lopez to earlier in games, it lightened the load on starters, everything.
I either watched or went to every game that year. Hard to appreciate it if you didn't see it with your own eyes.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I just read Sparky's book on it for the first time in 30+ years. There were a lot of games where it was "man, we're screwed, We need some innings - throw Willie in there!"
Valid points by you and Tabe in relation to Guillermo in '84. 140 IP is more impressive than the typical closer and he did the job well.