NP, Barry. If nothing else, a thread like this, involving a spirited debate but sticking to the sport, with no political or racial undertones, is a refreshing change of pace around here.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Indeed. Productive threads like this can change opinions. I went from using sabermetrics as toilet paper at one point to a useful evaluation tool.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Bill James is three parts in to a 10 part series on big game pitchers (at http://www.billjamesonline.com/). The first article talks about what he is trying to do, and in the next two he describes the methodology. Parts of the site are free, but the articles are behind a paywall ($9/qtr).
The intro to the 1st article:
Was Jack Morris, in fact, a Big Game Pitcher?
I will answer that question, at length—not today and not tomorrow, not this week, actually, but eventually. I have done research that provides a clear and convincing answer to that question, but first there are quite a number of things that I have to explain, starting with this.
It is important for us not to be arrogant. Our field, I mean. . .sabermetrics, analytics, whatever you want to call it. It is important for us not to be trapped by the progression of the argument into thinking that we understand the issues better than we do.
And second, Jack Morris’ credentials for the Hall of Fame are actually not half bad.
Jack Morris has become a Whipping Boy in the Hall of Fame debate, and this happened because of Bert Blyleven. I assume most of you know this, but. …recapping quickly. People in our field tend not to put much weight on pitchers’ won-lost records, and at least one of our crowd is campaigning to get rid of them entirely. Bert Blyleven has a strong Hall of Fame case in terms of Games Started, Innings, ERA, Strikeouts, Walks, Shutouts and analytical stats (and practical jokes; let’s not forget the practical jokes.) Despite these assets, Blyleven was not elected to the Hall of Fame until 2011. He was not elected to the Hall of Fame until late in his eligibility largely because his won-lost record was not as good as his other stats. We don’t much believe in won-lost records, so while he was Not Being Elected Blyleven became the poster child of the analytics community.
As Blyleven became the favorite of our side of the debate, Jack Morris became the standard bearer for the Traditionalists. Morris has the opposite qualifications: fewer starts and innings pitched, a higher Earned Run Average, many fewer strikeouts, more walks, and less than half as many shutouts. Morris pitched a thousand fewer innings than Blyleven, but still issued more walks. He does, however, own a better won-lost log than The Nasty Dutchman—33 fewer wins, but 64 fewer losses. Since Traditionalists believe in the Won-Lost records of pitchers, they believe in Jack Morris.
<< <i>Who said anything about lollygagging and purposefully giving up runs? Just because you don't give 100% doesn't necessarily mean you're at 0%.
I'll ask again, who came up with the phrase 'pitching to the score'? >>
People who had high ERA's, but had good win totals due to a good offense...or fans of those people.
Stown,
I've pitched plenty of games feeling intensively competitive in them...some I did great, some not so great. On the other side of the coin, I've pitched plenty of games feeling like it was just like it was a day in the park, some great results, some not so great.
I've also never wanted to give up baserunners or runs in any situation in any game...I took it as a personal affront if I did. Nor did I ever give away any at bat....perhaps if you played and had that competitive zeal, YOU would understand that. I wouldn't mind sinking a few heavy fastballs into your thumb in a game of catch Not trying to be mean, but in your response to your point about having played
I'm sure you can ride much further on a bike than me...so I give you that.
That being said, what the heck is your point? If you say it is human nature that everyone can't go 100% all the time, then everyone is doing the same thing, and that is already engrained in the results. So it then turns into a big WHO CARES, it is a meaningless point! May as well tell me today is Wednesday and it will mean just as much!
Are you trying to argue that Jack Morris was pitching to the score? If so, you don't have a leg to stand on. The results are pretty obvious.
Is your overall point to try and say that some players are big game players, while some are not? Tell me who. THen I will ask you those same three questions about Reggie....the ones you will never be able to answer because your stance is a myth about that.
Holy strawman, skin. I haven't said any of that. Read my words, don't assume I'm implying anything.
edited to add and clarify: we were on the same page here ->
<< <i>I've pitched plenty of games feeling intensively competitive in them...some I did great, some not so great. On the other side of the coin, I've pitched plenty of games feeling like it was just like it was a day in the park, some great results, some not so great. >>
Correct but that's assuming they all equal out.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
I really am missing your point. I agree that every movement we make cannot possibly be at 100% efficiency, nor can each mechanical movement be replicated to the exact optimum efficiency every time...but that holds true for everyone.
What does that have to do with Morris? The claim he makes(and his supporters) is that his high ERA is a result of 'letting up' in blowout games, thus making his ERA higher. You seem to agree that people can let up...but probably not believing in Morris's claim. Probably not believing in any pitchers claim that would say the same thing.
Close enough to your premise?
I'm not sure if people are aware of how few blowout games there are. Look at Morris's breakdown of his innings pitched in tied games and one run games, compared to blowouts, and it is a very large difference.
<< <i>The claim he makes(and his supporters) is that his high ERA is a result of 'letting up' in blowout games, thus making his ERA higher. You seem to agree that people can let up...but probably not believing in Morris's claim. Probably not believing in any pitchers claim that would say the same thing. >>
Is that what 'pitching to the score' is all about? The only time I see the phrase is in threads like this, which y'all do a lot. Just seems like a ton of browbeating for an opinion that's rarely voiced.
Thanks, it's available. It will take some time but I'll definitely read it.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>Indeed. Productive threads like this can change opinions. I went from using sabermetrics as toilet paper at one point to a useful evaluation tool.
>>
Stown,
I missed this post. A tip of the hat to a good attitude on embracing a new idea
As for the phrase "pitching to the score," I really don't know if there is an exact origin. I never really heard it from anybody. Markj111 described it very well how it evolved with the Blyleven/Morris contrast. I guess different phrases are interchangeable.
It sure does seem that Morris himself is actually saying that kind of stuff!
I am certain that the supporters of Morris and his high ERA, defend that high ERA by saying he let up in blowouts, or that since his offense was so good, that he never had to bear down all the time...thus the higher ERA over other contemporary pitchers who were better(but whom had worse W/L records).
Looking at Morris's actual results, as posted earlier, we see that it isn't true. He did have to bear down the vast majority of the time, and his ERA was just as high in those instances as any other.
But all is good.
Stieb was the superior pitcher, but tradition won't let a lot of people see it, because he didn't have the run support to achieve the W/L record.
On a side note, all the attributes of Morris being the big post game hero, and all the other adjectives you hear, there is another pitcher who actually had a MLB career better than Morris on all those levels, and his name is Orel Hershiser...and he hasn't sniffed the Hall.
<< <i>I am certain that the supporters of Morris and his high ERA, defend that high ERA by saying he let up in blowouts, or that since his offense was so good, that he never had to bear down all the time...thus the higher ERA over other contemporary pitchers who were better(but whom had worse W/L records). >>
There's a huge difference between letting off the gas and using it as an excuse to justify a career ERA. I can't speak for the latter because that was never my intent. If people really are using that as an excuse, they never had an argument to begin with.
markj ~ I read the article and going through another theory his is based upon. Just seems like a crud load of brain work for a very seldom voiced opinion.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>When they're that close, wouldn't it make sense that the one who pitched in tougher ball parks with weaker defenses behind him did better? The three things a pitcher has complete control over home runs, walks and strikeouts, Bunning was better at for his career -- and he pitched more.
Ignoring his first and last year, Bunning had 3600 innings, 3.16 ERA, 119 ERA+, 353 home runs allowed, 939 walks and 2760 strike outs (0.9, 2.3 and 6.9 per nine innings). For Hunter's career, also taking away his mediocre first and last years: 3211 innings, 3.15 ERA, 107 ERA+, 338 home runs, 874 walks and 1896 strike outs (0.9, 2.4 and 5.3 per nine innings) >>
My objection was to the comment that Hunter was "the worst" and the others I mentioned were "much" better. They were in fact VERY close to each other in ability.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
On a side note, all the attributes of Morris being the big post game hero, and all the other adjectives you hear, there is another pitcher who actually had a MLB career better than Morris on all those levels, and his name is Orel Hershiser...and he hasn't sniffed the Hall.
Good point. Hershisher trumps Morris in all the relevant categories for a pitcher--ERA, ERA+, WHIP, K to BB ratio, even had a stellar postseason record in his own right, yet no one mentions him as a HOF but somehow Morris is deserving? Please. Heck, Dave Steib was also a better pitycher than Morris (as well as a contemporary), though injuries limited him to 1,000 fewer IP.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Back when the 'Stros were in the NLW, I'll never forget staying up late to watch us play LA, especially when Bulldog pitched. Think games started around 9:30 and typically ended around midnight but to watch his stuff was worth feeling groggy the following morning.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Comments
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The intro to the 1st article:
Was Jack Morris, in fact, a Big Game Pitcher?
I will answer that question, at length—not today and not tomorrow, not this week, actually, but eventually. I have done research that provides a clear and convincing answer to that question, but first there are quite a number of things that I have to explain, starting with this.
It is important for us not to be arrogant. Our field, I mean. . .sabermetrics, analytics, whatever you want to call it. It is important for us not to be trapped by the progression of the argument into thinking that we understand the issues better than we do.
And second, Jack Morris’ credentials for the Hall of Fame are actually not half bad.
Jack Morris has become a Whipping Boy in the Hall of Fame debate, and this happened because of Bert Blyleven. I assume most of you know this, but. …recapping quickly. People in our field tend not to put much weight on pitchers’ won-lost records, and at least one of our crowd is campaigning to get rid of them entirely. Bert Blyleven has a strong Hall of Fame case in terms of Games Started, Innings, ERA, Strikeouts, Walks, Shutouts and analytical stats (and practical jokes; let’s not forget the practical jokes.) Despite these assets, Blyleven was not elected to the Hall of Fame until 2011. He was not elected to the Hall of Fame until late in his eligibility largely because his won-lost record was not as good as his other stats. We don’t much believe in won-lost records, so while he was Not Being Elected Blyleven became the poster child of the analytics community.
As Blyleven became the favorite of our side of the debate, Jack Morris became the standard bearer for the Traditionalists. Morris has the opposite qualifications: fewer starts and innings pitched, a higher Earned Run Average, many fewer strikeouts, more walks, and less than half as many shutouts. Morris pitched a thousand fewer innings than Blyleven, but still issued more walks. He does, however, own a better won-lost log than The Nasty Dutchman—33 fewer wins, but 64 fewer losses. Since Traditionalists believe in the Won-Lost records of pitchers, they believe in Jack Morris.
<< <i>Who said anything about lollygagging and purposefully giving up runs? Just because you don't give 100% doesn't necessarily mean you're at 0%.
I'll ask again, who came up with the phrase 'pitching to the score'? >>
People who had high ERA's, but had good win totals due to a good offense...or fans of those people.
Stown,
I've pitched plenty of games feeling intensively competitive in them...some I did great, some not so great. On the other side of the coin, I've pitched plenty of games feeling like it was just like it was a day in the park, some great results, some not so great.
I've also never wanted to give up baserunners or runs in any situation in any game...I took it as a personal affront if I did. Nor did I ever give away any at bat....perhaps if you played and had that competitive zeal, YOU would understand that. I wouldn't mind sinking a few heavy fastballs into your thumb in a game of catch
I'm sure you can ride much further on a bike than me...so I give you that.
That being said, what the heck is your point? If you say it is human nature that everyone can't go 100% all the time, then everyone is doing the same thing, and that is already engrained in the results. So it then turns into a big WHO CARES, it is a meaningless point! May as well tell me today is Wednesday and it will mean just as much!
Are you trying to argue that Jack Morris was pitching to the score? If so, you don't have a leg to stand on. The results are pretty obvious.
Is your overall point to try and say that some players are big game players, while some are not? Tell me who. THen I will ask you those same three questions about Reggie....the ones you will never be able to answer because your stance is a myth about that.
edited to add and clarify: we were on the same page here ->
<< <i>I've pitched plenty of games feeling intensively competitive in them...some I did great, some not so great. On the other side of the coin, I've pitched plenty of games feeling like it was just like it was a day in the park, some great results, some not so great. >>
Correct but that's assuming they all equal out.
I really am missing your point. I agree that every movement we make cannot possibly be at 100% efficiency, nor can each mechanical movement be replicated to the exact optimum efficiency every time...but that holds true for everyone.
What does that have to do with Morris? The claim he makes(and his supporters) is that his high ERA is a result of 'letting up' in blowout games, thus making his ERA higher. You seem to agree that people can let up...but probably not believing in Morris's claim. Probably not believing in any pitchers claim that would say the same thing.
Close enough to your premise?
I'm not sure if people are aware of how few blowout games there are. Look at Morris's breakdown of his innings pitched in tied games and one run games, compared to blowouts, and it is a very large difference.
It might be behind a paywall.
<< <i>The claim he makes(and his supporters) is that his high ERA is a result of 'letting up' in blowout games, thus making his ERA higher. You seem to agree that people can let up...but probably not believing in Morris's claim. Probably not believing in any pitchers claim that would say the same thing. >>
Is that what 'pitching to the score' is all about? The only time I see the phrase is in threads like this, which y'all do a lot. Just seems like a ton of browbeating for an opinion that's rarely voiced.
edited to add:
<< <i>Here is a link to a 2003 article referring to "pitching to the score." http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1815
It might be behind a paywall. >>
Thanks, it's available. It will take some time but I'll definitely read it.
<< <i>Indeed. Productive threads like this can change opinions. I went from using sabermetrics as toilet paper at one point to a useful evaluation tool.
Stown,
I missed this post. A tip of the hat to a good attitude on embracing a new idea
As for the phrase "pitching to the score," I really don't know if there is an exact origin. I never really heard it from anybody. Markj111 described it very well how it evolved with the Blyleven/Morris contrast. I guess different phrases are interchangeable.
It sure does seem that Morris himself is actually saying that kind of stuff!
I am certain that the supporters of Morris and his high ERA, defend that high ERA by saying he let up in blowouts, or that since his offense was so good, that he never had to bear down all the time...thus the higher ERA over other contemporary pitchers who were better(but whom had worse W/L records).
Looking at Morris's actual results, as posted earlier, we see that it isn't true. He did have to bear down the vast majority of the time, and his ERA was just as high in those instances as any other.
But all is good.
Stieb was the superior pitcher, but tradition won't let a lot of people see it, because he didn't have the run support to achieve the W/L record.
On a side note, all the attributes of Morris being the big post game hero, and all the other adjectives you hear, there is another pitcher who actually had a MLB career better than Morris on all those levels, and his name is Orel Hershiser...and he hasn't sniffed the Hall.
<< <i>I am certain that the supporters of Morris and his high ERA, defend that high ERA by saying he let up in blowouts, or that since his offense was so good, that he never had to bear down all the time...thus the higher ERA over other contemporary pitchers who were better(but whom had worse W/L records). >>
There's a huge difference between letting off the gas and using it as an excuse to justify a career ERA. I can't speak for the latter because that was never my intent. If people really are using that as an excuse, they never had an argument to begin with.
markj ~ I read the article and going through another theory his is based upon. Just seems like a crud load of brain work for a very seldom voiced opinion.
<< <i>When they're that close, wouldn't it make sense that the one who pitched in tougher ball parks with weaker defenses behind him did better? The three things a pitcher has complete control over home runs, walks and strikeouts, Bunning was better at for his career -- and he pitched more.
Ignoring his first and last year, Bunning had 3600 innings, 3.16 ERA, 119 ERA+, 353 home runs allowed, 939 walks and 2760 strike outs (0.9, 2.3 and 6.9 per nine innings). For Hunter's career, also taking away his mediocre first and last years: 3211 innings, 3.15 ERA, 107 ERA+, 338 home runs, 874 walks and 1896 strike outs (0.9, 2.4 and 5.3 per nine innings) >>
My objection was to the comment that Hunter was "the worst" and the others I mentioned were "much" better. They were in fact VERY close to each other in ability.
Good point. Hershisher trumps Morris in all the relevant categories for a pitcher--ERA, ERA+, WHIP, K to BB ratio, even had a stellar postseason record in his own right, yet no one mentions him as a HOF but somehow Morris is deserving? Please. Heck, Dave Steib was also a better pitycher than Morris (as well as a contemporary), though injuries limited him to 1,000 fewer IP.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.