Wherever the hypothetical bar is set, high or low, the debates will continue. Put in Don Wert, then you have to induct Joe Pepitone. You guys know the drill. Gives us something to do while the wife is Christmas shopping.
Since he's such a controversial HOF candidate, out of curiosity, I went and looked at Morris's splits on baseball reference. It's interesting to me that he was at his best in innings 7-9: 3.59 ERA, better strikeout to walk ratio, better BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS against, His best inning was by far inning 9, with a 2.78 ERA and a 68 tOPS+. And his best "Clutch" splits are in late and close games. Basically, across the board, Morris was at his best at the end of the game. I'm sure some of that can be explained because if he was pitching innings 7-9 it was probably a day when he was pitching well to begin with, but I doubt all of it can be explained that way.
I have no idea how that compares to other great pitchers (Seaver, as one quick example, was about the same as always in innings 7-9 overall, but worse than usual in inning 9) or whether it helps his HOF case, but it does tell me three things: First, it's easier to see how he got his reputation. Players and fans are naturally going to gravitate to a pitcher who not only is around to finish games but is at his best at the end. Second, it is plausible, though I haven't looked it up (and don't really know how), that he earned some of his wins by pitching well late when other pitchers would have been out of the game, giving his win total a bit more weight. Third, some of his early inning stats can almost certainly be explained by an ethic of pacing yourself so that you have something left at the end of the game, instead of going max effort on every pitch for 5-6 innings, which is the prevailing ethic now.
Tony Oliva also fell 1 vote short by the same Veterans Committee led by Rod Carew as his primary champion. Oliva had a HOF string of years, but it didn't last a full decade and his team didn't win a WS. No doubt he was HOF worthy, but there was a lot of other players that fall into the same category as he does. There's no doubt that Carew, his very good friend influenced a lot of votes and almost got him in as a result...
@estang said:
Tony Oliva also fell 1 vote short by the same Veterans Committee led by Rod Carew as his primary champion. Oliva had a HOF string of years, but it didn't last a full decade and his team didn't win a WS. No doubt he was HOF worthy, but there was a lot of other players that fall into the same category as he does. There's no doubt that Carew, his very good friend influenced a lot of votes and almost got him in as a result...
Carew and Oliva had the exact same OPS+
From 1964 to 1971 Oliva was the best hitter in the AL. Yaz, Killebrew and Frank Robinson were better some years. Tony had bad knees and wasn't able to play a long time, but he has enough time in to qualify.
The Twins failed to win a W.S. during that time, but got there once, missed by one game in '67 and won the division in 1969 and 1970. Looks like he was a big part of the team's success along with Killebrew of course.
Would like to see Tony-O in the HOF!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@graygator said:
Since he's such a controversial HOF candidate, out of curiosity, I went and looked at Morris's splits on baseball reference. It's interesting to me that he was at his best in innings 7-9: 3.59 ERA, better strikeout to walk ratio, better BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS against, His best inning was by far inning 9, with a 2.78 ERA and a 68 tOPS+. And his best "Clutch" splits are in late and close games. Basically, across the board, Morris was at his best at the end of the game. I'm sure some of that can be explained because if he was pitching innings 7-9 it was probably a day when he was pitching well to begin with, but I doubt all of it can be explained that way.
I have no idea how that compares to other great pitchers (Seaver, as one quick example, was about the same as always in innings 7-9 overall, but worse than usual in inning 9) or whether it helps his HOF case, but it does tell me three things: First, it's easier to see how he got his reputation. Players and fans are naturally going to gravitate to a pitcher who not only is around to finish games but is at his best at the end. Second, it is plausible, though I haven't looked it up (and don't really know how), that he earned some of his wins by pitching well late when other pitchers would have been out of the game, giving his win total a bit more weight. Third, some of his early inning stats can almost certainly be explained by an ethic of pacing yourself so that you have something left at the end of the game, instead of going max effort on every pitch for 5-6 innings, which is the prevailing ethic now.
Thats because you only get to the seventh and ninth inning when you are pitching well, and the ohter inning absorbed your bad outings.
Yes, I agree, he was good at going deep into the games, and that IS where a lot of his value sits. He was a workhorse. He was also very hittable.
Would a guy who gave up a single run every inning be considered great if he pitched nine innings every game and gave up nine runs?
Morris got in purely on his win totals. Had he pitched for a team with poor run support, he simply would not have the W/L record he had, and he would not even be considered with a mediocre lifetime 3.90 ERA.
How do I know he would not have the win total if he pitched for a team with low run support? I'll tell you.
In games with low run support, his record was 17-109. So pitching for a team that ALWAYS gave him 0-2 runs of run support, his lifetime record would be something like 51-327, and a 3.90 ERA, with the same amount of innings pitched.
Would you vote for a pitcher with a 51-327 W/L record and 3.90? Do you think Rod Carew would have? It would be the same pitcher, the only difference being what his teammates did at the plate.
MORRIS'S Win Probability Added already measures his results from the 7th-9th inning and its impact on winning, and he is 14 wins over league average for his career. Decent...but not HOF material.
THIS BELOW IS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID ABOUT THIS ISSUE WITH HIS WINS AND SUPPOSED PITCHING TO THE SCORE.
Run Support is the primary reason he won that many games, NOT Jack Morris's ability. If it indeed was Jack Morris's ability as the primary reason why he was credited with 254 wins, and if Jack Morris did indeed have the ability to 'pitch to the score' like everyone believes....then he would not be 17 and 109 with s 3.98 ERA when his team gave him two or fewer runs of run support.
Yes, it is correct, NO starting pitcher is going to have a good record with two or fewer runs of run support, and that isn't primarily their fault that they don't win those games, just like they arent the only reason why they DO win when they get seven runs of run support....and that is why you don't measure pitchers on Win totals because the main variable in that stat is run support from the offense, of which has nothing to do with the ability of the pitcher.
Some examples:
Pitchers with 0-2 runs of run support:
Jack Morris WP% .135, ERA 3.98
1982 American league average WP% .102, ERA 4.49
1983 American league average WP% .117, ERA 4.23
1984 American League Average WP% .121, ERA 4.30
Just as you would expect, Morris was just a little better than league average, and that is expected because so was his ERA. And without even looking, since Morris was on one of the best hitting teams every year, you can bet that he had more of the games where he received one or two runs, while the crappy hitting teams got the zero runs more often. I'm not even going to bother looking that up, because at this point, only an idiot could still believe other than what is and has been presented on showing that Morris did NOT pitch to the score, and his win totals are not an accurate reflection of HIS ability.
Basically, Morris was simply a product of his run support, both when it was good or bad, as his lifetime ERA+ of 105 suggests, he was a few ticks above average.
Some other pitcher examples with that 0-2 run support:
Seaver WP% .262, ERA 2.52
Carlton WP% .223, ERA 2.99
BLyleven WP% .183, ERA 3.34
TIant WP% .209, ERA 3.13
Guidry WP% .180, ERA 3.45
Orel WP% .171, ERA 3.15
MORRIS 3.98 ERA! If ever a time a guy needed to pitch to the score, that was it! 3.98. Three Nine EIght.
MORRIS WINNING PERCENTAGE .135!!!! .135. ONE THREE FIVE!
@estang said:
Tony Oliva also fell 1 vote short by the same Veterans Committee led by Rod Carew as his primary champion. Oliva had a HOF string of years, but it didn't last a full decade and his team didn't win a WS. No doubt he was HOF worthy, but there was a lot of other players that fall into the same category as he does. There's no doubt that Carew, his very good friend influenced a lot of votes and almost got him in as a result...
Carew and Oliva had the exact same OPS+
From 1964 to 1971 Oliva was the best hitter in the AL. Yaz, Killebrew and Frank Robinson were better some years. Tony had bad knees and wasn't able to play a long time, but he has enough time in to qualify.
The Twins failed to win a W.S. during that time, but got there once, missed by one game in '67 and won the division in 1969 and 1970. Looks like he was a big part of the team's success along with Killebrew of course.
Would like to see Tony-O in the HOF!
If you are going to use Ichiro's 3,000 hits as primary evidence for the HOF, then shouldn't Oliva's 1,917 receive some scorn?
Oliva did have a nice 131 OPS+ over 6,680 plate appearances.
Carew had a nice 131 OPS+ over 10,550 plate appearances.
That is a big difference.
Also a very good illustration for the peak/longevity aspect....which is another discussion.
Not a knock on Oliva, just that he didn't quite do it long enough, or high enough during his peak(which would have made up for the shorter ability to stay employed).
Its just so hard to tell now who is hall of fame worthy.
I think part of that is the availability of statistics and all the WIP, etc. stuff that, to be honest, I don't even understand, I have to go look somewhere or have it explained to me. stuff like batting average, RBI, ERA, wins and losses, that sort of stuff is easy to understand and explained a lot for well over a century. suddenly it isn't good enough.
as for writers vs. veteran players or HOF members voting, I really think the writers are equally capable or better at choosing, and the system is comprised of a larger pool which makes for a more realistic vote. think about it --- does it make sense that a guy couldn't get 75% of the vote and now gets in with on the "Veteran" vote with almost 90%???? that doesn't make sense to me.
one thing that all the modern statistics do is cause everyone to compare eligible players to guys who are already in the HOF. take Ozzie Smith as an example --- does anyone who watched him play really think he shouldn't be in??? now along comes Omar Vizquel, would anyone who watched him play really be upset that he was elected?? I watched him for a lot of years in Cleveland(for the record, I wouldn't vote for him this time) and won't be upset if he gets in or is left out. he did some marvelous things in the field and was more than adequate at the plate.
the biggest thing working against Omar will be comparisons to other players who aren't in.
a couple of guys mentioned Tony Olivia, another player who is probably hurt by comparisons to others in/out of the HOF. I saw him play enough when the Twins and Indians battled, he was an impressive talent, way better than average at the plate and in the field. my problem is that I didn't see enough NL players or games as I was growing up and lived baseball, on the radio/TV and down at the sandlots. I figure the "greats" will always get in with no problems, but the guys like Trammel and Morris are iffy. it helps when guys like us know them by name and have fond memories when we hear their names.
@estang said:
Tony Oliva also fell 1 vote short by the same Veterans Committee led by Rod Carew as his primary champion. Oliva had a HOF string of years, but it didn't last a full decade and his team didn't win a WS. No doubt he was HOF worthy, but there was a lot of other players that fall into the same category as he does. There's no doubt that Carew, his very good friend influenced a lot of votes and almost got him in as a result...
Carew and Oliva had the exact same OPS+
From 1964 to 1971 Oliva was the best hitter in the AL. Yaz, Killebrew and Frank Robinson were better some years. Tony had bad knees and wasn't able to play a long time, but he has enough time in to qualify.
The Twins failed to win a W.S. during that time, but got there once, missed by one game in '67 and won the division in 1969 and 1970. Looks like he was a big part of the team's success along with Killebrew of course.
Would like to see Tony-O in the HOF!
If you are going to use Ichiro's 3,000 hits as primary evidence for the HOF, then shouldn't Oliva's 1,917 receive some scorn?
Oliva did have a nice 131 OPS+ over 6,680 plate appearances.
Carew had a nice 131 OPS+ over 10,550 plate appearances.
That is a big difference.
Also a very good illustration for the peak/longevity aspect....which is another discussion.
Not a knock on Oliva, just that he didn't quite do it long enough, or high enough during his peak(which would have made up for the shorter ability to stay employed).
Ken Phelps had a 132 OPS+.
You are absolutely correct. Oliva's career was short, and a 131OPS+ over 10,550 plate appearances is MUCH more impressive than a 131OPS+ over 6,680.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Its too bad Olivas' career was cut short, I didn't realize he had finished short of 2,000 hits until
skin posted it. So he must have had a lot of injuries starting in his early thirties? His numbers before
then were outstanding.
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
if you've seen Eric Hosmer play he might be fantastic or below average. his lifetime numbers are right around a little better than average but he has been good enough to make anyone believe he could be really great. from my perspective he has been fortunate enough to play on some good Teams with a good manager, if he was gonna rise up to a new level he would have done it already.
at 28 and seven years, whoever ends up with him will either get the best years of his career or the rest of his plateau. that's a big risk.
Yesterday I read a newspaper article about the Padres being interested in Hosmer.
The story gave his batting average this year of .318, then gave his lifetime OPS and OPS+ numbers.
I bet a lot of casual baseball fans were thinking, 'I understand the batting average, but what are those other two stats? LOL.
@Darin said:
Its too bad Olivas' career was cut short, I didn't realize he had finished short of 2,000 hits until
skin posted it. So he must have had a lot of injuries starting in his early thirties? His numbers before
then were outstanding.
Watching hit laser beam shots was a joy, watching him try to run later in his career when he could still smoke the ball not so much.
With healthy knees he could have been the AL's Clemente, or at least close.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
Wherever the hypothetical bar is set, high or low, the debates will continue. Put in Don Wert, then you have to induct Joe Pepitone. You guys know the drill. Gives us something to do while the wife is Christmas shopping.
Who did the veterans commitee vote in the last time? I'm too lazy to look it up.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Since he's such a controversial HOF candidate, out of curiosity, I went and looked at Morris's splits on baseball reference. It's interesting to me that he was at his best in innings 7-9: 3.59 ERA, better strikeout to walk ratio, better BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS against, His best inning was by far inning 9, with a 2.78 ERA and a 68 tOPS+. And his best "Clutch" splits are in late and close games. Basically, across the board, Morris was at his best at the end of the game. I'm sure some of that can be explained because if he was pitching innings 7-9 it was probably a day when he was pitching well to begin with, but I doubt all of it can be explained that way.
I have no idea how that compares to other great pitchers (Seaver, as one quick example, was about the same as always in innings 7-9 overall, but worse than usual in inning 9) or whether it helps his HOF case, but it does tell me three things: First, it's easier to see how he got his reputation. Players and fans are naturally going to gravitate to a pitcher who not only is around to finish games but is at his best at the end. Second, it is plausible, though I haven't looked it up (and don't really know how), that he earned some of his wins by pitching well late when other pitchers would have been out of the game, giving his win total a bit more weight. Third, some of his early inning stats can almost certainly be explained by an ethic of pacing yourself so that you have something left at the end of the game, instead of going max effort on every pitch for 5-6 innings, which is the prevailing ethic now.
Tony Oliva also fell 1 vote short by the same Veterans Committee led by Rod Carew as his primary champion. Oliva had a HOF string of years, but it didn't last a full decade and his team didn't win a WS. No doubt he was HOF worthy, but there was a lot of other players that fall into the same category as he does. There's no doubt that Carew, his very good friend influenced a lot of votes and almost got him in as a result...
Erik
Carew and Oliva had the exact same OPS+
From 1964 to 1971 Oliva was the best hitter in the AL. Yaz, Killebrew and Frank Robinson were better some years. Tony had bad knees and wasn't able to play a long time, but he has enough time in to qualify.
The Twins failed to win a W.S. during that time, but got there once, missed by one game in '67 and won the division in 1969 and 1970. Looks like he was a big part of the team's success along with Killebrew of course.
Would like to see Tony-O in the HOF!
Thats because you only get to the seventh and ninth inning when you are pitching well, and the ohter inning absorbed your bad outings.
Yes, I agree, he was good at going deep into the games, and that IS where a lot of his value sits. He was a workhorse. He was also very hittable.
Would a guy who gave up a single run every inning be considered great if he pitched nine innings every game and gave up nine runs?
Morris got in purely on his win totals. Had he pitched for a team with poor run support, he simply would not have the W/L record he had, and he would not even be considered with a mediocre lifetime 3.90 ERA.
How do I know he would not have the win total if he pitched for a team with low run support? I'll tell you.
In games with low run support, his record was 17-109. So pitching for a team that ALWAYS gave him 0-2 runs of run support, his lifetime record would be something like 51-327, and a 3.90 ERA, with the same amount of innings pitched.
Would you vote for a pitcher with a 51-327 W/L record and 3.90? Do you think Rod Carew would have? It would be the same pitcher, the only difference being what his teammates did at the plate.
MORRIS'S Win Probability Added already measures his results from the 7th-9th inning and its impact on winning, and he is 14 wins over league average for his career. Decent...but not HOF material.
THIS BELOW IS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID ABOUT THIS ISSUE WITH HIS WINS AND SUPPOSED PITCHING TO THE SCORE.
Run Support is the primary reason he won that many games, NOT Jack Morris's ability. If it indeed was Jack Morris's ability as the primary reason why he was credited with 254 wins, and if Jack Morris did indeed have the ability to 'pitch to the score' like everyone believes....then he would not be 17 and 109 with s 3.98 ERA when his team gave him two or fewer runs of run support.
Yes, it is correct, NO starting pitcher is going to have a good record with two or fewer runs of run support, and that isn't primarily their fault that they don't win those games, just like they arent the only reason why they DO win when they get seven runs of run support....and that is why you don't measure pitchers on Win totals because the main variable in that stat is run support from the offense, of which has nothing to do with the ability of the pitcher.
Some examples:
Pitchers with 0-2 runs of run support:
Jack Morris WP% .135, ERA 3.98
1982 American league average WP% .102, ERA 4.49
1983 American league average WP% .117, ERA 4.23
1984 American League Average WP% .121, ERA 4.30
Just as you would expect, Morris was just a little better than league average, and that is expected because so was his ERA. And without even looking, since Morris was on one of the best hitting teams every year, you can bet that he had more of the games where he received one or two runs, while the crappy hitting teams got the zero runs more often. I'm not even going to bother looking that up, because at this point, only an idiot could still believe other than what is and has been presented on showing that Morris did NOT pitch to the score, and his win totals are not an accurate reflection of HIS ability.
Basically, Morris was simply a product of his run support, both when it was good or bad, as his lifetime ERA+ of 105 suggests, he was a few ticks above average.
Some other pitcher examples with that 0-2 run support:
Seaver WP% .262, ERA 2.52
Carlton WP% .223, ERA 2.99
BLyleven WP% .183, ERA 3.34
TIant WP% .209, ERA 3.13
Guidry WP% .180, ERA 3.45
Orel WP% .171, ERA 3.15
MORRIS 3.98 ERA! If ever a time a guy needed to pitch to the score, that was it! 3.98. Three Nine EIght.
MORRIS WINNING PERCENTAGE .135!!!! .135. ONE THREE FIVE!
If you are going to use Ichiro's 3,000 hits as primary evidence for the HOF, then shouldn't Oliva's 1,917 receive some scorn?
Oliva did have a nice 131 OPS+ over 6,680 plate appearances.
Carew had a nice 131 OPS+ over 10,550 plate appearances.
That is a big difference.
Also a very good illustration for the peak/longevity aspect....which is another discussion.
Not a knock on Oliva, just that he didn't quite do it long enough, or high enough during his peak(which would have made up for the shorter ability to stay employed).
Ken Phelps had a 132 OPS+.
Its just so hard to tell now who is hall of fame worthy.
I think part of that is the availability of statistics and all the WIP, etc. stuff that, to be honest, I don't even understand, I have to go look somewhere or have it explained to me. stuff like batting average, RBI, ERA, wins and losses, that sort of stuff is easy to understand and explained a lot for well over a century. suddenly it isn't good enough.
as for writers vs. veteran players or HOF members voting, I really think the writers are equally capable or better at choosing, and the system is comprised of a larger pool which makes for a more realistic vote. think about it --- does it make sense that a guy couldn't get 75% of the vote and now gets in with on the "Veteran" vote with almost 90%???? that doesn't make sense to me.
one thing that all the modern statistics do is cause everyone to compare eligible players to guys who are already in the HOF. take Ozzie Smith as an example --- does anyone who watched him play really think he shouldn't be in??? now along comes Omar Vizquel, would anyone who watched him play really be upset that he was elected?? I watched him for a lot of years in Cleveland(for the record, I wouldn't vote for him this time) and won't be upset if he gets in or is left out. he did some marvelous things in the field and was more than adequate at the plate.
the biggest thing working against Omar will be comparisons to other players who aren't in.
a couple of guys mentioned Tony Olivia, another player who is probably hurt by comparisons to others in/out of the HOF. I saw him play enough when the Twins and Indians battled, he was an impressive talent, way better than average at the plate and in the field. my problem is that I didn't see enough NL players or games as I was growing up and lived baseball, on the radio/TV and down at the sandlots. I figure the "greats" will always get in with no problems, but the guys like Trammel and Morris are iffy. it helps when guys like us know them by name and have fond memories when we hear their names.
You are absolutely correct. Oliva's career was short, and a 131OPS+ over 10,550 plate appearances is MUCH more impressive than a 131OPS+ over 6,680.
Its too bad Olivas' career was cut short, I didn't realize he had finished short of 2,000 hits until
skin posted it. So he must have had a lot of injuries starting in his early thirties? His numbers before
then were outstanding.
Fitting article considering our recent debates.
Hosmer the great divide of baseball guys like Jim Leyland and the guys who analyze the numbers
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/eric-hosmer-will-get-paid-even-though-numbers-may-argue-024357752.html
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......
if you've seen Eric Hosmer play he might be fantastic or below average. his lifetime numbers are right around a little better than average but he has been good enough to make anyone believe he could be really great. from my perspective he has been fortunate enough to play on some good Teams with a good manager, if he was gonna rise up to a new level he would have done it already.
at 28 and seven years, whoever ends up with him will either get the best years of his career or the rest of his plateau. that's a big risk.
Yesterday I read a newspaper article about the Padres being interested in Hosmer.
The story gave his batting average this year of .318, then gave his lifetime OPS and OPS+ numbers.
I bet a lot of casual baseball fans were thinking, 'I understand the batting average, but what are those other two stats? LOL.
article says numbers argue against it (large contract), yet author offers no numbers. Poorly written
Watching hit laser beam shots was a joy, watching him try to run later in his career when he could still smoke the ball not so much.
With healthy knees he could have been the AL's Clemente, or at least close.