Vegas Watch

The 2008 Hall of Fame voting results will be announced at 2pm on Tuesday. This is good, because it means no more articles like this (Stark, ESPN):

"Unfortunately for Morris, even though he's trending in the right direction, he could double his vote total and still fall short. So even though he seems doomed to spend 15 years in ballot limbo, at least there's a greater appreciation now for what this man was in his time: the unabashed No. 1 starter for every team he pitched for."

I don't know what this means. I really have no idea. I do know this:

1978: 90 ERA+
1980: 99 ERA+
1982: 100 ERA+
1988: 98 ERA+
1989: 79 ERA+
1990: 89 ERA+
1993: 70 ERA+
1994: 83 ERA+

He was "the unabashed No. 1 starter" for his team every year, despite being league average or worse in eight of the 18 years of his career. This is good to know.

"That may not make his 3.90 career ERA -- which would be the highest of any Hall of Fame pitcher -- irrelevant. But does that ERA really tell the whole story of a pitcher who won 41 more games than any other starter of his generation during his 14 peak seasons (1979-92)? Not when we're talking about a pitcher who threw a no-hitter, started three All-Star Games, established his acehood on three World Series teams and pitched the greatest Game 7 (Morris versus John Smoltz, 1991) most of us have ever witnessed. So I have no second thoughts about checking his box, every single year."

105 career ERA+. But he gets into the Hall of Fame because:

1. He threw a no-hitter. True. Good sample size there, and definitely not included in his overall numbers.
2. He started three All-Star Games. True. Also meaningless, and included in overall numbers (stats from those first halves, I mean).
3. He established his acehood on three World Series teams. No.

1991 Minnesota Twins
Morris: 246.7 IP, 3.43 ERA
Kevin Tapani (!): 244 IP, 2.99 ERA

1992 Toronto Blue Jays
Morris: 240.7 IP, 4.04 ERA
Jimmy Key: 216.7 IP, 3.53 ERA
Juan Guzman: 180.7 IP, 2.64 ERA

4. Pitched the greatest Game 7 most of us had ever witnessed. He did? I hadn't heard.

To recap, we started with a pitcher with a 105 ERA+. We added these four factors, which range from meaningless to blatantly false. We arrive at this conclusion:

"So I have no second thoughts about checking his box, every single year."

Meanwhile, Buster Olney is pulling a Heyman and voting for Morris but not Blyleven. Rich Lederer went over his flawed logic regarding Blyleven last year. Here's my favorite part:

"I can't find another Hall of Famer voted in by writers with less than three All-Star appearances; Blyleven had two. Blyleven never finished first or second in Cy Young balloting and was never the most coveted free-agent pitcher or the object of a huge bidding war in trade talk, the way that Tom Seaver and even Vida Blue were."

Bert Blyleven did not make the All-Star team in each of the following years:

1974: 281 IP, 142 ERA+
1977: 234.7 IP, 151 ERA+
1984: 245 IP, 144 ERA+
1989: 241 IP, 140 ERA+

Each of these are better than any year Morris had, ever. Morris made five All-Star teams. In his career, Blyleven had a 3.47 ERA in the first half, and a 3.12 ERA in the second half. This probably caused him to miss out on a couple All-Star teams. This is an awesome reason to keep him out of the Hall of Fame.

Also, if Cy Young results are a great measure of dominance (they aren't), guess how many times Morris finished first or second in the Cy Young voting. None.

One final time:

-Blyleven pitched more innings than Morris (4970-3824)
-Blyleven had a lower ERA (3.31-3.90)
-Blyleven had a better ERA+ (118-105)
-Blyleven had a higher peak (more seasons with ERA+ above 150, 140, 130, 120)
-Blyleven struck out more guys (6.70 K/9 for Blyleven, 5.83 for Morris)
-Blyleven walked fewer guys (2.39 BB/9 for Blyleven, 3.27 BB/9 for Morris)
-Blyleven gave up fewer HRs (0.78 HR/9 for Blyleven, 0.92 HR/9 for Morris)
-Morris backers like to talk about the one WS game, but Blyleven was a better postseason pitcher. In 47.1 playoff innings, Blyleven had a 2.47 ERA. For Morris, it's 92.1 innings, but a 3.80 ERA.

Tough choice.

The Baseball Hall of Fame's 2008 class will be announced next Tuesday. With a ton of columns being written by BBWAA members explaining their choices, I thought it would be a good idea to look at some of the infallible logic that went into their selections.

All of these arguments are from actual, real life Hall of Fame voters. Don't forget this.

8. Dave Buscema, against Bert Blyleven

"And I can let the mediocre win-loss record go a bit because he played for so many poor teams and excelled in the postseason when given the chance … but ultimately I still would have liked to have seen at least a little better winning percentage and/or more Cy Young votes, an ERA title and more than one 20-win season in 22 years."

I can let the mediocre win-loss record go, but I'm not voting him in because of the mediocre win-loss record and the mediocre win-loss record. I like how we're looking at Wins and Cy Young votes separately, as they're clearly not related at all.

Buscema is a first-time voter. Welcome, you'll fit right in.

7. Dan Shaughnessy, for Jim Rice

"People who played and watched major league baseball from 1975-86 know that Rice was the most feared hitter of his day. Managers thought about intentionally walking him when he came to the plate with the bases loaded. "

This pretty much summarizes every Rice argument. He was feared, dangerous, dominant, etc. etc.

The fact that in 214 career PAs with the bases loaded he hit .302/.299/.483 with zero intentional walks isn't really helping the second argument.

It is actually entirely possibly that Rice was, in fact, the most feared hitter of his day; I was not alive in "his day". But if people actually "feared" Rice more than Mike Schmidt, they were not very good at allocating their fear.

Rice: 7754 PAs, 350 HR, .304/.356/.520, 133 OPS+
Schmidt: 7657 PAs, 440 HR, .270/.386/.545, 154 OPS+

Beyond that, if he really was the "most feared", I kind of doubt he would have been 33rd in IBBs during that period. At least he led the league in something over that span.


6. Jon Heyman and Mike Nadel, both against Bert Blyleven and for Jack Morris

Heyman:

"2. [in] Jack Morris. The ace of three World Series teams, it's an abomination he may never get in... 10. [not in] Blyleven. Stat gurus love this guy, and it's understandable. One of the great compilers of his generation, he's fifth all-time in strikeouts, ninth in shutouts and 25th in wins. There's no doubt he was a superb talent who played a long time. But he was rarely among the ultra-elite in his 22-year career."

Nadel:

"Blyleven won more than 17 games only twice in 22 seasons. John had a higher winning percentage than Blyleven but fewer strikeouts and shutouts. Jack Morris, a great clutch pitcher who had the most victories in the '90s, is better than both."

I went over Heyman's article last week. There are two main problems with the argument here; the thought that Blyleven was never among the "ultra-elite", and the obsession with Morris' "clutchiness".

Years with ERA+ above...
150: Blyleven 2, Morris 0
140: Blyleven 5, Morris 0
130: Blyleven 6, Morris 1
120: Blyleven 11, Morris 6

The fact that Morris has three 20-win seasons to Blyleven's one doesn't mean Blyleven was less dominant, or had an inferior peak. It means his teams scored fewer runs for him.

As for this whole clutch thing:

Morris, career postseason: 7-4, 3.80 ERA, 92.1 IP, 32 BB, 64 K
Blyleven, career postseason: 5-1, 2.47 ERA, 47.1 IP, 8 BB, 36 K

Blyleven pitched 45 fewer innings, that's the only aspect in which he's inferior.

These two aren't voting Blyleven in because he didn't pitch for teams with big offenses, thus not racking up big win totals. And Morris is getting in because of one game. It's absurd.


5. Bill Conlin, for Jack Morris

"Besides going 254-186, righthander Jack Morris won 20-plus three times, made 14 Opening Day starts and pitched one of the great World Series Game 7s of all time, the 10-inning, 1-0 victory over the Braves in 1991."

HoF credential #1: Pitching 240.2 essentially league average innings in 1992 (4.04 ERA, 102 ERA+) in 1992. The Blue Jays scored an impressive 5.56 R/G in his starts, so he managed to go 21-6.

HoF credential #2: Making 14 Opening Day starts. 100% meaningless. This includes 1989 (6-14, 4.86 ERA, 79 ERA+) and 1993 (7-12, 6.19 ERA, 70 ERA+).

HoF credential #3: One game.

Convincing.

4. Gerry Fraley, against Tim Raines

"Raines’ case was hurt by his reluctance to run in all situations, as Rickey Henderson did. Raines seemed at times too concerned about preserving his stolen-base percentage."

In his career, Tim Raines stole 808 bases, and was caught only 146 times, good for a pretty incredible 85% success rate. We are holding this against him. If he was caught 47 additional times, bringing him down to Henderson's 80.8% career success rate, maybe he'd warrant consideration.

This is the extent of Fraley's argument. There is no further mention of Raines in his article.

3. Phil Rogers, against Lee Smith

"I’m down to one this year, as Smith has been passed by Trevor Hoffman for the all-time save lead and my vote for Lee Arthur was based on his being the leader. Sorry, Lee."

Two years ago, Trevor Hoffman had 436 career saves, so Phil Rogers voted for Lee Smith to be elected to the Hall of Fame.

This year, Trevor Hoffman has 524 career saves so Phil Rogers is not voting for Lee Smith to be elected into the Hall of Fame.

Sorry, Lee.

Edit: OMDQ adds:

"I’m down to one this year, as Aaron has been passed by Barry Bonds for the all-time homerun lead and my vote for Henry Louis was based on his being the leader. Sorry, Hank."

2. Tracy Ringolsby, against Tim Raines

"The biggest debates for me were Tim Raines, who obviously was overshadowed by Rickey Henderson, but also if you take Vince Coleman's five top years, I would say he outperformed Raines, too, and I don't see Coleman as a Hall of Famer."

In his top five SB years, Coleman stole 484 bases. In Raines' top five SB years, he stole 384. This is the only category in which Coleman outperformed Raines.

They were similar players in the sense that they were both fast, I guess. So maybe Ringolsby thinks the only thing that matters with guys who are fast is how many bases they steal? That must be it, since comparing Raines and Coleman as overall players is laughable.

Coleman, best 5 years: 3236 PA, .272/.330/.351
Raines, career: 10359 PA, .294/.385/.425

It's not close. In fact, in the comments of this post, tangotiger makes the amusing point that Raines' worst five years were easily better than Coleman's best five. Tim Raines is going to fall short of the Hall of Fame this year, and he has reasoning like this to thank.


1. Woody Paige, for Goose Gossage

"During a visit to Yankee Stadium in the late 1970s, I wanted to talk to Goose but was told he was cruel and gruff to reporters. I sheepishly introduced myself and said I was from Colorado, his home state, and he talked pleasantly for 30 minutes. We've been good friends since. I would vote for him even if he wasn't deserving."

Not much analysis needed here, beyond this. At least others were seemingly trying. Did you really expect someone else in this spot?

The Baseball Analysts (this post), BBTF (Fraley, Heyman, Buscema, Rogers, Conlin, Shaughnessy, Ringolsby), and Keith Law's blog were all vital to putting this list together.

SI's Jon Heyman has an article up about his Hall of Fame ballot (h/t: BBTF). Sounds like fun. Here we go.

"Enshrinement in Cooperstown shouldn't be about numbers. If anyone thinks so, let's trash tradition and have a computer select the honorees."

First of all, ignoring the numbers is a terrible idea. But beyond that, people say this all the time, and then immediately resort to using numbers like Wins and RBIs. Let's see how this goes.

"Blyleven did some great things in his career, and he pitched a lot of dominating games. Yet he never had a truly dominating season. He threw 60 shutouts -- but won 20 games only once in an era when 20-game winners weren't nearly so rare as they are today."

20 is a number.

In 1992, Morris pitched 240.7 innings with a 102 ERA+ and won 21 games. In 1977, Blyleven pitched 234.7 innings with a 151 ERA+ and won 14 games. I honestly don't understand how people continue to think that number of 20-win seasons is some kind of meaningful measure of how good a pitcher was.

B-R has a very convenient feature where you can neutralize a player's stats. This puts them in an average offensive context, with average run support. If you do this, Morris is 229-204 with zero 20-win seasons. Blyleven is 325-227 with four 20-win seasons.

And no, Morris was not "pitching to the score"

"2. Jack Morris. The ace of three World Series teams, it's an abomination he may never get in."

An "abomination". Oh boy.

"Morris made 14 Opening Day starts, tied with Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young, behind only Tom Seaver's 16 (the others already are or will be in Cooperstown)."

I am not going to waste everyone's time explaining how utterly meaningless this is. Well, at least not yet.

"Also pitched the greatest game of the past 25 years, winning Game 7 of the 1991 World Series 1-0 in 10 innings against a young John Smoltz."

On October 22, 1992, Morris faced off against a young John Smoltz in Game 5 of the World Series. He pitched 4.2 innings, allowing 9 hits and 7 runs. The Braves won, 7-2.

His career ERA is 3.90. His postseason ERA is 3.80. Yes, he was fantastic on 10/27/91. But we cannot be electing people into the Hall of Fame because of one game. This is not acceptable.

"The only two reasons I can think of for him not making it are: 1) he got hit hard his final couple years and finished with a 3.90 ERA, and 2) he was no charmer. Neither is a good enough reason to omit him. His impact was great."

On April 6, 1993, Morris started on Opening Day for Toronto (he pitched horribly). We are giving him credit for this. In 1993, Morris had a 6.19 ERA in 152.7 innings. We are excluding this data point.

If you take away those last two seasons (which is completely arbitrary and unfair, but let's do it anyway), Morris has a career 3.73 ERA (108 ERA+) in 3,530 innings.

Bert Blyleven had a 3.31 ERA (118 ERA+) in 4,970 innings. This is including a 5.43 ERA (75 ERA+) in 1988, and a 5.24 ERA (73 ERA+) in 1990.

"10. Blyleven. Stat gurus love this guy, and it's understandable. One of the great compilers of his generation, he's fifth all-time in strikeouts, ninth in shutouts and 25th in wins. There's no doubt he was a superb talent who played a long time. But he was rarely among the ultra-elite in his 22-year career."

Excuse me for not having a definition of "ultra-elite" handy. Let's try a few cut-offs:

Years with ERA+ above...
150: Blyleven 2, Morris 0
140: Blyleven 5, Morris 0
130: Blyleven 6, Morris 1
120: Blyleven 11, Morris 6

Blyleven pitched more innings than Morris (4970-3824). He had a lower ERA (3.31-3.90). He had a better ERA+ (118-105). He had a higher peak (see above). He struck out more guys (6.70 K/9 for Blyleven, 5.83 for Morris). He walked fewer guys (2.39 BB/9 for Blyleven, 3.27 BB/9 for Morris). He gave up fewer HRs (0.78 HR/9 for Blyleven, 0.92 HR/9 for Morris).

And here's my favorite part. Morris backers like to talk about the one WS game, but Blyleven was a better postseason pitcher. In 47.1 playoff innings, Blyleven had a 2.47 ERA. For Morris, it's 92.1 innings, but a 3.80 ERA.

This is not close. In fact, there is really no debate here. Yet Heyman has Morris 2nd on his list, and Blyleven 10th.

This is a great example of what happens when you have a preconceived bias, stubbornly forms an opinion based on nothing, and then tries to build an argument to explain himself.

(As I was about to post this, FJM put up a post on Heyman's article. Oh well.)