2017 - 2018 Hot Stove Baseball

[Olympic Fan]

Interestingly enough, Doc’s 3 great seasons were still strong enough to have him produce more WAR in the 80s than Morris - despite not pitching the first 4 years of the decade. Gooden wound up with more career WAR too. No, he wasn’t as dominant as he was in 1985 again, but he put up 3+ WAR seasons pretty consistently through 1993. That said, cocaine can do a number on your career.

Morris was actually 12th in WAR in the 80s, despite being one of the few to pitch the entire decade:
Stieb (45.2)
Welch (35.1)
Valenzuela (34.8)
Blyleven (34.0 on the back end of his career)
Hershiser (32.9 in basically 6 seasons)
Clemens (32.3 in 6 seasons)
Ryan (30.8 pitching into his 40s)
Gooden (30.2)
Tudor (29.7)
Saberhagen (29.0 in 6 years)
Hough (28.7 pitching into his 40s)
Morris (27.9)

I have little regard for WAR -- especially in history terms.

It started when I noticed that, according to WAR, Rich Reuschel had a significantly better WAR ((70.0) than Bob Feller (63.6) -- even though Feller pitched more innings with a better ERA (and a better ERA-plus). Forget that he had 266 career wins (to 214 for Reuschel) and a 62.1 winning percentage (to .528). Feller was CLEARLY the superior pitcher -- why does Reuschel have a better WAR?

Study the records and you see dozens of such ridiculous rankings. You think Sandy Koufax was a great pitcher? Not according to WAR -- he shows up at 49.0 on the WAR list ... a few places behind Bret Butler. Koufax trails almost all his contemporaries -- Ford, Drysdale, Gibson and Marchial, Spahn, Bunning and the great Billy Pierce... he's also below Rick Reuschel as well as Ciole Hamels, Chuck Finley and many-many more.

So will you use WAR to argue that Sandy Koufax should not be in the Hall of Fame?

And don't get me started on defensive WAR. Still trying to figure out how Brett Gardner got a 3.3 defensive WAR in 2010 while playing left field. That's a significantly better rating that Willie Mays ever got for a season. It's about the same as Brooks Robinson got in his two best seasons!

[CDu]

I have little regard for WAR -- especially in history terms.

It started when I noticed that, according to WAR, Rich Reuschel had a significantly better WAR ((70.0) than Bob Feller (63.6) -- even though Feller pitched more innings with a better ERA (and a better ERA-plus). Forget that he had 266 career wins (to 214 for Reuschel) and a 62.1 winning percentage (to .528). Feller was CLEARLY the superior pitcher -- why does Reuschel have a better WAR?

Study the records and you see dozens of such ridiculous rankings. You think Sandy Koufax was a great pitcher? Not according to WAR -- he shows up at 49.0 on the WAR list ... a few places behind Bret Butler. Koufax trails almost all his contemporaries -- Ford, Drysdale, Gibson and Marchial, Spahn, Bunning and the great Billy Pierce... he's also below Rick Reuschel as well as Ciole Hamels, Chuck Finley and many-many more.

So will you use WAR to argue that Sandy Koufax should not be in the Hall of Fame?

And don't get me started on defensive WAR. Still trying to figure out how Brett Gardner got a 3.3 defensive WAR in 2010 while playing left field. That's a significantly better rating that Willie Mays ever got for a season. It's about the same as Brooks Robinson got in his two best seasons!

You may not care for the stat, but WAR is a HELL of a lot better metric than wins for measuring pitchers’ performance.

And yes, I think Koufax’s 53.2 pitching WAR (he got -4.2 batting WAR) sounds about right. He was only a full-time starter beginning in 1961, and was out of baseball as of 1966. In his six years as a full-time starter, he amassed an absurd 46.6 pitching WAR. So I would say that WAR perfectly captures Koufax’s career. The only reason his career WAR was so low is because he retired at 30. He is basically the Gale Sayers of baseball. Career stats are NOT why he is in the Hall. He was - by all meaningful measures - the single greatest pitcher over a 5-year period in history. His worst season as a full-time starter was better than Morris’ best.

You didn’t really think Koufax was a winning counterargument did you?

[Olympic Fan]

You may not care for the stat, but WAR is a HELL of a lot better metric than wins for measuring pitchers’ performance.

And yes, I think Koufax’s 53.2 pitching WAR (he got -4.2 batting WAR) sounds about right. He was only a full-time starter beginning in 1961, and was out of baseball as of 1966. In his six years as a full-time starter, he amassed an absurd 46.6 pitching WAR. So I would say that WAR perfectly captures Koufax’s career. The only reason his career WAR was so low is because he retired at 30. He is basically the Gale Sayers of baseball. Career stats are NOT why he is in the Hall. He was - by all meaningful measures - the single greatest pitcher over a 5-year period in history. His worst season as a full-time starter was better than Morris’ best.

You didn’t really think Koufax was a winning counterargument did you?

Not sure how your post refutes what I was saying ... I don't disagree about Koufax -- easily the most overrated pitcher in history (but still a HOFer, despite his low WAR)

But look at some of Morris's years ... in 1983 he was 20-13 and pitched 293 innings with a 3.24 ERA. HE PITCHED 20 COMPLETE GAMES.

How was his WAR? It's 4.0 ... by the same token, Marcus Stroman pitched just 201 innings this year, won 13 games with a 3.09 ERA -- and he got a WAR of 5.8 ... with almost exactly the same ERA plus. How does Stroman earn 50 percent better WAR when Morris pitched 50 percent more innings at the same level? Heck, Kluber got an 8.0 WAR for 202 innings (although he had a better ERA)

It's like that for Morris throughout the '80s. In 1984, he pitched the Tigers to the pennant with a 19-11 record, 240 innings and a 3.60 ERA, His war was 2.5.

I repeat -- and I've offered quite a few examples here -- WAR is divorced from reality. Using it to denigrate Morris' HOG candidacy is BS.

[CDu]

Not sure how your post refutes what I was saying ... I don't disagree about Koufax -- easily the most overrated pitcher in history (but still a HOFer, despite his low WAR)

But look at some of Morris's years ... in 1983 he was 20-13 and pitched 293 innings with a 3.24 ERA. HE PITCHED 20 COMPLETE GAMES.

How was his WAR? It's 4.0 ... by the same token, Marcus Stroman pitched just 201 innings this year, won 13 games with a 3.09 ERA -- and he got a WAR of 5.8 ... with almost exactly the same ERA plus. How does Stroman earn 50 percent better WAR when Morris pitched 50 percent more innings at the same level? Heck, Kluber got an 8.0 WAR for 202 innings (although he had a better ERA)

It's like that for Morris throughout the '80s. In 1984, he pitched the Tigers to the pennant with a 19-11 record, 240 innings and a 3.60 ERA, His war was 2.5.

I repeat -- and I've offered quite a few examples here -- WAR is divorced from reality. Using it to denigrate Morris' HOG candidacy is BS.

You continue to overrate the value of wins. It shouldn’t even be in the discussion. It is a team-dependent stat that the pitcher contributes less than half of the effort. There is a reason why WAR was created, specifically to focus on the individual’s actual performance.

You also appear to not understand how WAR works (or are willfully ignoring it). It is calculated relative to replacement level in that season. Quite literally, in fact. It calculates the number of wins above a replacement player (of the same position) the player adds. And the “replacement” player is different each year. There is a reason for this: because each season is dynamic, so comparing stats across years is shaky. WAR addresses this by estimating how valuable a player was compared to the league THAT YEAR.

So, understanding that, we can look at your example. An ERA of 3.09 this year is worth more than an ERA of 3.34 in 1983 because runs per game were higher this year than in 1983. The same works with innings pitched. Guys in the 80s simply threw more innings - even the replacement-level starters. So the fact that Morris threw 89 more innings is not all that relevant - he did get a bonus because he threw more innings relative to his league than Stroman. But it was a much smaller benefit. And their ERA+ wasn’t “almost the same.” Stroman’s was 149, Morris’ was 117. That is a hige difference. Hence, Stroman had the higher WAR: he was better relative to his league than Morris was to his.

Your other examples fall in the same category. Morris simply wasn’t great relative to his league. Thus, his WAR numbers aren’t great.

WAR is a really good measure for pitchers and hitters. I agree with you that it is not good for defense. That is largely because we don’t have good metrics for defense. But we do for pitchers and hitters. And thus, WAR for hitters and pitchers (once one understands how it works) is actually pretty darn good.

[DU82]

Not sure how your post refutes what I was saying ... I don't disagree about Koufax -- easily the most overrated pitcher in history (but still a HOFer, despite his low WAR)

But look at some of Morris's years ... in 1983 he was 20-13 and pitched 293 innings with a 3.24 ERA. HE PITCHED 20 COMPLETE GAMES.

How was his WAR? It's 4.0 ... by the same token, Marcus Stroman pitched just 201 innings this year, won 13 games with a 3.09 ERA -- and he got a WAR of 5.8 ... with almost exactly the same ERA plus. How does Stroman earn 50 percent better WAR when Morris pitched 50 percent more innings at the same level? Heck, Kluber got an 8.0 WAR for 202 innings (although he had a better ERA)

It's like that for Morris throughout the '80s. In 1984, he pitched the Tigers to the pennant with a 19-11 record, 240 innings and a 3.60 ERA, His war was 2.5.

I repeat -- and I've offered quite a few examples here -- WAR is divorced from reality. Using it to denigrate Morris' HOG candidacy is BS.

Then compare his WAR (wins above replacement) to a contemporary, and someone with 21 COMPLETE GAMES IN 1983 (that would be MORE than Morris), Ron Guidry. In roughly 60% of time he had a higher WAR. Does pitching 1500 more innings at roughly a replacement player's value mean more and that he's a HoFer? I'd say Guidry was a better pitcher at his peak, and his post season record is reasonably comparable.

There were not many top pitchers in the '80s compared to the previous decades or the following ones. It's an artificial measurement anyway. (Why are THOSE ten years so important?) Paraphrasing Bill James again, if the good lord decides to let three of the absolute best center fielders play during the same timeframe, include all three instead of leaving the other two out. Flip side, if there's no outstanding pitcher during a similar period, don't worry about it. Do you want to put Davy Concepcion in because he was the best shortstop in the NL in the late '70s and early '80s? The '80s saw the end of the great pitchers from the late '60s and '70s (Seaver being the best, followed by Carlton, Palmer, etc.) and the start of the greats of the '90s (Maddux and Clemens) but none that saw their career centered on the decade. It happens.

The game has changed from 1983. You emphasized complete games, it's not a concern these days. Would you downgrade batters in the 1900-1920 era because they didn't hit home runs? Different game.

I don't see Morris as deserving of the HOF. I see him outside (as I do Guidry and Steib, for instance. If I had to pick one to win a key game, I'd lean towards Guidry.)

[CDu]

Then compare his WAR (wins above replacement) to a contemporary, and someone with 21 COMPLETE GAMES IN 1983 (that would be MORE than Morris), Ron Guidry. In roughly 60% of time he had a higher WAR. Does pitching 1500 more innings at roughly a replacement player's value mean more and that he's a HoFer? I'd say Guidry was a better pitcher at his peak, and his post season record is reasonably comparable.

There were not many top pitchers in the '80s compared to the previous decades or the following ones. It's an artificial measurement anyway. (Why are THOSE ten years so important?) Paraphrasing Bill James again, if the good lord decides to let three of the absolute best center fielders play during the same timeframe, include all three instead of leaving the other two out. Flip side, if there's no outstanding pitcher during a similar period, don't worry about it. Do you want to put Davy Concepcion in because he was the best shortstop in the NL in the late '70s and early '80s? The '80s saw the end of the great pitchers from the late '60s and '70s (Seaver being the best, followed by Carlton, Palmer, etc.) and the start of the greats of the '90s (Maddux and Clemens) but none that saw their career centered on the decade. It happens.

The game has changed from 1983. You emphasized complete games, it's not a concern these days. Would you downgrade batters in the 1900-1920 era because they didn't hit home runs? Different game.

I don't see Morris as deserving of the HOF. I see him outside (as I do Guidry and Steib, for instance. If I had to pick one to win a key game, I'd lean towards Guidry.)

Fun fact: the guy with the most base hits in the 90s? Mark Grace. Was he the best hitter of the 90s? Nope. It just happened that the best hitters either were winding down or just getting started (or were hurt) whereas Grace’s prime was the 90s.

Guidry was surely better than Morris over each player’s 10-year peak. Guidry’s peak just happened to start and end a few years earlier than Morris.

Morris was definitely a good pitcher. He was/is not Hall-worthy. Guidry and Stieb both have better cases, but I agree neither should get in.

[wilson]

Whoa Nelly braves, what a disaster. Wow, brutal.

*points*

You're not kidding. 12 minor leaguers, including one of their top prospects, declared free agents. Major restrictions on their future international free agent bonus pool, banned from signing a high profile 14 year old shortstop they'd already agreed to a deal with, and loss of a 3rd round pick. And the permanent banning of their former GM. Yowza.

https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb-hammers...201314625.html

*laughs*
*still wishes unending ineptitude and mediocrity upon the Cobb Barves*

[Olympic Fan]

You continue to overrate the value of wins. It shouldn’t even be in the discussion. It is a team-dependent stat that the pitcher contributes less than half of the effort. There is a reason why WAR was created, specifically to focus on the individual’s actual performance.

I strongly disagree.

Yes, pitching wins are sometimes overvalued and they are somewhat team dependent. One of my favorite gripes is Tom Glavine's second Cy Young win in 1998 -- pitching for the same team in the same ballpark, Greg Maddox had a better ERA (2.22 vs. 2.47) and pitched more innings (251 to 229). But the Braves scored nearly a run more a game for Glavine and he finished 20-6 to Maddox's 18-9.

But pitching wins are a measure of success -- especially as they measure durability and consistency. The fact is, if the guy is not pitching well, he's not going to be starting long. But Morris was the best starter for what was probably the overall best team of the 1980s (edit: I just checked and the Tigers were the second best team of the 1980s ... to the Yankees. I didn't guess that because after 1981, the Yankees were good, but never really in contention).

Long ago, Christy Mathewson wrote a classic baseball book titled "Pitching in a Pinch". In it, the Hall of Fame pitcher talked about the importance of pitching to win (as opposed to numbers). With a big lead, he pitches differently -- sometimes giving up and run or two to avoid a big inning. But when things are close, the pitcher has to bear down and prevent any damage. A pitcher on a good, high-scoring team might have a higher ERA than a guy who has to "pitch in the pinch" more often. A guy who goes all out on every pitch can't throw as many innings as a guy who knows when to bear down (and when not to).

The guy Morris reminds me of is HOFer Red Ruffing, a big right-hander who was the ace of the Yankees in the 1930s, when they were one of the strongest teams in baseball history. He usually was among the wins leaders, but was never among the ERA leaders. His career record was 273-225 and his career ERA was 3.80.

The numbers aren't great for Ruffing or Morris, but I like to remember Bill James once said -- If there's not room in the Hall of Fame for the best players on the best teams (as Ruffing and Morris clearly were) then what good is it?

PS Ruffing is another guy short-changed by WAR ...

[rasputin]

I strongly disagree.

Yes, pitching wins are sometimes overvalued and they are somewhat team dependent. One of my favorite gripes is Tom Glavine's second Cy Young win in 1998 -- pitching for the same team in the same ballpark, Greg Maddox had a better ERA (2.22 vs. 2.47) and pitched more innings (251 to 229). But the Braves scored nearly a run more a game for Glavine and he finished 20-6 to Maddox's 18-9.

But pitching wins are a measure of success -- especially as they measure durability and consistency. The fact is, if the guy is not pitching well, he's not going to be starting long. But Morris was the best starter for what was probably the overall best team of the 1980s (edit: I just checked and the Tigers were the second best team of the 1980s ... to the Yankees. I didn't guess that because after 1981, the Yankees were good, but never really in contention).

Long ago, Christy Mathewson wrote a classic baseball book titled "Pitching in a Pinch". In it, the Hall of Fame pitcher talked about the importance of pitching to win (as opposed to numbers). With a big lead, he pitches differently -- sometimes giving up and run or two to avoid a big inning. But when things are close, the pitcher has to bear down and prevent any damage. A pitcher on a good, high-scoring team might have a higher ERA than a guy who has to "pitch in the pinch" more often. A guy who goes all out on every pitch can't throw as many innings as a guy who knows when to bear down (and when not to).

The guy Morris reminds me of is HOFer Red Ruffing, a big right-hander who was the ace of the Yankees in the 1930s, when they were one of the strongest teams in baseball history. He usually was among the wins leaders, but was never among the ERA leaders. His career record was 273-225 and his career ERA was 3.80.

The numbers aren't great for Ruffing or Morris, but I like to remember Bill James once said -- If there's not room in the Hall of Fame for the best players on the best teams (as Ruffing and Morris clearly were) then what good is it?

PS Ruffing is another guy short-changed by WAR ...

Ruffing is one guy whose numbers completely changed when he went from the Red Sox (terrible numbers) to the Yankees (good but not great numbers).

I read Pitching in a Pinch several times when I was a kid. The approach about bearing down in certain circumstances was a lot different when pitchers were expected to go nine innings (and they generally did then). Of course, when Mathewson pitched, Babe Ruth had not yet invented the home run. If nobody was on base, the pitcher didn't have to bear down on every pitch.

[Matches]

Pitcher wins and losses meant more when starters pitched deeper into games. It was still team-dependent, of course, but guys didn't win 20+ games in a season without being pretty good pitchers, much less do it year after year.

These days the stat seems pretty meaningless, much like it has always been for relievers.

[ncexnyc]

With all the new metric numbers being thrown around in this thread I'm curious why nobody has posted the stadium adjusted numbers for the pitchers in question

[CDu]

I strongly disagree.

Yes, pitching wins are sometimes overvalued and they are somewhat team dependent. One of my favorite gripes is Tom Glavine's second Cy Young win in 1998 -- pitching for the same team in the same ballpark, Greg Maddox had a better ERA (2.22 vs. 2.47) and pitched more innings (251 to 229). But the Braves scored nearly a run more a game for Glavine and he finished 20-6 to Maddox's 18-9.

But pitching wins are a measure of success -- especially as they measure durability and consistency. The fact is, if the guy is not pitching well, he's not going to be starting long. But Morris was the best starter for what was probably the overall best team of the 1980s (edit: I just checked and the Tigers were the second best team of the 1980s ... to the Yankees. I didn't guess that because after 1981, the Yankees were good, but never really in contention).

Long ago, Christy Mathewson wrote a classic baseball book titled "Pitching in a Pinch". In it, the Hall of Fame pitcher talked about the importance of pitching to win (as opposed to numbers). With a big lead, he pitches differently -- sometimes giving up and run or two to avoid a big inning. But when things are close, the pitcher has to bear down and prevent any damage. A pitcher on a good, high-scoring team might have a higher ERA than a guy who has to "pitch in the pinch" more often. A guy who goes all out on every pitch can't throw as many innings as a guy who knows when to bear down (and when not to).

I strongly disagree. Wins are just too team-dependent. Yes, they measure longevity and consistency. But so do innings. So do WAR. And WAR does a much better job of evaluating the value that the pitcher provides than wins do. Consistent mediocrity with a great offense behind you shouldn't look the same as consistent greatness with a mediocre offense behind you. Yet wins will often lead you to similar conclusions in each case, whereas WAR shows you the difference.

The guy Morris reminds me of is HOFer Red Ruffing, a big right-hander who was the ace of the Yankees in the 1930s, when they were one of the strongest teams in baseball history. He usually was among the wins leaders, but was never among the ERA leaders. His career record was 273-225 and his career ERA was 3.80.

The numbers aren't great for Ruffing or Morris, but I like to remember Bill James once said -- If there's not room in the Hall of Fame for the best players on the best teams (as Ruffing and Morris clearly were) then what good is it?

PS Ruffing is another guy short-changed by WAR ...

I strongly disagree.

First, I think Ruffing is very accurately rated by WAR. He was mediocre for a long time (his Boston career, and the end of his NY career). He then had a few good-to-very-good years (1932, 1935-1939). During that 9-year stretch, he accumulated 36.8 WAR, so just a bit over 4 WAR per season. That's pretty good. For reference, his ERA+ in those years ranged from 119-150 in 7 of the 9 seasons (accounting for 32.5 of his 36.8 WAR in that period). The problem for Ruffing is that - aside from those 7 seasons - he was a league-average starting pitcher. His ERA+ in his other 11 full years (he was a part-timer as a rookie and then again after the War) ranged from 90 to 107. So he piled up a bit above 20 WAR in those other years (league average is ~2 WAR). He was also a better pitcher at his peak than Morris, with 6 seasons of ERA+ 130 or more compared with Morris' 1 (and 2 seasons of 140+ ERA compared with Morris' 0).

But Ruffing was also somewhat inflated by his teammates in New York. He was a solid starter who won more games than he should have as a mediocre starter pitching with a great offense. Note that his first several years in Boston incurred the opposite fate: he was at least as good in 1928 (same ERA+, much better FIP, suggesting his teammates weren't as good defensively in 1928) as he was in 1935, but the difference in his teammates meant a 10-25 season with Boston in 1928 versus a 19-11 season in New York in 1935. Similar story for 1927 (5-13) and 1931 (16-14).

Ruffing actually provides a pretty nice case study in how looking at wins is a really faulty metric. He was a better pitcher in NY than he was in Boston, but not nearly to the degree that his W/L records suggest (231-124 as a Yank; 39-96 as a Sox).

[CDu]

With all the new metric numbers being thrown around in this thread I'm curious why nobody has posted the stadium adjusted numbers for the pitchers in question

WAR takes that into account.

[chris13]

I think Clemens and Bonds eventually get into the Hall of Fame since Bud Selig, Tony LaRussa, and Joe Torre did. If you are going to put a commissioner who looked the other way on PEDs and managers who played PED using players,
then I see the PED using players eventually getting in.

[Olympic Fan]

With all the new metric numbers being thrown around in this thread I'm curious why nobody has posted the stadium adjusted numbers for the pitchers in question

I've actually cited ERA-plus (which factors park adjustments and era adjustments) several times.

[DU82]

The numbers aren't great for Ruffing or Morris, but I like to remember Bill James once said -- If there's not room in the Hall of Fame for the best players on the best teams (as Ruffing and Morris clearly were) then what good is it?

PS Ruffing is another guy short-changed by WAR ...

Alan Trammell, Chet Lemon, Kirk Gibson, Lou Whitaker, Willie Hernandez and (even) Dan Petry all say high from the 1984 World Champions. (Explain to me how Morris was a better pitcher that year than Petry.)

Morris was second on the 1987 division champs and best pitcher (Alan Trammell was the best player in the league, not George Bell.) Probably 5th on the 1983 team that went 92-70, well down the list in '88, 3rd best pitcher on the '91 Twins, and perhaps the best starter on the '92 Jays (Jimmy Key pitched better, but his W-L record wasn't as good) and the worst regular starter on the '93 team.

He led the league twice in wins, once in strikeouts, and once in innings pitched. Not a strong argument there either.

I don't see a HoFer given that comparison. If he was the best player on the best teams, it sure doesn't show here. (He was the best pitcher on some average/bad Tiger teams I didn't include, but that didn't fit your argument about "best teams".) I think Trammell, Whitaker, Gibson and Lemon were better over the Tigers' strong period in the '80s. (Yes, Chet Lemon. Gibson didn't last as long, but his six full years were solid.)

Regarding Ruffing, I must admit I didn't realize he was traded to the Yankees at age 25. The improvement that's usually mentioned about the team switch (how much better the Yankees were over the Sox) misses that many pitchers don't "learn" to pitch until that age. There aren't a lot of Bob Fellers who come in at such a young age. He comes in at 96th in career WAR, I don't see that as being short-changed by that stat.

[luvdahops]

Alan Trammell, Chet Lemon, Kirk Gibson, Lou Whitaker, Willie Hernandez and (even) Dan Petry all say high from the 1984 World Champions. (Explain to me how Morris was a better pitcher that year than Petry.)

Morris was second on the 1987 division champs and best pitcher (Alan Trammell was the best player in the league, not George Bell.) Probably 5th on the 1983 team that went 92-70, well down the list in '88, 3rd best pitcher on the '91 Twins, and perhaps the best starter on the '92 Jays (Jimmy Key pitched better, but his W-L record wasn't as good) and the worst regular starter on the '93 team.

He led the league twice in wins, once in strikeouts, and once in innings pitched. Not a strong argument there either.

I don't see a HoFer given that comparison. If he was the best player on the best teams, it sure doesn't show here. (He was the best pitcher on some average/bad Tiger teams I didn't include, but that didn't fit your argument about "best teams".) I think Trammell, Whitaker, Gibson and Lemon were better over the Tigers' strong period in the '80s. (Yes, Chet Lemon. Gibson didn't last as long, but his six full years were solid.)

Regarding Ruffing, I must admit I didn't realize he was traded to the Yankees at age 25. The improvement that's usually mentioned about the team switch (how much better the Yankees were over the Sox) misses that many pitchers don't "learn" to pitch until that age. There aren't a lot of Bob Fellers who come in at such a young age. He comes in at 96th in career WAR, I don't see that as being short-changed by that stat.

Lance Parrish was no slouch either. 3 gold gloves, 6 all-star selections as a Tiger in the 80s.

[YmoBeThere]

Ahh, statistics. They underlie the great lie that performance across eras can be easily compared. But such an assertion to a statistician is blasphemy, they'll show you with the numbers. The analyses 13-14 years ago indicated fielding was not an important consideration. Until 7-8 years later it mattered more than previously thought.

See economics as noted by Nobel prize winning topics. We have moved from the rational actor paradigm to the rise of the behavioralists and their regression analyses. Who is right? It depends.

[El_Diablo]

Coldest stove ever...

[CDu]

Coldest stove ever...

Yeah, the Otani situation, as well as Stanton, and the relatively small crop of top-tier free agents is sort of making this a slow process.