2017 - 2018 Hot Stove Baseball

[Mal]

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.

Fair enough, but let's also point out that CDu and others disputing the (ridiculous) claim that Jack Morris should be a HoF'er have been using a lot of statistics from players of the exact same era as Morris.

Also, FWIW, I don't think anyone's made the assertion, or even implied it, that statistics make it "easy" to compare players across eras. They do make it tenable, however.

[CDu]

Fair enough, but let's also point out that CDu and others disputing the (ridiculous) claim that Jack Morris should be a HoF'er have been using a lot of statistics from players of the exact same era as Morris.

Also, FWIW, I don't think anyone's made the assertion, or even implied it, that statistics make it "easy" to compare players across eras. They do make it tenable, however.

Yep. This is an important point. Most stats aren't well-suited to be compared across eras. ERA, wins, innings pitched, etc., are just not good stats. That's why stats like ERA+, OPS+, and WAR have been created. By estimating production relative to the league that year, you at least stand a fighting chance of having a meaningful comparison across eras.

[Mal]

As a Twins fan for life, I love Jack Morris. He grew up in St. Paul, and I attended Game 7 of the '91 World Series. So I feel fully credentialed in saying he's not a Hall of Fame worthy pitcher.

Who cares how many wins he had? He had a ton of losses, too. Double digit losses in 11 separate seasons. If wins were more dependent on starting pitching in his day than they are now, so were losses. 186 times in his career he left a game with his team behind and they went on to lose. Most of those times with one of the best teams in the American League behind him for run support. I mean, we can point to wins, but one must then consider the teams on which a man is pitching. Over the course of his career Morris's teams had a collective .539 winning percentage. His personal W-L record equates to a .577 winning percentage. So his teams had less than a 5% better chance of winning with him on the mound as they did every other day of the week.* That's a clear, dominant, superstud ace?

Sure, Morris was durable and pitched a lot of innings, going deep into games and sometimes dominating them. He also went out gave up 6 runs over 7 innings and the Tigers lost. A lot. We forget those because as fans we remember the good outings. It's easy to focus just on Game 7 in '91 and completely forget that in Game 2 of the ALCS in '87 Morris got tagged for 6 runs and lost. Or that the season after that amazing 10 inning performance against the Braves, he went 0-3 in the postseason, giving up 19 earned runs over 23 innings in 4 starts. It's a miracle the Jays managed to win it all that year despite Morris pitching horrendously.

But you know what doesn't forget all those stinkers he had? The statistics. Just look at the second most basic statistic for measuring a pitchers' performance over time, ERA. 3.90. Again: 3.90. He put up an earned run average of less than three and a half runs per 9 innings just 7 times over 18 big league seasons. He had an ERA of over 4.00 more times than he came in under 3.50. How is that "dominant?" From game to game, night to night, he could be dominant, but clearly that didn't happen all that often. If it had, his ERA+ for his career wouldn't have been 105.

Look at Bert Blyleven, who barely made it into the Hall, largely because he was perceived as "not dominant enough." He had a longer career, pitching through age 41, and a career ERA of 3.31. Jack Morris gave up a fifth of a run more every single time through the batting order than Bert Blyleven did over his career. He compiled his best stats in the lower ERA 1970's, you say? Fine. Just compare their numbers from '80 through '89, the decade Morris supposedly owned. Blyleven: 3.64 while ages 29 through 38. Morris: 3.66 in his prime at ages 25-34. Blyleven already had a decade of MLB experience, had thrown 145 complete games and struck out over 2000 hitters before that, and he still outpitched Morris for that decade. And barely made the Hall of Fame.

Morris pitched a lot of innings consistently? OK. He led the AL in innings pitched once. One time. The next season, 11 guys threw more innings. His durability and always being there are of value, but (a) they're not significantly greater than what other pitchers gave their teams in his prime, although they're notably overstated based on his reputation and the fact that Detroit got a ton of media coverage while he was their workhorse, and (b) are not nearly enough to override the fact that he was a good, but not great, pitcher for most of his career. He never finished higher than 5th in ERA over a season. Only twice was he higher than 5th in K's/9 or WHIP. He led the AL in strikeouts once.

Simply put, he was never very dominant, and he didn't compile enough.

* Note: I did, in fact, factor out Morris's starts to come up with a Win %age for his teams both with and without him. If you take his .577 win %age and extrapolate it to every 5th start for his teams over his career as a rough proxy, which is very favorable corner cutting for Morris (he pitched in 549 games over a career that spanned 2812 games for his teams but only started 527; and his rookie season is included in full despite the Tigers going 74-88 that year), their win %age only drops to .529 without him taking the ball.

[Mal]

...that being players on the actual ballot this year :

Agreed with the consensus that Chipper, Thome, Vlad and Hoffman make it this year. I've fallen on both sides of the Mussina debate over time and could still be persuaded either way, but he won't be getting in this year. I feel 180 degrees differently from Oly and weezie on the PED issue when it comes to Bonds and Clemens, but they're not gonna make it anytime soon, either.

[Olympic Fan]

...that being players on the actual ballot this year :

Agreed with the consensus that Chipper, Thome, Vlad and Hoffman make it this year. I've fallen on both sides of the Mussina debate over time and could still be persuaded either way, but he won't be getting in this year. I feel 180 degrees differently from Oly and weezie on the PED issue when it comes to Bonds and Clemens, but they're not gonna make it anytime soon, either.

I hope you are right, but watching MLB Now yesterday, they were debating the impact of Joe Morgan's letter. They had one voter on who was so mad about it that he is switching his vote FOR Bonds and Clemens. It will be interesting to see if there is any real backlash.

The thing to watch is the percentage of the vote -- a year ago was the first time Bonds and Clemens (who seem to be linked in this debate) got over 50 percent. Will they continue to climb or level off?

Mussina was at 51 percent. I agree that it's too big a jump to get in this year, but if he can get to 60 percent, I think he'll eventually make it in 2019 or 2020.

[mr. synellinden]

Maybe we can break out t a separate MLB HOF Discussion thread? And keep this one for actual Hot Stove news.

[Mal]

I hope you are right, but watching MLB Now yesterday, they were debating the impact of Joe Morgan's letter. They had one voter on who was so mad about it that he is switching his vote FOR Bonds and Clemens. It will be interesting to see if there is any real backlash.

That's really interesting.

In some senses, I guess it's not that surprising. Writers have always been sensitive to being told how to vote when it comes to the Hall of Fame. Moreso when that unsolicited advice comes from players, when they either perceive a tacit underlying message of "You didn't even play so I resent you holding the right to bestow upon or deny to players the highest honor in the game," or there's an explicit message to that effect.

Combine that with Morgan's reputation for sanctimony, grouchiness and curmudgeonly "why, in my day..." attitude, which I'm going to blindly assume comes through in his letter (I haven't yet taken the time to read it, though I doubt it will present any new thought-provoking analysis - it's not like his announcing ever did), and maybe it was inevitable it would lead to some backlash.

[weezie]

...Morgan's reputation for sanctimony, grouchiness and curmudgeonly "why, in my day..." attitude...

Sounds like my kind of guy.

[rasputin]

Sounds like my kind of guy.

My kind of guy too, and Morgan was grossly under-appreciated in his day because he usually didn't put up a gaudy BA (.271 career). The two seasons he won his richly-deserved MVP awards, 1975 and 76, were the two years he hit over .300 (although, to be fair, those were also his best OPS+ years, at 169 and 186). Morgan drew a ton of walks, so his OBP was always high even when he was hitting .270.

He also stole bases at a high rate of success (about 80% I think).

[Duke79UNLV77]

This is not to argue that Hershiser should be in the HOF. He shouldn't. But, comparing him to Morris further confirms that Morris doesn't belong. I think Hershiser would have been in easily if he hadn't blown his arm out and never been the same pitcher after 89.

Hershiser:
204-150. 3:48 ERA. 25 shutouts.
Top 4 in Cy Young 4 times, including winning once (all in his 6 full-season pre-injury years)
Top 3 in ERA 5 times (all in his first 6 full-season pre-injury years)
Postseason: 8-3. 2:59 ERA. MVP of 3 postseason series, including a WS.

Morris:
254-186. 3:90. 28 shutouts.
Top 4 in Cy Young 3 times, never better than 3rd.
Never top 3 in ERA, finished 5th twice.
Postseason: 7-4. 3:80 ERA. MVP of one postseason series, a WS.

Hershiser's peak 6 years were clearly better than Morris's. Hershiser's postseason heroics were even greater than Morris's. Morris primarily just has 50 more wins, but still didn't hit the magic mark (at least for pitchers before the current bullpen-crazed era). Further, it's not uncommon to give some what-might-have-been allowance for players who were dominant before major injuries (e.g., on a higher level, Koufax, Pedro).

[Olympic Fan]

Fair enough, but let's also point out that CDu and others disputing the (ridiculous) claim that Jack Morris should be a HoF'er have been using a lot of statistics from players of the exact same era as Morris.

Ridiculous?

Apparently, the great majority of writers from the BWAA don't agree -- Morris garnered 67.7 percent of the vote in 2013. He was over 60 percent in his last four years on the ballot. A majority of professional writers clearly think Morris is HOF worthy.

Interesting factoid -- no player who ever topped out at 65 percent of the vote has ever failed to win election from the Veteran's Committee. That could happen in about two weeks -- On Dec. 16, the "Modern Era" Committee could elect Morris -- he's one of 10 candidates on this year's ballot (along with ex-teammate Alan Trammel, also a good candidate, and Union boss Marvin Miller, who should have been in years ago). If Morris doesn't win election this month, he likely will in the near future.

One other factoid that I found recently. Tom Verducci pointed out that Jack Morris pitched into the eighth inning more times than any AL pitcher in the DH era. That is pretty good evidence of his durability and consistency.

[Olympic Fan]

It looks like the Yankees have picked Aaron Boone to be the next manager.

I don't know what to think.

On one hard, Boone sounds reasonable and intelligent as an ESPN analyst.

On the other hand, he's never managed (or coached) at any level.

Should I be happy with the hire or should I be scrambling to find a connection between Boone and Jerry Sandusky?

[YmoBeThere]

Jerry Sandusky?

What Sandusky did is unconscionable...

What the Vols fans did nearly so.

[duke74]

It looks like the Yankees have picked Aaron Boone to be the next manager.

I don't know what to think.

On one hard, Boone sounds reasonable and intelligent as an ESPN analyst.

On the other hand, he's never managed (or coached) at any level.

Should I be happy with the hire or should I be scrambling to find a connection between Boone and Jerry Sandusky?

Local commentators all over the "new role" of managers on this one and the "soft skills" angle vs. Joe G. The NY Post's headline (Joel Sherman) today: "Brain Cashman makes gamble of his life on Aaron Boone."

Two of the five interviewed had no experience (Boone and Beltran).

And they're making the connection (similarities) between the Mets' and Yankees' hirings in style, player interactions, etc.

More Sanchez and Judge heroics will overcome any inexperience by a "push button" manager.

[Blue in the Face]

Ohtani has told the Yankees and Red Sox he won't sign with them, apparently being particularly interested in a west coast small market team. If the Giants sign him and could complete their rumored deal for Stanton, that would be quite a bursting christmas stocking.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/262795...-york-yankees/

[weezie]

Oh gee whiz, why do THEY get to have both of them?!

[Blue in the Face]

This has no bearing on the immediate future, but prospect Kevin Maitan, the best regarded of the players taken from the Braves over international signing rules violations recently, has signed with the Angels. A year ago he was ranked 77th on baseball america's prospect list. He had a disappointing year in A ball, but that hardly seems to mean much for a 17 year old, and he was ranked 9th in the braves system by BA before being made a free agent. Long way to go to get to the majors, but he was definitely the "prize" in the group of guys freed from the Braves.

https://www.baseballamerica.com/mino...lVi1K64vpKv.97

[CDu]

A potential sneaky-good move by the Cubs today: they signed Tyler Chatwood to a 3 year, $38 million deal.

Now, on the surface, Chatwood doesn't look great. But he also has had the misfortune of pitching in Denver for about half of his starts. His numbers on the road over the past two years (157.1 IP): 2.57 ERA, 1.169 WHIP.

Now it remains to be seen whether those road splits hold up over a full season (though they sort of have as splits over 2 seasons). But it could be quite the solid acquisition.

[Olympic Fan]

A very interesting development yesterday as 53-year-old Rafael Palmeiro announced he's planning a comeback:

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/i...ld-apparently/

There's method in his madness.

Consider (1) Palmeiro has Hall of Fame numbers -- 500 home runs and 3000 hits; (2) he didn't get voted in because he's one of the most notorious cheaters -- the guy who wagged his finger at congress, swearing (under oath) that he never did drugs ... then tested positive a few weeks later and was suspended (and retired).

Palmeiro got 11 percent of the vote in his first try in 2011 and fell off the ballot when he got just 4.4 percent in 2014.

That would be it.

But if Palmeiro comes back and plays in just one game -- one plate appearance -- it restarts his HOF clock. He would be back on the ballot in 2023. Apparently, Palmeiro sees what a lot of writers see -- a increasing tolerance for the drug cheaters among the younger voters. By 2023, it's possible that 75 percent of the electorate will be less concerned with Palmeiro's cheating.

If not, he's got to wait for the veteran's committee -- a right now, those are older voters who are less tolerant of the druggies.

[rasputin]

A very interesting development yesterday as 53-year-old Rafael Palmeiro announced he's planning a comeback:

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/i...ld-apparently/

There's method in his madness.

Consider (1) Palmeiro has Hall of Fame numbers -- 500 home runs and 3000 hits; (2) he didn't get voted in because he's one of the most notorious cheaters -- the guy who wagged his finger at congress, swearing (under oath) that he never did drugs ... then tested positive a few weeks later and was suspended (and retired).

Palmeiro got 11 percent of the vote in his first try in 2011 and fell off the ballot when he got just 4.4 percent in 2014.

That would be it.

But if Palmeiro comes back and plays in just one game -- one plate appearance -- it restarts his HOF clock. He would be back on the ballot in 2023. Apparently, Palmeiro sees what a lot of writers see -- a increasing tolerance for the drug cheaters among the younger voters. By 2023, it's possible that 75 percent of the electorate will be less concerned with Palmeiro's cheating.

If not, he's got to wait for the veteran's committee -- a right now, those are older voters who are less tolerant of the druggies.

Yeech. What a jackwad.
The good news is (or at least I think it is), even if at age 53 he can still hit a fastball (a debatable proposition), I don't see a major league team sacrificing a spot on the 25-man or even 40-man roster, especially for a guy (who happens to be a jerk) to pull a publicity stunt.