Thursday, January 06, 2011
Jack Morris Hall of Fame?
The second in an ongoing series. I'll probably revisit this one to work out the kinks in the argument. Again I would appreciate any feed back or counter arguments.
I'm not going to lie, I don't see any argument for Jack Morris for the Hall of Fame, he would be a mistake of monumental proportions, so it's tough for me to create an argument for him.
Jack Morris traditional stats 254-186 w/l record, .577 winning percentage, 3.90 era, 105 era+, 527 games started, 175 complete games, 28 shutouts, 3824 innings pitched, 2478 strikeouts, 1.296 whip. Pitchers go into the hof by either a high peak(Koufax, Dean etc) or a high quality long career, Morris doesn't have either of those going for him.
Let's look at a few things in detail. Morris 254 wins is 32nd all time, that is a nice point in his favor. Players not in the hall of fame, and probably never will be, ahead of him Jamie Moyer with 267, Jim Kaat 283, Tommy John 288. Obvioualy 254 isn't a magic number for wins. It's a nice point in his favor, but of course wins are a team stat. It helps being on a good team. Among pitchers with over 200 wins, a list of 87 people, Morris is 76 in era+, 81st in ERA. Among hall of fame pitchers, his 105 era+ would tie for 58th(out of 60) and his 3.90 would be 60th. You can't bring an argument for Morris for the hall of fame based upon his career numbers relative to hall of famers, he would be the absolute worse starting pitcher in the hall(the guys who have similar career numbers have high peaks where they were among the best in the game, or at least perceived to be)
a weak argument for a player is to use the lowest common denominator argument, by arguing that the player you are arguing for is better than weak choices. The problem with that argument is that not only are you arguing for your candidate, you are tacitly arguing for a few dozen other players who probably don't belong. In Morris case, if you are arguing he's as good as Catfish Hunter or Rube Marquard, then you are asking to add Jim Kaat, Tommy John, Luis Tiant, Jack Quinn, Dennis Martinez, Frank Tanana, David Wells, Mel Harder, Jerry Koosman etc, and that is just a quick glance.
Pitcher go into the hof one of four ways, you have inner circle guys, you have career guys, you have peak guys and you have relievers. Morris isn't a career guy as pointed out, he just doesn't match up to the standard that is established for the hof. How about peak, does he stack up well there, In Morris's case it's best to take a 7 year peak that allows him to include a couple of 124/126 era+ seasons. Even best possible light his peak years gives him 117 era+. Among hof pitchers, that 7 year peak would be 34th out of 58, in comparison to the hof pitchers career totals. Heck his best season is a 133 era+, every single hof pitcher has at least one season better than that. Heck let's look at 21 wins and 133 era+, 46 hofers did that at least once.
Morris only semi-argument is the "winningest pitcher of the decade" it's an arbitrary distinction that is a fortuituous luck on his part. He wasn't the best pitcher in the decade, he wasn't the best pitcher for any 2 year stretch during the decade, but he got lucky that he pitched during a transition period. Some will argue that every pitcher that has the most wins in a decade is in the hof(or will be) but again we are dealing with a luck of the draw and an arbitrary cutoff number, if you go from 1984-1993 Frank Viola is the most winningest pitcher of the decade or 1977-1986 is Ron Guidry.
Morris simple expected record. pyth win percentage is based upon runs allowed and runs scored to come up with a winning percentage. Morris run support in games he started for his career is 4.9, his runs allowed is 4.27 per game, a simple rule about decisions is that for every 9 innings you have in your career as a starting pitcher, you will have roughly 1 decision. For Morris that equals out to about 424 career decisions(in reality he has 440) based upon applying his pyth(.568) to his career record and you expect him to have a record of 241-183, if you base it upon his actual number of decisions you have an expected record of 250-190. His actual won loss record was 254-186, any argument about him knowing how to win isn't reflected here, you are talking about a swing of 8 games, that is it. There is no reason to think that he is somehow better than the numbers indicate, and his numbers indicate that he is a solid workmanlike pitcher. He probably pitched/participated in one of the most memorable post season pitched games in history, but that isn't enough to put him in the hof.
The argument about Morris pitching to the score has been pretty much destroyed. link to one such study.http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=1815
Again I'm not a fan of WAR(wins above replacement) but it does have some uses, Jack Morris career rank in War among players not in the hall of fame is 41, behind such luminaries as Bob Welch, Kenny Rogers, Dutch Leonard, Bob Friend, Vida Blue, David Wells.
How about looking at his career line as an individual season, his 3.90 era, and 16 wins and 33 starts is reminiscent of
Chris Capuano for the Brewers in 2005, John Lieber of the Phillies in 2005, Woody Williams for the Cardinals(not his good year) in 2003, Bill Gullickson for the Tigers in 1991, Ervin Santan for the Angels in 2010. Did anyone think they were watching a potential hofer in those years? His best season was his first full season in the majors, and it's equivalent to Justin Verlander's year last year. Put it this way, Justin Verlander vs Jack Morris,
Verlander---Morris
era+ (wins)
132(19)--133(17)
126(17)--127(21)
125(18)--126(18)
124(18)--125(18)
---------124(14)
---------122(16)
---------117(20)
---------109(19)
---------102(21)
---------100(17)
Basically Verlander has already equaled Morris's best seasons. Two more years like his last two and then he can pitch like Suppan for the rest of his career to equal Morris's resume. Nobody thinks Verlander is already a hof pitcher, but in comparison to Morris, he already looks as good.
there is just no way to put Morris into the hof without opening the door to dozens of other better pitchers.
I'm not going to lie, I don't see any argument for Jack Morris for the Hall of Fame, he would be a mistake of monumental proportions, so it's tough for me to create an argument for him.
Jack Morris traditional stats 254-186 w/l record, .577 winning percentage, 3.90 era, 105 era+, 527 games started, 175 complete games, 28 shutouts, 3824 innings pitched, 2478 strikeouts, 1.296 whip. Pitchers go into the hof by either a high peak(Koufax, Dean etc) or a high quality long career, Morris doesn't have either of those going for him.
Let's look at a few things in detail. Morris 254 wins is 32nd all time, that is a nice point in his favor. Players not in the hall of fame, and probably never will be, ahead of him Jamie Moyer with 267, Jim Kaat 283, Tommy John 288. Obvioualy 254 isn't a magic number for wins. It's a nice point in his favor, but of course wins are a team stat. It helps being on a good team. Among pitchers with over 200 wins, a list of 87 people, Morris is 76 in era+, 81st in ERA. Among hall of fame pitchers, his 105 era+ would tie for 58th(out of 60) and his 3.90 would be 60th. You can't bring an argument for Morris for the hall of fame based upon his career numbers relative to hall of famers, he would be the absolute worse starting pitcher in the hall(the guys who have similar career numbers have high peaks where they were among the best in the game, or at least perceived to be)
a weak argument for a player is to use the lowest common denominator argument, by arguing that the player you are arguing for is better than weak choices. The problem with that argument is that not only are you arguing for your candidate, you are tacitly arguing for a few dozen other players who probably don't belong. In Morris case, if you are arguing he's as good as Catfish Hunter or Rube Marquard, then you are asking to add Jim Kaat, Tommy John, Luis Tiant, Jack Quinn, Dennis Martinez, Frank Tanana, David Wells, Mel Harder, Jerry Koosman etc, and that is just a quick glance.
Pitcher go into the hof one of four ways, you have inner circle guys, you have career guys, you have peak guys and you have relievers. Morris isn't a career guy as pointed out, he just doesn't match up to the standard that is established for the hof. How about peak, does he stack up well there, In Morris's case it's best to take a 7 year peak that allows him to include a couple of 124/126 era+ seasons. Even best possible light his peak years gives him 117 era+. Among hof pitchers, that 7 year peak would be 34th out of 58, in comparison to the hof pitchers career totals. Heck his best season is a 133 era+, every single hof pitcher has at least one season better than that. Heck let's look at 21 wins and 133 era+, 46 hofers did that at least once.
Morris only semi-argument is the "winningest pitcher of the decade" it's an arbitrary distinction that is a fortuituous luck on his part. He wasn't the best pitcher in the decade, he wasn't the best pitcher for any 2 year stretch during the decade, but he got lucky that he pitched during a transition period. Some will argue that every pitcher that has the most wins in a decade is in the hof(or will be) but again we are dealing with a luck of the draw and an arbitrary cutoff number, if you go from 1984-1993 Frank Viola is the most winningest pitcher of the decade or 1977-1986 is Ron Guidry.
Morris simple expected record. pyth win percentage is based upon runs allowed and runs scored to come up with a winning percentage. Morris run support in games he started for his career is 4.9, his runs allowed is 4.27 per game, a simple rule about decisions is that for every 9 innings you have in your career as a starting pitcher, you will have roughly 1 decision. For Morris that equals out to about 424 career decisions(in reality he has 440) based upon applying his pyth(.568) to his career record and you expect him to have a record of 241-183, if you base it upon his actual number of decisions you have an expected record of 250-190. His actual won loss record was 254-186, any argument about him knowing how to win isn't reflected here, you are talking about a swing of 8 games, that is it. There is no reason to think that he is somehow better than the numbers indicate, and his numbers indicate that he is a solid workmanlike pitcher. He probably pitched/participated in one of the most memorable post season pitched games in history, but that isn't enough to put him in the hof.
The argument about Morris pitching to the score has been pretty much destroyed. link to one such study.http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=1815
Again I'm not a fan of WAR(wins above replacement) but it does have some uses, Jack Morris career rank in War among players not in the hall of fame is 41, behind such luminaries as Bob Welch, Kenny Rogers, Dutch Leonard, Bob Friend, Vida Blue, David Wells.
How about looking at his career line as an individual season, his 3.90 era, and 16 wins and 33 starts is reminiscent of
Chris Capuano for the Brewers in 2005, John Lieber of the Phillies in 2005, Woody Williams for the Cardinals(not his good year) in 2003, Bill Gullickson for the Tigers in 1991, Ervin Santan for the Angels in 2010. Did anyone think they were watching a potential hofer in those years? His best season was his first full season in the majors, and it's equivalent to Justin Verlander's year last year. Put it this way, Justin Verlander vs Jack Morris,
Verlander---Morris
era+ (wins)
132(19)--133(17)
126(17)--127(21)
125(18)--126(18)
124(18)--125(18)
---------124(14)
---------122(16)
---------117(20)
---------109(19)
---------102(21)
---------100(17)
Basically Verlander has already equaled Morris's best seasons. Two more years like his last two and then he can pitch like Suppan for the rest of his career to equal Morris's resume. Nobody thinks Verlander is already a hof pitcher, but in comparison to Morris, he already looks as good.
there is just no way to put Morris into the hof without opening the door to dozens of other better pitchers.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Barry Larkin Hall Of Fame
Barry Larkin garnered 62.1% of the vote in his second year of eligibilty for the hall of fame, this tops the returning candidates for next year putting him in a prime spot for consideration. Next years ballot has no locks for the hof, and in
fact Bernie Williams is probably the only new candidate to have a chance of breaking the 5% barrier(Brad Radke, Tim Salmon and Brian Jordan head the class for next year) He should be the only one that will get enough votes next year to make it in the hof, the induction of Roberto Alomar who is pretty equivalent player also helps his case, barring a drug scandal, or being caught in bed with a live boy or dead hooker, there is really no reason to think he won't generate a tremendous bump in the voting next year.
Of course this is about his case. Let's take a look at the traditional numbers first. His career line is .295(avg), .371(obp), .444(slg) and .815 ops along with 116 ops+. For a shortstop that is a solid line, For the record among players who have played 50% of their games at shortstop(this is 71 players) with over 6000 plate appearances in their career(Larkin has 9057) Larkin Rank at the rate stats are average(10th), On Base Pct(9th), Slugging(12th), OPS+ (9th) (he's 16th all time in plate appearances so no real knock on his short career Rate wise he is one of the ten best offensive shortstops in the
history of the game.
Counting numbers(rank among ss in parentheses) , he has 198(9th) hr's, 1329(9th) runs scored, 960(12th) rbi's, 2340(12th) hits, 379(9th) stolen bases, 3527(10th) total bases, 3334(12th) times on base. Any knock on shortness of his career is busted here, as this shows he's at worse the 12th best compiler at his position in history. (note three active shortstops beat him
in most of these compiling stats Vizquel, Jeter and Arod)
Traditional offensive stats show he was one of the 12 best hitting shortstops in baseball history. How about contemporary opinion, he appeared in 12 all star games(missing it one year when he won the mvp) 9 times silver slugger winner, 1 MVP, 3 Gold gloves, and 6 times garnering MVP votes. He is hurt on the gold gloves, but it wasn't because he wasn't considered a good fielder, it's that he had to compete with Ozzie Smith. Ozzie stopped winning Gold Gloves in 1992, Larkin won three consecutive starting in 94.(he only played 100 games in '93) Being second to Ozzie is nothing to sneeze at. Larkin is widely considered to be an above average defensive shortstop and that is probably enough along with his numbers to leap frog a few of his competitors.
By traditional methods, I feel fairly confident saying that Larkin is one of the ten best shortstops in baseball history.
Going by less traditional methods, I have my complaints against WAR(wins above replacement) but it still has a useful ability. It's useful for comparing players at the same position, although it's defensive component might be a little off, still it's a useful tool. We are still sticking with career value for now.
Career War rankings for shortstops.
1. Wagner* 116.5
2. Arod 101.9
3. Ripken* 89.9
4. Yount* 76.9
5. Vaughan* 75.6
6. Jeter 70.1
7. Appling* 69.3
8. Larkin 68.9
9. Trammell 66.9
10. Reese* 66.7
11. Ozzie* 64.6
12. Cronin* 62.5
13. Boudreu* 56
14. Aparicio* 49.9
15. Tinker* 49.2
16. Sewell* 48.4
17. Bancroft* 46.4
18. Wallace* 46.3 (note better than this, but I'm counting from 1901 on)
22. Travis Jackson* 43.3
23. Vizquel 43.1 (putting him in here to highlight the silliness of thinking he is a hofer)
27. Rizzuto* 41.8
31. Maranville* 38.2
just using these rankings, again Larkin falls into one of the ten best of all time, there are 18 shortstops in the hof for their shortstop career (I didn't include George Davis on this list as most of his career is prior to 1901) I also didn't include Ernie Banks on this list as played majority of his career at first base, if he was included(and I understand the arguments) he would have been 12th on the list with 64.4. Of those 18 shortstops, by this method Larkin would be 6th best.
Larkin career argument is not for a borderline candidate, he is an upper echelon candidate,not inner circle of course but he is a no brainer based upon his career numbers.
Larkin's big knock is that he had health issues and missed out on some high quality years because of that, again using War(wins above replacement) and noting that 2 War is considered to be an average season, 5 war is a good standard for all star seasons. Larkin broke 5 war 7 times in his career.(and would have done it an eighth time if it wasn't for the strike in '94). List of shortstops with more than 5 war and times in their career that they have done it.
1. Wagner 12 times
2. Larkin 7 (8 if you count 94 as 5.1 roughly speaking that is slightly below what his rate was for that year)
2. Trammel 7
2. Ripken 7
2. Vaughan 7...
that is it. Jeter, Garciaparra and Arod has six(Arod has several seasons at third over that threshold also)(for the record 46 shortstops have done it at least twice,)
let's say you prefer even higher peak. at 5.5 it really doesn't change a thing, Wagner is first with 11, Ripken second with 7 and Jeter, Arod, Nomar, Banks, Larkin and Trammel with 6.
when you hit 6 War it separates a lot more, as Wagner and Ripken stay where they are at, while Larkin drops to 3seasons(his '95 was 5.9 with miss credit it should be around 6.5) and tied for 13th with Reese. His peak isn't as high as a few players but his career compares well to every shortstop not named Wagner or Arod
fact Bernie Williams is probably the only new candidate to have a chance of breaking the 5% barrier(Brad Radke, Tim Salmon and Brian Jordan head the class for next year) He should be the only one that will get enough votes next year to make it in the hof, the induction of Roberto Alomar who is pretty equivalent player also helps his case, barring a drug scandal, or being caught in bed with a live boy or dead hooker, there is really no reason to think he won't generate a tremendous bump in the voting next year.
Of course this is about his case. Let's take a look at the traditional numbers first. His career line is .295(avg), .371(obp), .444(slg) and .815 ops along with 116 ops+. For a shortstop that is a solid line, For the record among players who have played 50% of their games at shortstop(this is 71 players) with over 6000 plate appearances in their career(Larkin has 9057) Larkin Rank at the rate stats are average(10th), On Base Pct(9th), Slugging(12th), OPS+ (9th) (he's 16th all time in plate appearances so no real knock on his short career Rate wise he is one of the ten best offensive shortstops in the
history of the game.
Counting numbers(rank among ss in parentheses) , he has 198(9th) hr's, 1329(9th) runs scored, 960(12th) rbi's, 2340(12th) hits, 379(9th) stolen bases, 3527(10th) total bases, 3334(12th) times on base. Any knock on shortness of his career is busted here, as this shows he's at worse the 12th best compiler at his position in history. (note three active shortstops beat him
in most of these compiling stats Vizquel, Jeter and Arod)
Traditional offensive stats show he was one of the 12 best hitting shortstops in baseball history. How about contemporary opinion, he appeared in 12 all star games(missing it one year when he won the mvp) 9 times silver slugger winner, 1 MVP, 3 Gold gloves, and 6 times garnering MVP votes. He is hurt on the gold gloves, but it wasn't because he wasn't considered a good fielder, it's that he had to compete with Ozzie Smith. Ozzie stopped winning Gold Gloves in 1992, Larkin won three consecutive starting in 94.(he only played 100 games in '93) Being second to Ozzie is nothing to sneeze at. Larkin is widely considered to be an above average defensive shortstop and that is probably enough along with his numbers to leap frog a few of his competitors.
By traditional methods, I feel fairly confident saying that Larkin is one of the ten best shortstops in baseball history.
Going by less traditional methods, I have my complaints against WAR(wins above replacement) but it still has a useful ability. It's useful for comparing players at the same position, although it's defensive component might be a little off, still it's a useful tool. We are still sticking with career value for now.
Career War rankings for shortstops.
1. Wagner* 116.5
2. Arod 101.9
3. Ripken* 89.9
4. Yount* 76.9
5. Vaughan* 75.6
6. Jeter 70.1
7. Appling* 69.3
8. Larkin 68.9
9. Trammell 66.9
10. Reese* 66.7
11. Ozzie* 64.6
12. Cronin* 62.5
13. Boudreu* 56
14. Aparicio* 49.9
15. Tinker* 49.2
16. Sewell* 48.4
17. Bancroft* 46.4
18. Wallace* 46.3 (note better than this, but I'm counting from 1901 on)
22. Travis Jackson* 43.3
23. Vizquel 43.1 (putting him in here to highlight the silliness of thinking he is a hofer)
27. Rizzuto* 41.8
31. Maranville* 38.2
just using these rankings, again Larkin falls into one of the ten best of all time, there are 18 shortstops in the hof for their shortstop career (I didn't include George Davis on this list as most of his career is prior to 1901) I also didn't include Ernie Banks on this list as played majority of his career at first base, if he was included(and I understand the arguments) he would have been 12th on the list with 64.4. Of those 18 shortstops, by this method Larkin would be 6th best.
Larkin career argument is not for a borderline candidate, he is an upper echelon candidate,not inner circle of course but he is a no brainer based upon his career numbers.
Larkin's big knock is that he had health issues and missed out on some high quality years because of that, again using War(wins above replacement) and noting that 2 War is considered to be an average season, 5 war is a good standard for all star seasons. Larkin broke 5 war 7 times in his career.(and would have done it an eighth time if it wasn't for the strike in '94). List of shortstops with more than 5 war and times in their career that they have done it.
1. Wagner 12 times
2. Larkin 7 (8 if you count 94 as 5.1 roughly speaking that is slightly below what his rate was for that year)
2. Trammel 7
2. Ripken 7
2. Vaughan 7...
that is it. Jeter, Garciaparra and Arod has six(Arod has several seasons at third over that threshold also)(for the record 46 shortstops have done it at least twice,)
let's say you prefer even higher peak. at 5.5 it really doesn't change a thing, Wagner is first with 11, Ripken second with 7 and Jeter, Arod, Nomar, Banks, Larkin and Trammel with 6.
when you hit 6 War it separates a lot more, as Wagner and Ripken stay where they are at, while Larkin drops to 3seasons(his '95 was 5.9 with miss credit it should be around 6.5) and tied for 13th with Reese. His peak isn't as high as a few players but his career compares well to every shortstop not named Wagner or Arod
