Interesting... I have five guys on my "ballot" (Blyleven, McGwire, Murphy, Raines, and Trammell), and yet none of them are among the six guys for whom Heyman voted. I'll go ahead and say, "Bad ballot."

Lousy ballot. I agree with only ONE of his choices.

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.

well...
How about he was never that great, he played his entire career with good hitting and fielding teams- he was 254-186 but would have been more like 230-216 with neutral support, good not great.

plus his ERA was 3.73 after 1992, before his last two bad years and BEFORE today's offensive environment kicked in.

Is there any question that Rich Lederer has watched Blyleven pitch way more than Heyman has?

2) he was no charmer.

This seems like almost a prerequisite for Heyman's ballot.

I love how guys like Heyman say they don't go by stats, and then quote stats. John...you go by stats, you just go by the wrong ones.

Sorry, while Rice isn't the best selection in the world, it's a million times more justified than Jack ####### Morris. Morris can't even be in the same room as someone who can hold Mussina's jockstrap and Mussina's a guy who is going to have trouble of his own getting into the Hall.

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

This would be an improvement over biased, data-phobic, clowns like Heyman voting on it. There's a better solution than computers, too, but the current BBWWA system is not it.

I love how guys like Heyman say they don't go by stats, and then quote stats. John...you go by stats, you just go by the wrong ones.

Yeah. It's one thing to say that you're not using stats, but when you go do in fact use stats, you should use good ones.

I agree with Gossage, and if I squint hard enough can almost agree with Dawson, he had significant defensive value before his knees gave out.

The others?
I don't think Rice should make it, but I suspect he will, and he won't be the worst man in, I'll live with it.
Concepcion, he was for more than a few years the best SS in baseball, but I have the nagging sense that was only because his competition for that crown was unusually weak. Also I don't remember his defensive rep at the time being as "good" as his rep appears now.
Dave Parker? No. If you remove his age 29-33 years and let Marcel re-fill them you get a hypothetical coke free version of Parker, one that batted .297 with 404 homers, 1663 ribbies and 3025 hits, teh hypothetical Parker is probably an easy HOfer. The real Parker didn't do that.

14 Opening Day starts, people. 14!

Concepcion, he was for more than a few years the best SS in baseball, but I have the nagging sense that was only because his competition for that crown was unusually weak.

If Dave Concepcion, why not Amos Otis? Is it because Concepcion's team had a cool nickname?

5. Dave Concepcion. This is his 15th and last year on the ballot, and he's probably going to get his usual 10 percent of the vote again. The reason I am in that 10 percent is that I think he was perhaps the best all-around shortstop of his generation and an underrated piece of the Big Red Machine. Great defender (five Gold Gloves) and superb stealer (321 stolen bases), his career looks a lot like Hall-of-Famer Phil Rizzuto's to me -- without the announcing, of course.

5. Amos Otis. This is his 15th and last year on the ballot, and he's probably going to get his usual 10 percent of the vote again. The reason I am in that 10 percent is that I think he was perhaps the best all-around center fielder of his generation and an underrated piece of the Royals 1970's dynasty. Great defender (three Gold Gloves) and superb stealer (341 stolen bases), his career looks a lot like Hall-of-Famer Richie Ashburn's to me -- without the announcing, of course.

Morris can't even be in the same room as someone who can hold Mussina's jockstrap

But 20 wins- THREE TIMES!!!!
Mussina hasn't won 20 once, and Jack MORRIS pitched THE GAME!

Morris was 7-4 in the postseason!!!!!!!!

PLUS

Morris started on opening day way more times than the Moose.

Get your nose out of your books and spreadsheets and go watch a game sometime.

Bad parody over.
See the problem with watching a few random games is this- I didn't watch the 1991 World Series, but I did watch the 1992 playoffs and world series (lot of Jays fans where I was at then)
Morris stunk to high heaven-

That is my primary first person impression of Morris as a "big game" pitcher- he wasn't one.
Now others, who unlike me actually have a HOF vote, seemed to have watched and can only recall 1991, when he apparently pitched quite well. Who's right? We're both right- and wrong.

Morris was a good pitcher, and he had no drop-off when facing tougher postseason competition- but he wasn't great, he was lifted up by his teammates to an unusual extent- truth be told, Jack Morris was no better than Jerry Koosman (a childhood fave of mine) his winning percentage looks nicer SOLELY due to run support (yes I've researched this), Koosman's no HPFer either.

I never realized Heyman was so anti-saber. I guess I don't read him too often, but does he usually take shots at "stat geeks" like this?

If Dave Concepcion, why not Amos Otis? Is it because Concepcion's team had a cool nickname?

Forget the team name, you can't beat Famous Amos Otis. Did Concepcion even have a nickname?

Votes for Dave Concepcion and Dave Parker. Thinks Tim Raines was a guy who "hung around" for the last two-thirds of his career, doesn't vote for him.
The nicest thing I can say about this ballot (it's Christmas, afterall) is it takes all kinds to make the world go round?

Sorry, while Rice isn't the best selection in the world, it's a million times more justified than Jack ####### Morris.

I'm not the world's biggest Jack Morris fan or anything and he's sort of right at my personal in/out line, but I think that Jack Morris has a case for being elected to the Hall of Fame, and, in my opinion, it's a stronger one than for Jim Rice.

As the Hall of Fame currently stands, if you go ahead and induct Blyleven and Clemens, both of whom deserve it, you'd have no starting pitchers in the Hall of Fame who were born/debuted between these two - i.e., there would be no starting pitchers born between 1951 and 1962 or who debuted between 1970 and 1984.

There are two possible explanations for this. Either (a) there were legitimately no Hall-of-Fame caliber starting pitchers born during these 11 years, or (b) the conditions of the game over this time period (late-70's thru 1980's) made it more difficult for legitimate Hall-of-Fame caliber starters to stand out statistically. I think that (b) is much more likely. And, in fact, Dan Rosenheck's WARP work suggests why this might be the case - this was the period in baseball history which saw the lowest standard deviations of observed talent. The leagues were fully integrated but expansion lagged behind population growth. Also, in a relatively low-offense period (as compared to today's game), standard deviations are lower.

Jack Morris was arguably the best starting pitcher in MLB over the time period from about 1978 - 1992. He led all of MLB over this time period in innings pitched and wins, but also in support-neutral wins. In contrast, Mike Mussina is about the 8th or 9th best starting pitcher of his era. The odds that there are 9 starting pitchers active today that are better than any starting pitcher in the game 20 years ago seems unlikely to me. I think it's more likely that Jack Morris's "greatness" is simply being clouded by the more difficult context in which he worked.

Now, I'm not SURE that's the case, and while Morris is "arguably" the best starting pitcher from this time period, the argument is far from a slam dunk (Dave Stieb, for example, was elected to the Hall of Merit). But that's the argument that I see in support of Jack Morris.

Or, in far fewer words: having the most wins in the 1980s may be a stupid reason to elect somebody to the Hall of Fame, but being the best starting pitcher in the 1980s is a good reason to elect somebody to the Hall of Fame.

Bert Blyleven is one Cooperstown candidate who stirs a lot of emotion, sometimes from folks who barely saw him pitch and instead spent the past 10 years with their heads buried in a stat book.
From his bio
Heyman is a 1983 graduate of Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism. So this makes him born around 1961. How much of Blyleven did he see, especially pre cable. A couple of games of the week. Plus his best years were when Heyman was a kid.

But he did cover him with the Angels in 89.

I know it for a fact. Lederer, the individual most responsible for whatever strength remains in Blyleven's candidacy, saw more of Blyleven than Heyman did. And he certainly saw more of him when Blyleven was at his best.

Either (a) there were legitimately no Hall-of-Fame caliber starting pitchers born during these 11 years, or (b) the conditions of the game over this time period (late-70's thru 1980's) made it more difficult for legitimate Hall-of-Fame caliber starters to stand out statistically. I think that (b) is much more likely.

That's the way it goes sometimes. There were no centerfielders who debuted between 1952 and 1983 elected. That isn't a good enough reason to elect Dale Murphy.

That's the way it goes sometimes. There were no centerfielders who debuted between 1952 and 1983 elected. That isn't a good enough reason to elect Dale Murphy.

Well, to be honest, I disagree. I'd vote for Dale Murphy, too. There's this illusion that we can compare players across generations, but all statistics are generated against the competition of your own generation and if the game was harder to dominate in the 1980s than it was in the 1960s or the 1990s, then you have to understand that statistics from the 1980s aren't directly comparable to statistics from the 1960s and 1990s.

The Hall of Fame is about being the best but one can only truly measure whether you're the best from your own generation. Dale Murphy was the best centerfielder between Mickey Mantle and Ken Griffey, Jr. In my mind, that makes him a Hall-of-Famer. If Jack Morris was the best starting pitcher between Bert Blyleven and Roger Clemens, then, in my mind, that makes him a Hall-of-Famer, too.

I bet you Heyman's miffed that Bert never circled him.

(a) there were legitimately no Hall-of-Fame caliber starting pitchers born during these 11 years, or
The odds that there are 9 starting pitchers active today that are better than any starting pitcher in the game 20 years ago seems unlikely to me.

Given the small numbers we're talking about, I don't think these things are that unlikely. For the HoF,we're talking about a few dozen pitchers, spread over 130 years. You wouldn't expect then to be evenly distributed.

Dale Murphy was the best centerfielder between Mickey Mantle and Ken Griffey, Jr.

I'll disagree and say Dawson.

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

Let's compromise: we'll get a trained an untrained chimp to do it; he'll make more intelligent selections than Heyman.

Given the small numbers we're talking about, I don't think these things are that unlikely. For the HoF,we're talking about a few dozen pitchers, spread over 130 years. You wouldn't expect then to be evenly distributed.

There are around 60 starting pitchers in the Hall of Fame born over a span of around 100 years (since nobody born after 1960 is eligible yet). So, the odds of a starting pitcher being born in a given year is 60%. The odds of no HOF starting pitcher being born for 10 consecutive years (1952 - 1961) is (.4)^10 = 0.01%. That strikes me as pretty small odds.

I'll disagree and say Dawson.

I'd compromise and vote for them both. The argument's just as valid if you want to make it for Dawson, though.

I'll disagree and say Dawson.

And I'll say Dwayne Murphy which I know is bat-#### crazy and wrong but I'll say it anyway because I'll cease to be a baseball fan if I stop believing this.

Chet Lemon and Amos Otis and Jim Wynn were pretty good, too. Who else? For peak, Fred Lynn is right there, too.

If Dave Concepcion, why not Amos Otis? Is it because Concepcion's team had a cool nickname?

Is Dan Rosenheck a big Concepcion fan? IIRC, his argument for him was that he was x standard deviations above his peers and that's how Dan prefers to rank players. Dan or any other Hall of Meriter, can you clarify this?

Is Dan Rosenheck a big Concepcion fan? IIRC, his argument for him was that he was x standard deviations above his peers and that's how Dan prefers to rank players. Dan or any other Hall of Meriter, can you clarify this?

Yes, Rosenheck is a HUGE Dave Concepcion fan. Dan is basically the biggest advocate around here of what I've been arguing, you have to consider how difficult it was to dominate a league. I believe Dan has argued that Dave Concepcion was more valuable, in context, than Willie McCovey and Harmon Killebrew, for example.

The Hall of Fame should be about who starred and who dominated. And about who made an impact.

It should be about greatness.

If it is about greatness John, then why does Morris, who never finished higher then 3rd in the Cy Young voting, get a vote?

Dave Concepcion. Why ... of course!!

Yes, by all means let's put in an 88 career OPS+ SS with a 116 peak over a 110 career OPS+ SS with a 155 peak and a top five average over 140, who could hit cleanup on 98-win teams and OPSed .992 in the postseason.

It is, after all, only the Hall of Fame.

Thanks, Kiko. It's hard to follow some of the arguments there because they move from thread to thread. I do recall Bill James unveiling some new defensive stat in the Fielding Bible book and Concepcion's defense was off the charts according to that particular measurement. Oh, and I went back upthread and read your posts here, too.

Kiko, it's an interesting argument, but I still can't understand why we'd vote for someone -solely- because he was the best of a generation over an extended period of time, and not because of his own greatness. It's not that the best SP's of the 80's all had ERA's in the mid-3's. It's just that most of the SP's from that time didn't have several consecutive great years like we've seen more recently with Maddux, Pedro, etc., or the earlier guys like Seaver.

Yes, very few of his contemporaries enjoyed prolonged success. But the failures of his contemporaries isn't a good enough reason for me to put Morris in the HoF.

Yes, Rosenheck is a HUGE Dave Concepcion fan. Dan is basically the biggest advocate around here of what I've been arguing, you have to consider how difficult it was to dominate a league. I believe Dan has argued that Dave Concepcion was more valuable, in context, than Willie McCovey and Harmon Killebrew, for example.

Has any similar analysis done for Morris? I'd be very interested to see that.

I do recall Bill James unveiling some new defensive stat in the Fielding Bible book and Concepcion's defense was off the charts according to that particular measurement.

Yeah, Dan's argument for Concepcion is basically two-fold: (a) replacement level for shortstops in Concepcion's era was very, very low, and (b) Concepcion's fielding peak was comparable to Ozzie Smith's (but shorter).

On the other hand, I think the argument for voting FOR Concepcion and AGAINST Trammell is brain damage.

I'll disagree and say Dawson.

But Dawson played less than 40% of his career games in CF. I think he's better categorized as a right fielder.

And fear

Fear and surprise.

The 80's are a weird decade for pitchers. The old guard--Carlton, Ryan, Niekro, Blyleven, Sutton--were winding down and the guys who looked like they might be great--JR Richard, Mike Norris, Dave Stieb--never achieved greatness for varying reasons. (Drugs for Norris, illness for Richard and Stieb was great but it's camouflaged so no one really cares. Fernando! looked like he was going to be a HOFer but he was probably 50 when he was a rookie so I doubt he ever had a chance.) So yeah, I would fall on the side that the guys with the HOF talent just didn't end up having HOF career and so you're left with the good pitchers like Morris who had the ability to plug away that are left on top of the pile. There's value in that, of course, but it's hard to define it as greatness.

Yes, very few of his contemporaries enjoyed prolonged success. But the failures of his contemporaries isn't a good enough reason for me to put Morris in the HoF.

As I said upfront, I'm not completely sold on this argument myself. But I think the question we need to ask is, Why did so few of his contemporaries enjoy prolonged success? Was there something about the era that negatively affected the career lengths of starting pitchers? If there was something there, then isn't it fair to say that one aspect of Morris's "greatness" was his ability to overcome that?

I think Dan Rosenheck's updated his work to include pitchers, but, to be honest, I don't know what his analysis says specifically about Jack Morris. Morris hasn't done particularly well in HOM voting, whereas, as I said, Dave Stieb got elected. On the other hand, Morris is basically a career candidate with very little in the way of peak, and the HOM in general and Dan R. in particular, I think tend to prefer peaks. I should be working, but maybe I'll check around the HOM site and see if they have anything interesting there.

Yes, by all means let's put in an 88 career OPS+ SS with a 116 peak over a 110 career OPS+ SS with a 155 peak and a top five average over 140, who could hit cleanup on 98-win teams and OPSed .992 in the postseason.

I'm glad someone is beating the drum for Trammel. He's so overqualified it's silly.

Yeah, Dan's argument for Concepcion is basically two-fold: (a) replacement level for shortstops in Concepcion's era was very, very low, and (b) Concepcion's fielding peak was comparable to Ozzie Smith's (but shorter).

Yes, indeed. Dave Concepcion's OPS+ed 88 but it was a shiny 88 in light of Johnnie Lemaster, Darrell Chaney, Frank Taveras, Bill Russell, and Roger Metzger. Alan Trammell OPS+ed 110, but he stunk compared to Cal Ripken, Robin Yount, Ozzie Smith, Tony Fernandez, and Dickie Thon.

Ergo, Concepcion ... in; Trammell ... out.

Got it.

I'm glad someone is beating the drum for Trammel. He's so overqualified it's silly.

I had no idea how high the support for Tram is on this board until yesterday.

Which means I've been spending too much time on here blabbing about steroids ....

And fear.

Fear The Fear.

Let me toss my hat into this camp as well. Trammell should be a lock.

Top pitchers from 77-91

I understand the argument Kiko, but if it was especially a tough time for a pitcher to stand out, I would expect that it would also be tough for past their prime types like Seaver, Ryan, Blyleven, and Carlton to continue to dominate.

The way I interpret that is the old guys were able to remain top pitchers because the younger competition was weak. And we're in another period like that today, I believe there were more wins by 40+ aged pitchers in 2007 than any other previous season, and the previous record was set in 2006.

Trammell and Blyleven. Yes. Even my cat knows they're HOFers.

Dawson vs Murphy:

Dale played 1044 games in center, Hawk played 1027. And Dawson was the better defender while he was in center.

Yes, indeed. Dave Concepcion's OPS+ed 88 but it was a shiny 88 in light of Johnnie Lemaster, Darrell Chaney, Frank Taveras, Bill Russell, and Roger Metzger. Alan Trammell OPS+ed 110, but he stunk compared to Cal Ripken, Robin Yount, Ozzie Smith, Tony Fernandez, and Dickie Thon.

Ergo, Concepcion ... in; Trammell ... out.

Got it.

I'd much rather see Trammell in as well, but I still think this argument has some merit. I mean, most player evaluation systems rank players based on the replacement level or average -at their position, during that year-. To put it in EQA terms, if the average SS EQA in 1975 was .230 with a low standard deviation, but it was .280 in 1986 with a high standard deviation(hypothetically speaking), then Concepcion's .260 in 1975 was probably more valuable than Trammell's .293 in 1986, right?

Kiko, thanks for summarizing some of the Hall of Merit views on this stuff. Dan R sticks out in my head, but before him, the only voter that had an assigned personality in my mind was karlmagnus. Well, there's Dimino and Murphy, but I met them and I couldn't really tell you much about their voting preferences compared to the rest of the group; Willie Randolph excepted.

There are around 60 starting pitchers in the Hall of Fame born over a span of around 100 years (since nobody born after 1960 is eligible yet). So, the odds of a starting pitcher being born in a given year is 60%. The odds of no HOF starting pitcher being born for 10 consecutive years (1952 - 1961) is (.4)^10 = 0.01%. That strikes me as pretty small odds.

First you're assuming a random distribution, which is clearly untrue (low offense eras will have disproportionate representation). Second, the 60% assumes no more than one HoF pitcher is born in any one year, which is also untrue. Finally, that calculation is for any one 10-year period; there are 90 10-year periods in that sample.

The math is not simple, but I think there is a sizeable chance of at least one 10-year period w/o a HoF, even assuming a random distribution.

Re #43:

Don't overreact, Sugar Bear. In defense of Dan Rosenheck, here is his 2002 Hall of Merit Ballot:

1. Trammell
2. Ozzie
3. McGraw
4. Concepcion

In that election, Trammell and Smith were each named on 48 out of 49 ballots (yest didn't vote for Trammell and karlmagnus didn't vote for Smith.) Each of Trammell and Smith receved 18 first place votes and 14 second place votes. Trammell did a little better in 3rd-4th-5th votes and finished ahead of Smith in the point totals. In this elect-3 election, both Trammell and Smith were elected overwhelmingly; Dave Stieb, who finished a distant third, was elected narrowly.

I personally voted Smith first and Trammell second; I'm sure that Sugar Bear, had he voted, would have put Trammell first. I think both positions can be reasonably defended. Both Trammell and Smith do obviously belong to the Hall of Merit and the Hall of Fame. The case for Concepcion, is, shall we say, more contentious.

Trammell and Blyleven. Yes. Even my cat knows they're HOFers.

Cats are way too smart to worry about things like who should be in the HOF.

I'd much rather see Trammell in as well, but I still think this argument has some merit. I mean, most player evaluation systems rank players based on the replacement level or average -at their position, during that year-. To put it in EQA terms, if the average SS EQA in 1975 was .230 with a low standard deviation, but it was .280 in 1986 with a high standard deviation(hypothetically speaking), then Concepcion's .260 in 1975 was probably more valuable than Trammell's .293 in 1986, right?

No, for the reasons Kiko has wisely alluded to in his generational comments re Morris (albeit in a different direction). If all your positional peers stink on toast, that doesn't make you a better player. It may make you more valuable in context, but it doesn't make you better. When Davey's peers were Frank Taveras, et al, he looked mahvelous; when they became Alan Trammell and Cal Ripken, he looked ordinary.

(On the pure statistical question, no also. Greatness itself biases the numbers. If you're one of three great outliers, you increase the STDEV and the average.)

First you're assuming a random distribution, which is clearly untrue (low offense eras will have disproportionate representation). Second, the 60% assumes no more than one HoF pitcher is born in any one year, which is also untrue. Finally, that calculation is for any one 10-year period; there are 90 10-year periods in that sample.

The math is not simple, but I think there is a sizeable chance of at least one 10-year period w/o a HoF, even assuming a random distribution.

Yes, I oversimplified, of course. There really aren't "90 10-year periods in that sample" because they all overlap. Also, your note that "low offense eras will have disproportionate representation" sort of misses the point. Low offense eras SHOULDN'T have disproportionate representation if things are properly adjusted. In other words, if you accept that there ought to be about 60 starting pitchers in the Hall of Fame, then you can simply do the same math to determine what the odds are that one of the top 60 starting pitchers in MLB history was not born over a 10-year period. But your point is taken that the answer isn't precisely what I came up with.

After RTFA, I have questions that I hope can be answered. What is a "compiler"? And why is it bad?

I assume that is Heyman's way of saying he's a peak voter? And that Blyleven was not ultra mega super stupendous elite?

But Jim Rice was dominant for 10 years.

I think I answered my own question. In general I do not get too worked up about the Hall of Fame any more just as I do not get too worked up about MVP and Cy Young Voting. Articles like this remind me of why.

One of my best memories as a kid was going with my father to the Hall of Fame for the first time. I honestly believed the best players were or would be enshrined there. I went back a number of years later, and did not enjoy the trip. I wonder how much of it was that it could not possibly match my memories as a kid, or just that I understood that it was mostly a sham. Perhaps sham is too strong a word. Not what it should be? Maybe that is a better description.

There's a better solution than computers, too, but the current BBWWA system is not it.

By and large, the BBWAA has done an excellent job.

I don't think Rice should make it, but I suspect he will, and he won't be the worst man in, I'll live with it.

But he will be one of the worst players ever elected by the BBWAA. Better than Herb Pennock and possibly better than Rabbit Maranville, but that's about it.

5. Amos Otis. This is his 15th and last year on the ballot

Amos Otis isn't on the ballot.

Heyman is a 1983 graduate of Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism. So this makes him born around 1961.

He mentions he was 2 when Tommy John broke in.

That's the way it goes sometimes. There were no centerfielders who debuted between 1952 and 1983 elected. That isn't a good enough reason to elect Dale Murphy.

But teams only have 1 starting CF. They have 4-5 SP when Morris play. It would be like saying the best infielder over a 15-year period doesn't deserve entry.

I'm against Morris's candidacy, but wouldn't mind it as much as others here. Jim Rice is the one I think would be a terrible pick.

But Dawson played less than 40% of his career games in CF. I think he's better categorized as a right fielder.

Would you qualify Ernie Banks as a SS or 1B? He played more at the latter. Generally, a person is remembered the by the most challenging defensive position he spent a large chunk of time at. A-Rod likely will end up with more games played at third than short, but he'll be a shorstop.

I'm a firm believer that CF get jobbed in this voting. On the whole, the position usually has a position-wide OPS+ around 102-103 while corner outfielders usually hit 110 or higher. Yet we judge their offensive contributions as if it's the same. Tough crowd.

Cats are way too smart to worry about things like who should be in the HOF.

I love my cat but I wouldn't call him smart. He gets by on looks, much like his owner. Also, he yowls hideously when I leave the sound on during Yankee games. This is how I know he's a baseball fan. Sadly, the girlfriend wouldn't let me name him Bill King.

Low offense eras SHOULDN'T have disproportionate representation if things are properly adjusted.

In other words, Wes Ferrell is a better candidate than Addie Joss.

The 80's are a weird decade for pitchers. The old guard--Carlton, Ryan, Niekro, Blyleven, Sutton--were winding down and the guys who looked like they might be great--JR Richard, Mike Norris, Dave Stieb--never achieved greatness for varying reasons. (Drugs for Norris, illness for Richard and Stieb was great but it's camouflaged so no one really cares. Fernando! looked like he was going to be a HOFer but ...

Starting a little later: Saberhagen and Hershiser were terrific when they were healthy, but they weren't terrific every year, and they wound up not getting all that many innings in their careers. (The Hall of Merit elected Saberhagen anyway, to go with Stieb.) Dwight Gooden blazed across the sky for his first two seasons, then subsided to being a lesser pitcher.

I assume that is Heyman's way of saying he's a peak voter? And that Blyleven was not ultra mega super stupendous elite?

Just to be clear, I think voting for Morris over Blyleven is utter stupidity (much like voting for Concepcion over Trammell). Further, Jack Morris is basically a pure career candidate. The argument for him is mostly one of quantity over quality - 15 or so years of solid above-average innings-eating that led him to outlast his generational peers and rack up 250 wins. My defense of Jack Morris (or Dave Concepcion) here is in no way intended to be a defense of Heyman's ballot or his reasoning process.

No, for the reasons Kiko has wisely alluded to in his generational comments re Morris (albeit in a different direction). If all your positional peers stink on toast, that doesn't make you a better player.

It doesn't make you a better player, but it makes you a more 'valuable' player during that year, doesn't it?

Of course, the big thing this point ignores is adjusting for other eras. Which, I suppose, is why it's important in these HoF discussions to account for this since, as you implied, if one's positional peers are weak, he shouldn't be rewarded for that relative to players from other eras.

Very interesting. I didn't participate in the HoM threads at all, but now I wish I had since I feel like I'm figuring out things now that I should've known a long time ago.

There really aren't "90 10-year periods in that sample" because they all overlap.

But that's what matters. The chance that there is ANY 10-year period w/no HoF pitcher. So, 1978-1987 is a different possibility from 1979-1988.

We've found 1 such period, 1952-1961. The question we need to answer is how likely is there to have been one such period (ANY such period) between 1860 and 1960.

I'm trying to figure out how to do this, and am fairly good at statistics, but the possibility of multiples in a year makes it challenging, even if I assume the likelihoods are iid.

My defense of Jack Morris (or Dave Concepcion) here is in no way intended to be a defense of Heyman's ballot or his reasoning process.

It's cool Kiko. We get it. You lay out the argument for Morris very well. That dead period of "pitching greatness" has always troubled me, too. Look at us, having a thread where we have differing view points and nobody getting called names. Kumbaya, dudes, kumbaya!

Amos Otis isn't on the ballot.

Obviously. The point is not that he should vote for otis today, but that his arguments could have just as easily applied to him when he was on the ballot. And that's the problem with extreme borderline candidates, arguments for them can be applied to many many others.

But teams only have 1 starting CF. They have 4-5 SP when Morris play. It would be like saying the best infielder over a 15-year period doesn't deserve entry.

Teams also carry two catchers. Should they be twice as represented than other positions? Very few pitchers who weren't the staff ace are HOFers.

Also I don't remember [Concepcion's] defensive rep at the time being as "good" as his rep appears now.

I dunno, dude won five Gold Gloves. And his stats are fantastic, too. I think the discussion about his fielding is whether it was "Ozzie great"; I don't think it's even up for much discussion whether it was great. (And then, of course, the next question is whether his hitting ability plus that fielding adds up to the HOF, which is basically an argument about how much you emphasize comparing him to the other SS of his day.)

If Jack Morris was the best starting pitcher between Bert Blyleven and Roger Clemens, then, in my mind, that makes him a Hall-of-Famer, too.

No, it would make him Dave Stieb. Yes, I know Stieb fell off the ballot (1.7% in his first year of eligibility. Good job, gang!), but even if we accept this logic (and the argument against it is pretty obvious), there is still no way in hell that Morris deserves to be in before Stieb.

Cats are way too smart to worry about things like who should be in the HOF.

Some cats are smarter than others. Mine doesn't care much for Blyleven, John, or Morris, but wishes Jim Kaat was still on the ballot.

If Jack Morris was the best starting pitcher between Bert Blyleven and Roger Clemens, then, in my mind, that makes him a Hall-of-Famer, too.

Blyleven stopped pitching in 89 (if Heyman gets to eliminate two years from Morris' career, I don't see why we can't do it with everyone), Clemens started pitching in 1984. Blyleven's last great year was 1985, Clemens' first was 1986. There is no best pitcher between those two.

Some cats are smarter than others. Mine doesn't care much for Blyleven, John, or Morris, but wishes Jim Kaat was still on the ballot.

The jokes I miss could fill an ocean.

Blyleven's last great year was 1985, Clemens' first was 1986. There is no best pitcher between those two.

But Dwight Gooden owned 1985.

Blyleven's last great year was 1985, Clemens' first was 1986. There is no best pitcher between those two.

he was actually damned good in 1989.

he was actually damned good in 1989.

Oh yeah, I don't know how I missed that.

It doesn't make you a better player, but it makes you a more 'valuable' player during that year, doesn't it?

Yes, it does. But the term "valuable" begins to lose a lot of its meaning at that point.

We need to keep clear the difference between "major league shortstop" and "those who happened to be employed at any one time as shortstops in the major leagues." Most times these are essentially the same thing; other times they aren't.

Davey and Roy White, another guy thrust into recent board prominence because of his saber proximity to Jim Rice, are examples of the limits of "context," be it park or league, as they (especially White) straddled two pretty different contextual eras. Is it right to give White "credit" for his performance in an environment in which runs were dear when his counting stats didn't really get much better when his environment changed? (Giving proper weight to the fact that he was no longer in his prime in the latter context, of course.)

Jack Morris was valuable from ages 24 to 37. During this time he:

won 233, lost 162
ERA+ of 109
464 starts, 3378 innings.

Don Sutton, from 24-37:
224-151
115 ERA+
478 starts, 3471 innings

Morris was tremendously valuable, with about 250 innings per year of above average pitching for better than a decade. Doing that today, he'd probably make 17 million dollars per year.

Take Morris's career, make it slightly better, add a few average years at the front end and the back end, and you'd have a guy who took several ballots to get in and a lot of people thinking he wasn't deserving because the peak wasn't high enough.

Was there something about the era that negatively affected the career lengths of starting pitchers?

Cocaine's a hell of a drug.

/RickJames...b*tch

Cocaine's a hell of a drug.

/RickJames...b*tch

I'm probably wrong that drugs did in Mike Norris. More likely it was Billy Martin. 24 complete games in 1980! Mike Norris probably needed to self medicate to get through the Billy Martin arm shredding machine.

Is it right to give White "credit" for his performance in an environment in which runs were dear when his counting stats didn't really get much better when his environment changed?

This is not the case for White. In the year of the pitcher, White had a .764 OPS. Offense was up from 1969-1971 (expansion?) and White's OPS climbed near the .850 level. In 1972 offense plummetted, especially in the AL, and White hits .384/.376. Its his adjusted stats that remain excellent the whole time, in the 130-140 range.

This is not the case for White. In the year of the pitcher, White had a .764 OPS. Offense was up from 1969-1971 (expansion?) and White's OPS climbed near the .850 level. In 1972 offense plummetted, especially in the AL, and White hits .384/.376. Its his adjusted stats that remain excellent the whole time, in the 130-140 range.

1968-72 were White's best five years and probably the worst five years for offense since 1920. By 1974-78, offense had grown dramatically and was essentially the same as it was until the steroid era.

White's Raw OPS:

1968-72 (ages 24-28): 764, 818, 860, 857, 760

1974-78 (ages 30-34): 760, 802, 774, 763, 742.

The question(s) on the table remain(s) fair: Do we really see anything new by giving Roy a big boost for the offensive wasteland he played in from 1968-72? And do we learn anything about overcompensation for context given Roy White's numbers?

As detailed by Craig Wright in the Diamond Appraised, there is a very strong argument that the potential HoF pitchers born in the years c. 1948-1952 were all overworked during their formative years (which would have been in the early 70's). Offense, at least in the NL, had seen a significant uptick, but any concomitant decline in pitcher workloads/complete games lagged a few years behind (and, in the AL, went back up in '73 thanks to the DH). Guys who may have had HoF stuff but who got overworked and burned out include Nolan and Gullett from the Reds, just to name two. Even Catfish probably took a hit after 3 consecutive years of 20+ CGs, tho that didn't stop them from electing him anyway.

Not sure what the excuse is for guys born later than that (Stieb), tho.

There are two possible explanations for this. Either (a) there were legitimately no Hall-of-Fame caliber starting pitchers born during these 11 years, or (b) the conditions of the game over this time period (late-70's thru 1980's) made it more difficult for legitimate Hall-of-Fame caliber starters to stand out statistically. I think that (b) is much more likely. And, in fact, Dan Rosenheck's WARP work suggests why this might be the case - this was the period in baseball history which saw the lowest standard deviations of observed talent. The leagues were fully integrated but expansion lagged behind population growth. Also, in a relatively low-offense period (as compared to today's game), standard deviations are lower.

No, there's a third possible explanation for this: there were legitimate Hall of Fame caliber starting pitchers born/debuting during that time period, but they just happened not to last. Ron Guidry could have been a HOF caliber starting pitcher, but he just didn't last long enough to be a HOFer. Ditto for Dave Stieb. But that doesn't say anything about the conditions of the game; it's just a fluke. There are only a handful of HOF-caliber players at a position in any era; if those people get hurt and have their careers terminate prematurely, there just won't be any HOFers from that position/era.

Or if they switch positions and become relievers, like Dennis Eckersley. Or drink part of their careers away, like Dennis Martinez. (If you replace Martinez's 1982-1986 with mediocre years -- even as mediocre as a 100 ERA+ -- you get a pitcher with a much better career than Morris.)


Besides, the premise is faulty in another respect; if the best pitcher from this time period, regardless of mediocrity, belongs in the HOF, then the place to start isn't Jack Morris. How about Rick Reuschel? Or Frank Tanana? Or the aforementioned Dennis Martinez?

Jack Morris was arguably the best starting pitcher in MLB over the time period from about 1978 - 1992. He led all of MLB over this time period in innings pitched and wins, but also in support-neutral wins. In contrast, Mike Mussina is about the 8th or 9th best starting pitcher of his era. The odds that there are 9 starting pitchers active today that are better than any starting pitcher in the game 20 years ago seems unlikely to me.

Well, even if that were that unusual -- given 5 starters per team, and more teams, it isn't that strange that we'd see that sort of fluctuation over a short time period like a decade -- you're confusing HOF quality with having a HOF career. Morris wasn't "arguably" the best pitcher at any point in that 78-92 time period. He just happened to last longer (or start earlier) than all the pitchers better than him. E.g., Clemens pitched in half of that time period you identify. Was Morris better than Clemens at any point in their respective careers? No.

Not sure what the excuse is for guys born later than that (Stieb), tho.

A couple of thoughts. First, I think one excuse could be that the managers of the day didn't adjust well - Earl Weaver, Billy Martin, Tommy Lasorda - these were guys who were advocates of 4-man rotations and tons of complete games and they were still all managing well into the 1980s. I don't know if Stieb had the same problem with his managers (actually, his manager during his peak appears to have been Bobby Cox, who certainly managed to get good career value from Glavine, Smoltz, and Maddux at least).

Tying this to Jack Morris, how did Sparky Anderson compare to his peers in this regard? On the one hand, I vaguely recall his nickname being "Captain Hook" because he went to the bullpen a lot. On the other hand, the two examples you cite - Nolan and Gullett - pitched under Sparky for the Reds.

Second, Stieb/Morris's generation looks bad in comparison to the previous generation because the previous generation had the biggest number of durable rubber-armed guys in history - Ryan, Niekro, Sutton, Seaver, Carlton, Perry, John, Kaat. The most intriguing theory I've heard for this is that these guys mostly came of age in the 1960s when offensive levels were extremely low, so they were able to work through their youth - when arm injuries are most common - in the easiest pitching environment of the past 80+ years. This actually doesn't apply to Blyleven, who debuted in 1970.

Thinking about it, Blyleven might actually be more properly viewed as the "great pitcher" who bridges the gap between the great pitchers of the 1960-70s (Seaver, Carlton, Perry, et al.) and the great pitchers who debuted in the late 1980s - Clemens, Maddux, Glavine.

Well, even if that were that unusual -- given 5 starters per team, and more teams, it isn't that strange that we'd see that sort of fluctuation over a short time period like a decade -- you're confusing HOF quality with having a HOF career. Morris wasn't "arguably" the best pitcher at any point in that 78-92 time period. He just happened to last longer (or start earlier) than all the pitchers better than him. E.g., Clemens pitched in half of that time period you identify. Was Morris better than Clemens at any point in their respective careers? No.

Morris was better in 1984 and 1985, and I'd have rather had him starting a postseason game at all points through at least 1991. Clemens rightly gained a reputation as a postseason headcase during that time, whereas Morris was terrific in the PS, including the '91 Game 7 gem for the ages.

As to the earlier comment, the "conditions of the game" did change for starting pitchers at/around the time Morris debuted. The 325 IP starters of the early 70s were long gone, replaced by the 250 IP starters of Morris's time. And with the lost 75 IP came a significant diminution in the chance of hitting the magical 20-win plateau. Make Morris's career 1968-83 instead of 1979-94 and you'd have an almost surefire HOFer.

I'd much rather see Trammell in as well, but I still think this argument has some merit. I mean, most player evaluation systems rank players based on the replacement level or average -at their position, during that year-. To put it in EQA terms, if the average SS EQA in 1975 was .230 with a low standard deviation, but it was .280 in 1986 with a high standard deviation(hypothetically speaking), then Concepcion's .260 in 1975 was probably more valuable than Trammell's .293 in 1986, right?

No, for the reasons Kiko has wisely alluded to in his generational comments re Morris (albeit in a different direction). If all your positional peers stink on toast, that doesn't make you a better player. It may make you more valuable in context, but it doesn't make you better. When Davey's peers were Frank Taveras, et al, he looked mahvelous; when they became Alan Trammell and Cal Ripken, he looked ordinary.

I don't think that either Kiko's argument or yours is quite right; I think the answer is that it depends on why the competition was worse.

If the competition was worse because of random flukes, then you're right -- it makes you more valuable in context but not better. But if the competition was worse because of some change to the game itself, then it does make you better. (*) (The quintessential example is the change in the game which caused 3B to shift across the defensive spectrum from a primarily defensive position to a half-and-half position.) So, wrt Concepcion, if he stood out from the crowd because of the change in playing surfaces in his era, which nobody else could handle, that's a very different scenario than if he stood out just because the other stars of his era got hurt.


(*) To be fair, that seems to be what Kiko himself is saying; the problem I have with his position is that he's willing to just assume that there must have been changes to the game because it's implausible that it could be explained by fluke.

No, there's a third possible explanation for this: there were legitimate Hall of Fame caliber starting pitchers born/debuting during that time period, but they just happened not to last.... But that doesn't say anything about the conditions of the game; it's just a fluke.

It could be a fluke or it could say something about the conditions of the game: that those conditions were detrimental to having starting pitchers last for 15 years. If it's the latter, then the fact that Jack Morris was able to last for 15 years under those conditions is a mark of "greatness" of a kind.

the problem I have with his position is that he's willing to just assume that there must have been changes to the game because it's implausible that it could be explained by fluke.

That's an entirely fair criticism of my position, David.

A lot of people have to explain their votes for Lamarr Hoyt over Morris for the 1983 Cy Young. That one's kind of tough to fathom and you throw a Cy Young Award on Morris's resume and it gives it that little something extra that might put him over the top.

Lasorda never used a four man rotation to my knowldege, Kiko. I was thinking about the flip side of Rosenheck's theory. Does that mean that someone like a Richie Ashburn's no great shakes?

A lot of people have to explain their votes for Lamarr Hoyt over Morris for the 1983 Cy Young.

Hoyt won 24 games. Morris won 20. Morris's ERA+ was a little bit better (117 to 115) but not enough to worry about. Morris worked more innings that year, which is something. Really, there's not much to choose between the two.

A lot of people have to explain their votes for Lamarr Hoyt over Morris for the 1983 Cy Young.

Simple: Hoyt's team won its division, Morris's didn't; Hoyt won more games. I don't agree with this, but this had to be the reason, right?

Lasorda never used a four man rotation to my knowldege, Kiko.

True, my bad. He did shred the hell out of Fernando Valenzuela's arm, though. If you believe Fernando's BB-Ref age, he pitched over 1,800 innings thru his age-26 season. That's 130 more than Robin Roberts and he had the biggest freak innings pitched totals this side of Bob Feller.

So, wrt Concepcion, if he stood out from the crowd because of the change in playing surfaces in his era, which nobody else could handle, that's a very different scenario than if he stood out just because the other stars of his era got hurt.

There probably is something to the idea that the new NL carpet surfaces made teams want to play a "speedster" at SS, that there was a concomitant decrease in SS talent for a few years as a result, and that Davey was far and away the best of the short/medium term bunch. I'd actually give him a plus or two on the ol' resume for that accomplishment.

As his career progresses, he then straddles two eras, and stays roughly the same while his less one-dimensional positional peers get a lot better.

As with his fellow era straddler Roy White, I'm still not entirely sure how to evaluate this type of career. I saw most of his career at an impressionable age; he was an excellent player who played on some great teams, hit down in a powerhouse order, was a good/great fielder and terrific baserunner. The Reds got bad, and he stayed around without ever really lifting them much. He just wasn't overall at the level of some of the other SSs we've talked about and I've never come really close to thinking of him as HOF material.

Forget the team name, you can't beat Famous Amos Otis. Did Concepcion even have a nickname?

"Immaculate"?

Hoyt won 24 games. Morris won 20. Morris's ERA+ was a little bit better (117 to 115) but not enough to worry about. Morris worked more innings that year, which is something. Really, there's not much to choose between the two.

I'm hard pressed to see old Sox Park closing the ERA+ gap over Tiger Stadium from the raw 3.3 vs. 3.6 in Morris's favor, but I guess that's how the cookie crumbles. Ks were 232 Morris, 148 Hoyt. The 4 extra wins for Hoyt and the Sox division championship put Hoyt over the top, obviously.

I did a road trip to Chicago for a 3-game set in August when both the Tigers and Sox were in first place. Top grade stuff. Man, was Ron Kittle a bad outfielder ...

Or, in far fewer words:... but being the best starting pitcher in the 1980s is a good reason to elect somebody to the Hall of Fame.

I think that is a terrible reason to elect somene to the HoF.

[One of my best memories as a kid was going with my father to the Hall of Fame for the first time. I honestly believed the best players were or would be enshrined there. I went back a number of years later, and did not enjoy the trip. I wonder how much of it was that it could not possibly match my memories as a kid, or just that I understood that it was mostly a sham. Perhaps sham is too strong a word. Not what it should be? Maybe that is a better description.

No kidding. When I went when I must've been 10 or 11, I assumed a guy like Lloyd Waner was amazing. After all, he was in the hall of fame. Then ten years later I can search him up on B-ref and see that he really wasn't even very good.

Examples like that are why I can't get worked up over the HoF vote, I just can't care. There's nothing sacred about the place, and in my mind enshrinement doesn't really signify anything about a particular player.

He just wasn't overall at the level of some of the other SSs we've talked about and I've never come really close to thinking of him as HOF material.

Me neither (I was only an AL fan, so I didn't see him play, though), although he does better on the Keltner list than my initial knee-jerk negative reaction to his candidacy would have led me to believe.

And fear

Fear and surprise.

And a fanatical dedication to the Pope.

If Concepcion gets in, the entire Big Red Machine infield will be inducted except Rose. It's funny the twists and turns life takes.

Or drink part of their careers away, like Dennis Martinez.

Or Dennis Eckersley.

Isn't he in the HoF?

Hoyt won 24 games. Morris won 20. Morris's ERA+ was a little bit better (117 to 115) but not enough to worry about. Morris worked more innings that year, which is something. Really, there's not much to choose between the two

Morris didn't come in second that year, he came in third behind Quiz.

And Richard Dotson who won more games (22) with far fewer losses (7) and a much better ERA+ (130) didn't get a vote.

No, Hoyt didn't deserve the award, but it wasn't Morris he ripped off. That was Quiz or Steib. Morris, due to his higher workload, could be considered in a logjam for third place along with Hoyt, Dotson, and Guidry.

Morris was tremendously valuable, with about 250 innings per year of above average pitching for better than a decade. Doing that today, he'd probably make 17 million dollars per year.

Take Morris's career, make it slightly better, add a few average years at the front end and the back end, and you'd have a guy who took several ballots to get in and a lot of people thinking he wasn't deserving because the peak wasn't high enough.

I really like AROM's post. However, I think Sutton shouldn't be in. He's my border, I think.