Wednesday, December 12, 2012
2013 Results: Bonds, Clemens, Piazza and Biggio are elected to the Hall of Merit!
(bbtf)
Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio have been elected to the Hall of Merit!
The timing for our first year electing 4 candidates could not have worked out better, since class of 2013 is the strongest in terms of electees that we’ve ever had. The top of the 1934 ballot included Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Eddie Collins, Pop Lloyd, Smokey Joe Williams and Cristobal Torriente, but only 2 were elected.
Bonds and Clemens were each unanimous at 1 and 2. I believe that’s the first ...
Read More...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >RL: I know a lot of people would take Morris based on what he did in 1991. The one thing I got a kick out of is, the one time they faced each other in the playoffs, Bert won (6-3 in Game 2 of the 1987 ALCS between the Twins and Detroit Tigers). So I think that’s an interesting stat. I think your question would generate a lot of Jack Morris conversation. But when they did face each other, Blyleven won.
So why isn't his answer to this simply, "Blyleven"?
Because unlike most of us who frequent this site, Mr. Lederer has a modicum of talent for tact and diplomacy.
Because his actual answer is better?
Because Morris did start a very famous Game 7 and gave one of the greatest recent performances, so to give a glib short answer makes you look like you don't follow baseball or are stupid, at least to a more casual fan.
In fairness, though, reading the whole FA, Lederer comes off as thoughtful and diplomatic and that's likely most of what's going on.
If he truly isn't sure, he's essentially saying Morris's "playing ability" relative to his "playing record" is higher than Blyleven's -- which is relevant for HOF purposes, since those are the two critical factors to be considered by the voters.
Um, what? Is this an attempt to make it look like someone who plainly doesn't agree with you actually secretly agrees with you?
I would think that the people who would make this kind of push would already be voting for Morris.
Because it was a hypothetical, and because he's intelligent enough to know that one baseball game doesn't mean #### either way.
Like I said, his answer was better than the one you'd have him give.
Including A.J. Burnett?
Even over Don Larsen?
Roids.
I mean by Lederer.
Not a "backlash" as I would think of it ...
The two main things Morris had going for him was that it was a weak ballot with a weak set of debuts and, with Blyleven off, he was the best pitcher on the ballot. I expected him to go up 10+ points ... but probably not as far as he did ... based on "standard" HoF ballot "analysis."
And don't forget that there's a fairly large contingent who voted for neither of them. Some of those voters saw them as roughly equal and might have concluded "well, if they let Blyleven in, no reason Morris shouldn't be in." In the same way that Sutter and Gossage were pretty much stuck until Eck went in or the way that Trammell's numbers jumped this year as folks accepted that Larkin was going in. That has happened regularly through HoF history (although dependent on other ballot dynamics). We don't see Morris and Blyleven as being particularly similar but it's reasonably clear a good chunk of voters do.
But, consciously or no, I think there was an easing of the tension between the "B only" and "M only" camps such that some of the "B only" crowd crossed over as a "peace offering" if you will. That's still not a backlash, that's a "gracious winner" attitude.
http://jon-heyman.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/33714192/34289845
Jon Heyman
#facepalm
"Morris' detractors generally point to one unextraordinary number, and while it's an important number, it should not define his career. His lifetime ERA of 3.90 would be the highest of any pitcher in the Hall of Fame, and his ERA plus of 105 is barely above average. But Morris pitched deep into his games and deep into his middle age, trampling his lifetime ERA. Morris is known by teammates to have pitched to the score, which enabled him to win more games than anyone else in the '80s and 254 games overall. (The leading winners in the seven preceding decades are all in the Hall.) In seven seasons, he received Cy Young votes. So he had plenty of great years."
He is known by his teammates have pitched to the score, so ignore any game-by-game analysis that empirically proves that "knowledge" wrong.
Sigh.
Oh yeah, I thought Game 7 of the World Series meant something.
My bad.
OK, fine, keep pretending like you're misunderstanding the point. That's sure to prove an effective tactic on a forum where your position is already roundly rejected by unanimous consensus.
Yeah, it's not like he asked "who would you want to start game 5 of the World Series" or some other meaningless game like that.
Fun Fact: A.J. Burnett and Jack Morris have the same ERA+
That's an important number, but it should not define AJ Burnett's career.
No misunderstanding. If I'm asked, "You're about to play Game 7 of the World Series, who would you like to start," I pick the guy I think is the better pitcher -- as would anyone. Why would you pick Morris over Blyleven if you think Blyleven's a better pitcher?
You're adding entirely unnecessary complexity to a simple question.
Watch:
"World Series Game 7, you have your choice of Jack Morris or Jamie Moyer, who do you pick?" Jack Morris.
"World Series Game 7, you have your choice of Jack Morris or Charlie Hough, who do you pick?" Jack Morris.
"World Series Game 7, you have your choice of Jack Morris or Pedro Martinez, who do you pick?" Pedro Martinez.
Wait, what? Who said Morris?
No one. Lederer punted the question. Why didn't he pick Blyleven?
So I repeat:
By the way, I must have missed it over the holidays, but what happened to the bookmark function?
Why Lederer didn't answer, "Blyleven" if he believes Blyleven was a better pitcher -- as he presumably does.
Jim did some system work. It was lost in the upgrade, though hopefully just temporarily.
Because it's funnier to point out that Blyleven actually beat Morris head-to-head in the post season when the implication of the question is that Morris is a gamer who would obviously be better than Blyleven in the post season.
And so I repeat again:
You are literally the only person mystified by Lederer's answer.
My guess is diplomacy.
I'm distinguishing, as the HOF criteria do, between playing ability and playing record. If I'm picking one game, I pick the guy with the higher playing ability. Presumably, Lederer understands the distinction -- it's not complicated.
Except that implication is entirely imagined. It's a simple question, free from guile.
To the extent there's anything implied, it's along the lines of, "Even though Blyleven had a better statistical record than Morris, do you really think he was a better pitcher?"
I don't agree with him on Morris (or much of anything else, for that matter), but what's "trolling" about arguing in favor of a candidate (Morris) with widespread HoF support, if it's not "trolling" to spend just as much time arguing against another potential candidate (Ichiro) whose likely support is nearly unanimous?
BTW I'm not saying that those who are arguing against Ichiro are trolling, only that Sugar Bear's not, either. He simply represents a POV that few of us here subscribe to, but what's the big deal about that?
If it's one game for my life, Hershiser. He was better at his best than Morris.
He isn't doing that in this thread though. As post 37 points out, he is just intentionally ignoring what Lederer actually said.
Also, have you read his arguments for Morris? I have read a lot of posts from SBB, he is not stupid. The arguments he makes for Morris are not good arguments and I have never seen him take the positions he takes in favor of Morris for any other player in any other discussion. He is just being a homer about it because he really liked Morris when he was a kid or something, or he just likes trolling and found it to be a convenient opportunity.
His rank intellectual dishonesty. Same as any other argument he gets into here.
He's not arguing for Morris here, he's pretending to be baffled by a Lederer quote that no one else is having trouble deciphering. And he's taking the transparently bad-faith posture that Lederer secretly thinks that Morris was better than Blyleven and just won't admit it, when anyone can see that Lederer goes out of his way to take Morris down a peg.
Think Hershiser belongs in the Hall too? The difference in their careers is about an extra 700 innings of a 4.75 ERA, or an 82 ERA+.
You mean, "700 innings of pitching to the score."
Given that "prime" is so hard to define here, you could do a more detailed comparison and ask who you'd really have chosen in a given year. From 1970 through '78, it's Blyleven. Morris was really good in 1979, but Blyleven was in fact a tough postseason pitcher for a World Champion that year, so I'll go with Blyleven on experience and postseason chops. Then, till about 1988, there's no reason to choose Morris in any year; Blyleven was always equally good, very durable, always the more wily veteran. I'll pick Morris in 1988, because Blyleven stunk that year, but reverse course in 1990, when Morris stunk. From 1991-93 I'll go with Morris. No postseason in 1994 :)
So yeah, Blyleven.
EDIT: OK, Morris in 1982, too, when Blyleven missed most of the year.
I wouldn't have been troubled by his election. The 4.4% he got in his second year was a joke.
I don't have a one-size-fits-all solution, but players who did their best work during Hershiser's peak aren't being properly evaluated. The TTO era, with its more easily obtainable outlier seasons, is primarily at fault.
I know you're being sarcastic, but once again I might as well point out the record. Jack allowed earned runs (and I assume total runs) at a rate 5% better than the league. He got run support 11% better than the league - 4.9 per game vs a 4.4 league average on BB-ref.
That's an expected winning % of .578. His actual was .577.
Edit: or .573 if I use pythagenpat instead of 2 for an exponent. Close enough. He won the games you should expect given his great offensive support (which he literally had nothing to do with in the DH league) and his good pitching.
Yeah, when you get thanked by a Hall of Famer in his induction speech because you got the enlightened masses of the BBWAA to buy your statistical arguments, and when reporters come to you with this question in the first place because of such skill, it stands to reason that you're good at winning friends and influencing people and getting more flies with honey, etc.
Internally I would answer the question "Blyleven," but I'd like to think I would give a reporter an answer similar to Rich's here. That's good communication. Because even a reasoned and Morris-sympathetic answer that ends up saying you'd take Blyleven is likely only going to raise the hackles of Morris supporters and end your argument right then and there: "What are you crazy? Get your head out of a spreadsheet and watch a game sometime!"
This is a question that is asked to get a certain response, to make a certain point, and a well-reasonsed response to the contrary is going to turn off the question asker. (Not altogether unlike asking whether Player X or Derek Jeter was more likely to have used steroids.)
I guess it boils down to the fact that I must be a "Small Troll" guy who thinks that there's a fine line between intellectual dishonesty and intellectual confusion, and just because it seems to be the former in the eyes of those reading it doesn't mean that it was intentionally written just to irritate---and that's what I consider "trolling".
Is Ray "trolling" when he spends hours (and sometimes days) on end claiming that man-made global warning is a "hoax"? Are people "trolling" when they make the claim that white people are more likely to be victims of racism these days than black people? Maybe so, but it's also entirely possible that they actually believe their own gibberish, and to me that latter attribute removes a person from the "troll" category, however annoying they can often be.
And I don't really see that what SBB is doing is all that fundamentally different, even if his repetition and his selective use of facts sometimes gives him the appearance of simply trying to argue for argument's sake.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.