We don't bother looking for the third-base coach, or long-time assistant, who could have been Lombardi or Sparky if only given the chance.

Irrelevant. Rick Reuschel didn't spend his time warming up on the sidelines because his team had Fergie Jenkins in an old Hoss world where a starting pitcher throws every day. He pitched just as much as Hunter did, and pitched more effectively. HOF is for the best player, not players who played for the best team. Most people can recognize that despite their infielder W-L record, Ernie Banks was a better infielder than Bobby Richardson. There's no reason we shouldn't look at pitchers the same way.

Rank in DER from 1972-74: 2nd, 2nd, 2nd

To be fair, this should probably be park-adjusted in some way; Oakland's massive foul territory gives their defense plenty of free outs.

Also to be fair, the same park effect cuts both ways; their offense would be even better than it looks from raw run totals.

It's just the way I remember it. Hunter and Palmer were considered the two best pitchers in the AL at the time

I remember it that way too, except for Palmer "at the time" was 1969-78 or so, and for Hunter it was about 1971-75. The thing is there were 5 year periods when Dave Stieb, Bret Saberhagen, David Cone, Steve Rogers, Mickey Lolich and Vida Blue were also considered elite pitchers and no one is pushing them for HOF. Five years of clear all-star/sometimes CYA status isn't really enough for most people to enter the HOF. I think Andy Pettitte will get in under the Morris precedent.

To be fair, this should probably be park-adjusted in some way; Oakland's massive foul territory gives their defense plenty of free outs.

True, but no matter how you split that DER between fielders and ballpark, it all helps Hunter and the rest of the Oakland pitchers.

Irrelevant. Rick Reuschel didn't spend his time warming up on the sidelines because his team had Fergie Jenkins in an old Hoss world where a starting pitcher throws every day. He pitched just as much as Hunter did, and pitched more effectively.

If at all, only adjusted for purported "advantage." Saber orthodoxy assumes, without addressing, whether this is the right way to go about things. I'd say no -- that's not how life actually works, nor how it should work.

In a team context, we're better off preferring and validating performance that contributes to more effective actual team results than the more ambiguous and atomistic "more effective performance." It's easy to see why saberists see it otherwise, given the way they treasure the loner struggling against the incompetencies and misperceptions of his fellow men. (*) And thus a Rick Reuschel, pitching "effectively," but otherwise suffering the pain of being let down and brought down by his mundane teammates, is so appealing a figure.

(*) Thus, the insistent quest to isolate a players' contributions to only those things he's "responsible for" that lies at the very heart of sabermetrics -- in other words, the insistent quest to treat an individual player as if he's playing with no teammates, or merely generic and inhuman teammates. But Rick Reuschel was forced to play baseball with other human beings. That's life. And that's baseball.

we're better off preferring and validating performance that contributes to more effective actual team results

What does this mean? What stats or information would you use to do this?

Irrelevant. Rick Reuschel didn't spend his time warming up on the sidelines because his team had Fergie Jenkins in an old Hoss world where a starting pitcher throws every day. He pitched just as much as Hunter did, and pitched more effectively.

If at all, only adjusted for purported "advantage."

OK, then. No adjustments allowed.

Rick Reuschel: 3.37 ERA
Jack Morris: 3.90 ERA

Well, since we're restricted to what actually happened, we don't have to speculate about how resistible Morris's narrative is. He's been on the ballot for 13 years and still not made it so clearly the narrative is very resistible.

Kirby Puckett has a case for an irresistible narrative. Catfish Hunter might, Dizzy Dean might. But the very voting histories of guys like Morris and Rice are not those of irresistible narratives. Jim Rice started out under 30%; Morris didn't even break 30% until his 6th year on the ballot. A strong majority of voters started out thinking they were HoFers.

Their voting histories are the product of a mix of things: varying levels of quality of HoF ballots being a key one. In 1998, Jim Rice received 42%. Then, in 1999, Ryan, Brett, Yount and Fisk came onto the ballot. Suddenly Jim Rice is back below 30%. Does this make sense? Of course not. About 12% of voters went for Rice in 98 because it was a relatively weak ballot then in 99 said "hold on a second, he's not as good as these 4 guys, I'm dropping him off the ballot." OK, maybe they were morons who had forgotten that there were greater players in the game until being reminded. Except of course that he jumped over 50% in 2000. So those 12% who decided he wasn't good enough in 99 decided he was good enough again in 2000? Nothing changed but the names on the ballot.

To pretend that any of this "makes sense" is simply pretense in support of the notion that it makes sense for Morris or Rice to make the HoF. They're making the HoF due to a screwed up mix of politics, HoF droughts, random fluctuation, surviving voter birthyears and the desire to CREATE a narrative to justify the behavior.

TR, as I said, I'd have agreed with you on Hunter at the time. But even if you're right, that he was the key man of those A's teams (debatable obviously), that's just 4 seasons. He was also a key man of the 75 Yanks so that gives him 5 seasons. And that is an impressive run, especially using the "superficial" standards of the time -- lots of wins, a CYA (and 2, 3, 4 finishes) and lots of AS games.

But outside of those 5 years? Prior to Oakland's run he had 1300 IP of a 94 OPS+ and 73-78 record. After 75, he had 660 IP with a 91 ERA+ and 40-39 record.

Even if we call those 5 seasons great (again, debatable), should 5 great seasons plus 9-10 average seasons be enough to make the HoF? If we're talking a Pedro or Koufax 5 years then sure but Hunter's clearly far short of that.

And those Oakland teams were great but you do seem to be under-rating the rest of the personnel. From 71 to 74, the A's were 3rd, 2nd, 1st and 3rd in runs scored despite playing in a pitcher's park. While the only HoFer among the position players was Reggie, much of the rest of the lineup are HoVG players -- Campy, Bando, Tenace (short career) -- and guys with really nice runs for the A's (Rudi, North, Epstein). And of course that great, deep pitching staff. Blue was far and away the best pitcher on the 71 team and Holtzmann has an argument for the 73 team. They were also one of the first teams to recognize the value of a strong bullpen.

All told from 71-74, Hunter had 1143 IP, 122 ERA+ and 88-35. Blue had 1009 IP, 121 ERA+ and 67-42, which is heavily dominated by his 71. Holtzman showed up in 72 and had 818 IP, 115 ERA+ and 59-41. Hunter was the best of that bunch but it wasn't exactly a blowout.

Those A's teams were aweseome because, like a lot of awesome teams, they were chock full of very good players on both sides of the ball, not 4-5 great ones surrounded by mediocrity. The only positions where the A's didn't have potential all-stars were 2B and 4th starter (and occasionally an OF spot and they fielded excellent platoons at 1B that hit like an AS but obviously no individual was gonna be an all-star).

If you want to put it another way, those A's teams were very good players sometimes having great seasons. Mike Epstein is nobody's idea of a great player but in his 2 platoon seasons in Oakland, he put up a 148 OPS+. Rudi wasn't a great player but he put up a 151 OPS+ in 72 and a 140 in 74. In 73-74, Tenace is credited with 9 WAR. That 74 team had SIX position players with 3.8 WAR or more. Hunter did lead that team in WAR but he had a lot of help.

And while the sentiment of "this was a great team, it must have had some great players" is understandable, singling out one of those players because he was slightly better than the others is exactly what many of us speak against -- don't hand out individual awards based on the quality of teammates.

Which is not to say that's what you've done. If you feel Hunter's 5-year run surrounded by mediocrity is worthy of induction then so be it. I do hope you have applied that same test to other pitchers.

What does this mean? What stats or information would you use to do this?

W-L records
Morris: 254-186
Big Daddy: 214-191

Pennants, WS appearances etc...

IOW anything that makes Morris look better than Reuschel

SBB redux: Life is unfair so it is only fair that we reward those who have had the good fortune to benefit from life's unfairness.

A strong majority of voters started out thinking they were HoFers.

NOT HoFers obviously

And while the sentiment of "this was a great team, it must have had some great players" is understandable, singling out one of those players because he was slightly better than the others is exactly what many of us speak against -- don't hand out individual awards based on the quality of teammates.

Morris on the 1980s Tigers wasn't slightly better than Trammel or Whitaker- he was not as good as they

then you get Parrish and Lemon and Gibson...

Catfish is in because he was a MAJOR star when pitching, it never occurred to me that he wasn't a deserving HOFer until 1990 or so.


21-7 2.04
25-12 2.49
23-14 2.58

those are terrific-fabulous LOOKING seasons, its only when you look deeply under the hood- pitcher's park, low offense era, very good team support.

21-5 3.34- you look at that and you'd guess and ERA+ of 140 or so right? No, 107- that was 1973, the As lead the league in scoring at 4.68 per game, they gave Hunter 5.58

Hunter's 1973 was like Morris' 1992, 21-6 with a 101 ERA+
In 1992 the Jays weren't first in runs, they were 2nd, 11 behind Detroit, 4.81 runs per game, but they gave Morris over 5 and half per game

In 1975 Big Daddy had 234 ip of 102 ERA+ ball, he went 11-17, the Cubs averaged 4.40 runs per game (well off the 5.19 scored by the Reds that year) but gave him just 3.96 runs per game- if he got 5.5+ like 73 Catfish and 92 Morris does he still go 11-17?

He said: “You’ve seen me pitch long enough to know that ERA is not a big deal to me, I care about wins.

You know, maybe if ERA had been a bigger deal to Morris, he would have been a better pitcher, won a lot more games, and sailed into the HOF.

Okay, what is the over/under on Morris threads before end of the year? Doesn't matter I'm better the over regardless.

So he was at 67% last year. Is the upcoming election (voting revealed in Jan, 2013, I believe) his final year on the ballot? Sorry for the dumb question.

This coming year will be his 14th and penultimate year on the ballot, but his 15th year will coincide with the debuts of Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. There's no way he's breaking through with those two around, so this year is essentially his best shot, since the major pitchers debuting are Roger Clemens (steroid taint) and Curt Schilling (legal issues with his gaming company, plus some people may not think he's good enough).

Francesspool today: "Justin Verlander is every bit as good as Jack Morris."

Well, that's true. I mean, he's every bit as good as Jack Morris and (much, much) more, but you know, close enough.

Curt Schilling (legal issues with his gaming company, plus some people may not think he's good enough).

On the other hand, Schilling's postseason record is superficially enormously superior to Morris's, so his debut may be more harmful than would be expected.

"I am a huge Catfish Hunter supporter but seem to be among the minority in this group."

I have always supported the fact that he never deserved a single top 15 vote in Hall of MERIT yet I believe he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

The real-life narrative of a 3-time WS champ 72-73-74 with this moustachioed guy leading the way in the postseason success, and 6 or so 20-win seasons.....

If you are old enough like me to remember those days, this non-fan of him has to say that if he is ignored at a shrine in the 1970s baseball section, why bother opening your doors?

And no, this doesn't get Morris in, either. Check out both of their postseason peaks...

That's because the dominant voices in this group use Hall of Fame discussions as a surrogate for the Hall of Merit, and refuse to acknowledge any difference between them. Not much you can do about it but be glad that their opinions didn't weigh much when Catfish came up for a vote.

Not true, Andy. We acknowledge the difference between them: the HOF is the HOM for stupid people.