Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Silva: Did Pettitte’s 250 Lock Him for Hall of Fame?
(sportsmediawatchdog.com)
I accept responsibility for those two uhh three uhhh four uhhhh five days.
Read More...Andy Pettitte locked up his 250th career win this past weekend against the Mariners. It now could be said the win also locked up his Hall of Fame candidacy, something that many thought was dead and buried after his retirement in 2010.
The naysayers will point out how Pettitte is the anti-Hall of Famer. He is good, not great. He is more a model of consistency than dominance. You could even point out the advantages ...
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 2 of 3 pages
< 1 2 3 >And then there's Bud Geracie...
Barry Bonds will get Hall of Fame vote, but Roger Clemens can wait
Yeah, that's a blue ribbon argument. Bonds is a known juicer whose best years came at an advanced age, after he was known to have juiced. Clemens is an accused juicer whose sole witnesses against him were either discredited or equivocal, and during his alleged juicing years, he did nothing more than match his previous best years, and even there in rate stats only.
I can see voting for both of them, I can see voting for Clemens only (which I would), and I can even see some people voting for neither of them. But voting for Bonds but not Clemens is just screwy by any sort of coherent standard.
High Heat 2001 is my second most-played baseball videogame, so it's fun now that guys who's video-game careers I remember better than their actual careers are coming up for election. Batista was a monster in that game (since it's based on 2000 stats), and they bothered to make him a custom stance. Preston Wilson somehow ended up on way too many of my teams even though I rarely tried to acquire him. Rondell White was great although I seem to recall him getting injured almost as often as in real life.
He either had an unusually tall head or he wore his hat up too high. I remember him as being really fat, but looking up pictures he wasn't that fat. I think he may have been traded to the Mets either with or for Bubba Trammel.
Even throwing out Palmeiro, McGwire, Bonds and Sosa
It sounds like he's voting no on Sosa because of steroids, but then I don't understand the yes on Clemens.
Serious question: consensus here is that Bagwell is a lot better (total value) than Frank Thomas? They're about the same? (I can't imagine that Thomas had more overall value, but I guess it is an option.)
Criteria #5 for the Hall of Fame: "5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." Yes, it comes right out and says integrity, sportsmanship and character.
Given those formal established criteria, only a fool or an idiot could cast a vote for a known PED user.
PED Accused: Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, Palmeiro
'Clean': Schilling, Walker, Trammell, Raines, Lofton, Edgar Martinez, Biggio
For 50+ you can add...
PED Accused: McGwire, Piazza, Sosa
'Clean': None
For 40+...
PED Accused: None
'Clean': David Wells, Fred McGriff, Bernie Williams, Dale Murphy, Steve Finley
Others likely to get votes...
PED Accused: None.
'Clean': Mattingly ('leader' who only got into playoffs once with the Yankees somehow), Julio Franco (for long career), Jack Morris (sigh), Reggie Sanders (300 HR & 300 SB...never noticed), Shawn Green (300+ HR), Lee Smith (had saves record for a long time)
How bizarre that a guy who is ranked between Julio Franco & Reggie Sanders for WAR is the most likely to get in outside of Biggio who is 11th in WAR this year. That's right - if you did a ballot based on B-R WAR Biggio wouldn't make your ballot. Now _that_ is a crowded ballot and next year you add Maddux, Mussina, Glavine, and Frank Thomas plus all-time HR king for 2B Jeff Kent thus unless 3 or 4 get in this year next years will be more crowded. Then Randy Johnson & Pedro Martinez get added. Then Griffey Jr. Then Manny, I-Rod, and Vladimir Guerrero (assuming none get to play again). Then Chipper Jones and whoever else retired after last year (is Jim Thome still kicking?). It'll be a long time before this mess is cleaned up.
Hype. Same reason he was voted onto the All Star Team while hitting .241 with 4 RBI his second season.
Tell me about it. Sandy Alomar Jr. somehow made it to 6 All-Star Games, starting 3. My theory is that he was an entirely Beckett (baseball card price guide) driven "star."
He was a rookie in 1990, which is right about when the baseball card industry had its broadest reach. Lots of people who had never paid attention to baseball before thought they could get rich by investing in rookie cards. Alomar was named Rookie of the Year, therefore his rookie card was sought after, therefore people thought he was a star, therefore people voted him to All-Star Game after All-Star Game.
Adam Dunn (and others) say hi.
Morris doesn't belong in the HOF, but I'm rooting for him anyway because the '84 Tigers are so criminally under-represented. Whitaker and Trammell belong in, certainly, and probably Darrel Evans, too. And Parrish and Gibson are HoVG'ers, at least.
That's sorta where I stand. I was a 12-year-old Tiger fan in 1984 and I wish that team got more respect. Trammell and Whitaker are clearly deserving HOFers. The other guys named probably aren't, but all of them -- even Morris -- have some positive arguments.
Parrish has a surprisingly good case, when you compare him to other catchers. I can't quite convince myself he's a Hall of Famer, but he's not that far away. He was an 8-time All-Star, 6-time Silver Slugger winner, and 3-time Gold Glove winner. He ended up with 324 home runs, quite impressive for a catcher (technically only 299 of those were as a catcher -- but that trails only Piazza, Fisk, Bench, Rodriguez, and Berra). He threw out base-stealers at a 39% rate over his career, and I believe he had a reputation as a good plate-blocker.
So he was clearly one of the better offensive catchers of his era, and one of the better defensive catchers of his era. And even though his career "seems" short to me -- he only really had one good year after leaving the Tigers -- he managed to spend 19 years in the majors and ranks 11th in games played at catcher.
He finished with 36 career WAR and a 106 career OPS+, which compares favorably only to a few of the lower-end (mistake?) HOFers like Rick Ferrell and Ray Schalk, but looks OK among the "next tier" of guys who have been left out (not a complete list):
Ted Simmons: 46.7 WAR, 118 OPS+
Thurman Munson: 43.3 WAR, 116 OPS+
Wally Schang: 41.4 WAR, 117 OPS+
Bill Freehan: 41.3 WAR, 112 OPS+
Jorge Posada: 39 WAR, 121 OPS+
Jason Kendall: 38.3 WAR, 95 OPS+
Darrell Porter: 37.8 WAR, 113 OPS+
Javy Lopez: 27.2 WAR, 112 OPS+
Benito Santiago: 24.5 WAR, 93 OPS+
Bob Boone: 24.4 WAR, 82 OPS+
WAR likes his defense, and he did bat .292 over his career, which helped him put up a not-bad .346 OBP even with midding walk numbers.
"From now on, Darrell, the Hall of Fame will be the NO EVANSES CLUB!"
"But you have Dwight in there!"
"No EvanSES, plural. We're allowed to have one!"
"*sigh*"
Munson's life was tragically short, but his career actually wasn't all that short for a catcher. He was 32 when he died. As noted above by Cooper and Bob, Parrish only had 1 or 2 seasons worth a damn after age 30. From age 33 on, Parrish accumulated only 6.9 career WAR. Ted Simmons was even worse, 0.8 career WAR from age 33 on (his very good age-33 season (1983) was almost entirely wiped out by his horrific age-34 season (1984)). Bill Freehan last played at age 34 (1.9 career WAR from age 33 on). And so on; Munson's HOF case was very unlikely to change if he survived that plane ride.
White actually did two tours of duty with the Pirates - one as a young guy, and one as a grizzled vet.
My one big Rick White memory is actually from when he was with Tampa. He and Jim Mecir were in the outfield shagging flies during BP, and they ran into each other and Mecir broke his elbow and was out for the year.
What's interesting about this is that the Tigers always seemed to be a very well liked team by the press both during their heyday in the mid-80s and after retirement. I don't recall reading a lot of negative stuff about any of those guys back when.
I think both guys fail on the "did they seem like Hall of Famers when they played" test. Not arguing whether they were or were not but Dwight was always 3rd/4th on the Sox superstar list in terms of perception with some combinations of Yaz, Rice, Lynn, Boggs, Clemens ahead of him. Darrell seems to have the same issue and I think in his case he also suffers from having played for multiple teams. I have the very unscientific opinion that players who aren't clearly identified with one team are at a bit of a disadvantage. It's not fatal but I think it explains a little bit of the totals for guys like Cone and Brown and I think will be an issue for Sheffield in a couple of years.
And here I thought being elected to the HoF was an individual honor, not a team honor. Silly me.
I think you're right, and the "at that time" case against Darrell is pretty obvious. When he played, the three holy numbers were average, HR, and RBI. He was lousy in the first one (career .248), pretty good in the second but not a consistent threat (two 40 HR seasons 12 years apart, but only two more with 30 or more), and not so good in the last (only one 100 RBI season).
The things he did particularly well were not highly regarded or were barely noticed when he played: he got a ton of walks, he avoided double plays, and he had some defensive flexibility. (Evans played 22 games at shortstop -- all of them at age 35 and 36!) He also had an oddly shaped career, with a late start, a brief peak at 26-27, a lot of meh years in his "prime" from 28 to 35, then a second extended peak in his late 30s and into his 40s. But by that time, everyone already thought of him as "just another guy."
He also had an oddly shaped career, with a late start, a brief peak at 26-27, a lot of meh years in his "prime" from 28 to 35, then a second extended peak in his late 30s and into his 40s.
Darrell Evans' best WAR seasons by age:
1. 26
2. 27
3. 40
4. 38
5. 33
6. 36
7. 25
8. 31
9. 39
Weird, right?
Voters really are this dumb. Voters really think Morris was a winner, and That Game Seven proves it.
Because you disagree with him?
Except Morris, whose relationship with the press could most generously be described as "testy." Another trait he shares with Rice.
That wouldn't surprise me at all.
It also wouldn't surprise me if there's an anti-sabermetric backlash element among at least a few of the voters.
I don't know. Someone here (I don't remember who to give credit to, sorry) once posted that you know someone doesn't have a legit HOF case when their supporters have to rely on unique arguments that they'd never use for anyone else. The main points of one of the most prominent (only?) Morris suporters here is that he made lots of opening day starts and he was one of the highest paid pitchers in the game. Or basically, that management thought he was much better than he actually was. Really? That's a HOF argument?
Jim Rice was the most feared slugger in the league! (How could you possibly know this?) Jack Morris pitched to the score! He was a winner and a gamer! Sorry, but valid HOF cases are built using stats, not adjectives. When the latter is all you have, I think you must know deep down that you're basing your vote on fanboyism rather than facts.
Yep. It evinces "playing ability," an HOF voting criterion expresssly counterposed to "playing record."
This was said rather frequently about him when he was playing (and, referred to the American League, rather than baseball as a whole). It doesn't make him any more qualified for the Hall of Fame than if they said he was the most dainty, but the idea that the voters in the mid-2000s conjured up this out of nowhere is patently false.
The argument of Jack Morris's BBWAA supporters is very straightforward and traditional. He was the best pitcher of the 1980s and one of the finest postseason pitchers of all-time. Their evidence in support of these two positions is, again, very straightforward and traditional. Jack Morris had more pitching wins than anybody else in the 1980s and Jack Morris won one of the best pitchers' duels in World Series history. These are poor arguments that rely on weak and cherry-picked stats, but they're not particularly unique.
If you're a troll, I guess it can be.
"Troll" -- what a fresh and exciting term!!!! You must be so proud.
I didn't mean to imply that it was made up post-career or that it might not have even been true. I just meant that it's an irrelevant adjective that has nothing to do with his HOF worthiness, and that it's an argument you just don't see made with anyone else (at least I haven't).
And that I agree with. I just thought, and still do, that the attempts to disprove the contention when Rice was on the ballot were counterproductive (and poorly executed). "So what?" was the proper response, not "No he wasn't."
Eh. I don't remember much "most hits in the 90's!" support for Mark Grace and there's been plenty of other postseason heroes who never got a sniff at the hall. Like Morris, Joe Carter had some pretty good counting stats in a few categories due to his longevity and he produced an all time great postseason moment as well (yes, I know Morris was better than Carter).
It does seem like a fairly unique argument to me.
I think you're too far onto the sabermetric side of things to understand how ingrained, traditional, and utterly non-unique is the idea that pitcher wins are THE measure of how good a pitcher is. There are probably dozens of pitchers who are in the Hall of Fame - deservedly and undeservedly so - because of how many pitcher wins they accumulated, either in their career (Sutton, Spahn, Niekro, Wynn, et al.) or in some particular subset of seasons (Hunter, Gomez, Palmer, Ruffing, et al.). Among traditional stats, pitcher wins are not merely a "counting stat" like hits or RBIs; for pitchers, they are THE counting stat.
Morris pitched to the score, thus he was actually more valuable than his mediocre ERA would lead you to believe! Have you heard this argument made for anyone else? I haven't.
Except it far outstripped his contemporaries. That's why it isn't being ignored (rightly or wrongly).
Depends on where you put the line as far as contemporaries go. And it doesn't far outstrip similar pitchers like Denny Martinez. It barely surpasses him.
It crushes him between 1979 and 1992. 233 to 162.
I'm sure you've heard all the arguments against selective endpoints...
You're obviously new to the experience of arguing with SugarBear.
Where he really outstrips his contemporaries is his CG total. He really dwarfs the guys who came up at the same time or later.*
Neither the wins nor the CG make him a Hall of Famer.
* In large part, obviously, due to changing usage patterns. Even so, his lead is pretty damn huge.
Yeah, the Tigers were a pretty good team in the 80s. Elect Whitaker and Trammell.
But, as you say, they are things at which he outstripped his contemporaries. His wins and CG advantages aren't the product of "selective endpoints," "cherry-picking," "data mining" or any such thing. They're real.
Page 2 of 3 pages
< 1 2 3 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.