And that wouldn't have anything to do with an outfield manned by Dave Kingman, Jerry Martin, Mike Vail, Scot Thompson, Bill Buckner, Larry Biitner, and Cliff Johnson? Good lord, has any team had so many natural born 1B and DH patrolling their outfield? Those guys combined for 3400 of the team's 4400 outfield defensive innings.

It's certainly a strong possibility, which is the very reason I included the fact about his hit total in my post. But that year looks like a performance outlier in terms of his days on the northside.

But that year looks like a performance outlier in terms of his days on the northside.

Well, it's also an outlier in terms of UER. That year he allowed only 6, but the previous 2 years he allowed 14 and 18. So while his RA in 1980 is still the worst of the three, it's not quite so dramatic compared to ERA.

No, remove the boost and look at just his ERA+ and innings numbers and he's comparable to Jim Bunning. If we want to see pitchers recognized at a rate commensurate to their contribution they're both in. I'm fine with Pettitte being elected too.

I can get on board with that. I thought the general consensus around here was that guys like Pettitte shouldn't be in, and Bunning would be a mistake.

But if we're going to lower the SP bar (which we should) then Reuschel fits in comfortably with the Pettitte, Stieb, Cone, Tommy John crew.

Edit: interesting that Reuschel's ERA is not that much higher than his FIP for his career (3.37 vs. 3.22). '74 is a huge outlier (4.30 vs. 3.33) and '75 a big one (3.73 vs. 3.16), but the rest of his career is unremarkable.

Edit: interesting that Reuschel's ERA is not that much higher than his FIP for his career (3.37 vs. 3.22). '74 is a huge outlier (4.30 vs. 3.33) and '75 a big one (3.73 vs. 3.16), but the rest of his career is unremarkable.

That may be more of a reflection on the unreliability of FIP as a predictive tool in past decades due to the smaller number of Three True Outcomes at-bats than anything else...but I suppose that would even out over the entirety of a career and it might be a more useful tool for whole careers (though I have no idea).

I thought the general consensus around here was that guys like Pettitte shouldn't be in, and Bunning would be a mistake.

Huh? Bunning is already in.

Huh? Bunning is already in.

I know bad phrasing. I meant "would be considered a mistake".

If Andruw was the best CF ever to play, better than Willie, better than DiMaggio, that and 434 home runs punches his ticket to Cooperstown, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think it's particularly close, either.

OK, but that's not a sabermetric case.

I could just as easily say Pettitte has 245 wins, with a .633 W% (>100 more wins than losses), that punches his ticket to Cooperstown, and I don't think it's particularly close.

There is no logical standard where Jones is a slam dunk HoFer and Pettitte an afterthought.

Well, it's also an outlier in terms of UER. That year he allowed only 6, but the previous 2 years he allowed 14 and 18. So while his RA in 1980 is still the worst of the three, it's not quite so dramatic compared to ERA.

He also had some high UER rates in seasons outside Chi-N.

All I'm saying is the Dennis Lamp improved case is built entirely on two seasons, his final year on the Northside and the next year on the South Side. But the two seasons surrounding them (his last two with the Cubs, first two with the White Sox) look pretty equal in terms of results, with a slight edge to his NL days. As evidence of systemic underperformance due to defense*, it's pretty weak. And yet, it's still stronger than the other guys mentioned.

* Now, I'm not claiming the defense in Wrigley wasn't woeful, only that you really can't divine it from any of the examples listed. There just isn't enough there.

it was an exceptionally weak ballot and they have a rule that the top vote-getters are inducted

Fair enough, though isn't the rationale of the HOM still that their algorithm produces a Hall of the size of the current HOF, but with the "mistakes" replaced by the most deserving candidates? Or has the HOM itself made "mistakes" because of a flaw in their balloting structure? I'm really not sure what the consensus is on that question. There are a few HOMers who are my idea of non-immortals (Pierce, Stieb, Saberhagen, Reuschel, Freehan, Randolph), but I've been reckoning that the HOF itself is so large that the "right" mix would include a fair swath of such players, and that the HOM voters have tended to make the correct decisions in ranking them.

I guess another way of seeing it is that the larger a Hall, the larger the grey area at its threshold, as you move the line for induction "leftwards" along the tail of the all-time talent distribution. There are simply way more arguably similar players to Randolph or Reuschel than there are arguably similar ones to Barry Bonds or Walter Johnson.

There is no logical standard where Jones is a slam dunk HoFer and Pettitte an afterthought.

For a peak/prime voter who doesn't give a large amount of postseason credit, Pettitte is an afterthought. He had only three seasons in his career (1996, 1997, and 2005) where he was among the 20 best pitchers in MLB. He was a durable, mildly average starter outside of those three seasons.

Andruw Jones, if you believe he was one of the two or three best defensive CF of all time, had a run of seven or eight seasons where he was a worthy All-Star and borderline MVP candidate. Pettitte, again, has only the three.

For a career voter, sure, Pettitte is reasonably worthy and in line with Jones. And I'm skeptical of the extent of Jones' defensive excellence, so I wouldn't put him in right now. But Andruw Jones and Andy Pettitte do not have HoF cases which bear any resemblance to each other, and there are lots of logical standards which can differentiate them with no trouble at all.

Guys like Mays and Speaker may well have been just as good [defensively as Andruw] - they almost certainly were, if they weren't better - but the regression to the mean in TZ hides that. They rate as roughly as dominant within their eras as Jones does within his.

BTW, we need to standard deviation-ize everything. It's leading to all sorts of problems.

There is no logical standard where Jones is a slam dunk HoFer and Pettitte an afterthought.

How about a heavily peak/dominance-based case? I know I have some peaky tendencies, so it can't be *too* not-logical (haha). Just a cursory look: Pettitte only has three years over 4 WAR, while Jones has eight (you raise it up to 5 WAR and it's three and six, 6 WAR and two and five) and Jones has the WAA advantage 36.1 to 29.5. I'm not saying that this would nearly fulfill the standard of "slam dunk vs. afterthought", but if you're really into big years and don't think that the alternative is particularly relevant (and I know I stray dangerously close to this area), I could definitely see how Jones would rank well above Pettitte in your calculation, perhaps with one over the line and one behind.

Frankly, I would want to look at it a lot more closely, but on face, it would seem that that kind of case *could* be made.

EDIT: It looks like Matt got to it well before me. Take a beverage.

I assume everybody here believes that pitching in front of good defenses will lower the ERA and increase the win total.

Not enough to drag a guy with 214 wins with an ERA+ of 114 (and no rings) into Cooperstown. That's just not how it works.

Sometimes people just aren't lucky. Deal with it.

Fair enough, though isn't the rationale of the HOM still that their algorithm produces a Hall of the size of the current HOF, but with the "mistakes" replaced by the most deserving candidates? Or has the HOM itself made "mistakes" because of a flaw in their balloting structure?

I'd say the HoM made mistakes by fixing its size to the actual Hall, because that fix was only for a specific point in time. From there, you'd have to either grow larger than the current Hall* to keep your membership floor fairly consistent, or start keeping out players better than the bottom tier guys already elected.

In either case, you end up with questionable HoMers like Randolph, Stieb and Saberhagen.

* Or get lucky that the Hall began electing many more people, which obviously ain't happening.

Edit: interesting that Reuschel's ERA is not that much higher than his FIP for his career (3.37 vs. 3.22). '74 is a huge outlier (4.30 vs. 3.33) and '75 a big one (3.73 vs. 3.16), but the rest of his career is unremarkable.

A difference of .15 runs per 9 over the course of a 3500 IP career seems rather remarkable to me. That's about 59 runs or 6 full wins, and changes a 114 ERA+ into a 119 FIP+. It's also the 27th highest such difference in history among pitchers with at least 2500 innings (of which there have been 242).

How about a heavily peak/dominance-based case? I know I have some peaky tendencies, so it can't be *too* not-logical (haha). Just a cursory look: Pettitte only has three years over 4 WAR, while Jones has eight (you raise it up to 5 WAR and it's three and six, 6 WAR and two and five) and Jones has the WAA advantage 36.1 to 29.5.

That's the same argument as the defense. Jones' peak is based on otherworldly defensive credit.

I also don't understand peak arguments unless a guy's career is cut short by war or injury or segregation, something beyond his control. To me you shouldn't get cut slack b/c you became fat and terrible at age 31.

Edit: Of course the biggest problem Jones has is he's not better than Jim Edmonds or Kenny Lofton.

A difference of .15 runs per 9 over the course of a 3500 IP career seems rather remarkable to me. That's about 59 runs or 6 full wins, and changes a 114 ERA+ into a 119 FIP+. It's also the 27th highest such difference in history among pitchers with at least 2500 innings (of which there have been 242).

Pettitte's difference is .12 runs per 9 in 3130 IP. Not really very different from Reuschel.

In any case, 27th doesn't speak to pitching in front of historically bad D for his career. Bad? Sure, but Pettitte pitched in front of some really crappy Yankee defense also.

That's the same argument as the defense. Jones' peak is based on otherworldly defensive credit.

Yes.

I don't agree with the position, but it's perfectly logical to be a peak/prime voter who believes Jones was legitimately that great. It's also entirely logical as a peak/prime voter to dismiss Pettitte without a second thought. That position I agree with.

Pettitte just wasn't good enough, even with the full helping of WAR defensive credit, to deserve a second look from a peak/prime voter.

Pettitte's difference is .12 runs per 9 in 3130 IP. Not really very different from Reuschel.

It's a difference of two full wins. Of course terms like "very" and "remarkable" are completely subjective, but six full wins difference seems remarkable to me. Four wins difference is only like 67% as remarkable. But I'm not really comparing Reuschel to Pettitte, just noting that Reuschel's ERA-FIP supports the story that BB-Ref's WAR is telling. Indeed, BB-Ref has Reuschel tied for 32nd all-time in pitcher WAR, with only Halladay and Sabathia likely to pass him anytime soon, while Fangraphs has him at 33rd all-time, with only Halladay, Sabathia, and Pettitte threatening. So it seems to me like any attempt to isolate pitching from defense is going to leave us with the conclusion that Reuschel was an all-time great pitcher and easily HOF-worthy (to the extent that such worthiness is established by rigorous statistical evaluations of value, which is debatable). So the argument isn't whether or not he pitched in front of historically bad defenses, but rather whether or not we want to isolate pitching from defense in the first place.

"isn't the rationale of the HOM still that their algorithm produces a Hall of the size of the current HOF, but with the "mistakes" replaced by the most deserving candidates?"

yes, that's how I've always taken it, and I've voted in every single election.

I understand the criticisms, too. But the level of support when elected, the amount of support in previous years if not elected, and maybe most importantly the rankings by position all serve to make it clear which are the weakest choices - if that is important to any particular person.

Each position of 20-25 choices has about 3 to 6 guys who are near or at the bottom of almost all ballots. It's pretty clear, without too much effort, which ones are the "placeholders" to replace the mstakes.

If we only elected players with X level of support, we'd still have a number of players who are "barely in" - and some observers who reasonably seek to see which players those are.

I just want to point out that Reuschel and A. Jones are not strictly comparable. It's vastly easier to establish a GLOBAL defensive parameter (helps Reuschel) than it is to partition OF chances between LF/CF/RF.

Essentially all you have to do is estimate the probability on GB and FB BIPs to be converted to outs by an average pitcher and defense (possibly replacement level instead).

Fangraphs is extremely useful for this (even if you thing their overall pWAR is wrong)

Palmer has 97.7 RA/9 WAR but loses 27 on BIP and 15.3 on LOB total WAR: 54.6
Reuschel has 70 RA/9 WAR but gains 10 of BIP and loses 7 on LOB. total WAR: 73.4

If I am not mistaken - the main difference between fWAR and bWAR for pitchers is that fWAR throws up it's hands on the partitioning of defense between pitcher and defense, and bWAR tries to split the difference.

I like to think of fWAR as the "upper bound of defensive effects" (strong DIPS) and RA/9 WAR as the "lower bound of defensive effects). Probably a ROT estimate would be to take the geometric mean between fWAR and RA/9 WAR.

I am not sure if bWAR regresses out LOB issues- but I think it's good to have it in front of you to make that judgement yourself.

Palmer, by the way is 6th all time (since 1901) in LOB-wins and 3rd in BIP-wins (number 1 in combined FDP wins)
Catfish is 4th in BIP wins... despite the short career.

Nolan Ryan is the only HOFer near the bottom (3rd) of FDPwins with -19.9 (-30 LOB-wins! 1st all time of course). Don Sutton is 2nd with -17.


Other the Reuschel, Jim Kaat, Tommy John, and Bob Friend (most underrated pitcher of all time?) are the only dudes with >60fWAR and <-10 BIP-WAR.

Wouldn't put Friend in the HOF though. Nor Jim Kaat. Reuschel seems clearly superior. I think Tommy John is very marginal but he did invent that surgery.

I used to have a book called "Chicago Cubs," a history of the franchise, which had an article about this game, in which Reuschel threw a 12-hit shutout. When they asked Reuschel how he managed to throw a shutout despite allowing 12 hits, he responded, "Damn good defense." In fact, that was the title of the article: "Damn Good Defense."

That was in front of the 1974 Cubs.

I am not sure if bWAR regresses out LOB issues- but I think it's good to have it in front of you to make that judgement yourself.

They do not. bWAR does account for relief support, but a pitcher gives up three hits in a row for two runs, that's on him.

So I use fWAR-LOB for the lower bound of defensive effects.

These are tiny quibbles, it's a very good post.

[72] 1974 NL, sorted by team DER:

                                   
Tm       R/G DefEff    Ch    E   DP
ATL     3.45   .720  6377  132  161
LAD     3.46   .720  6313  157  122
CIN     3.87   .714  6268  134  151
HOU     3.90   .709  6340  113  161
MON     4.08   .706  6363  153  157
STL     3.99   .706  6346  147  192
PIT     4.06   .705  6414  162  154
SFG     4.46   .703  6318  175  153
LgAvg   4.15   .702  6344  154  153
PHI     4.33   .697  6288  148  168
NYM     3.99   .694  6365  158  150
SDP     5.12   .681  6267  170  126
CHC     5.10   .672  6473  199  141

Tom - that's a great find. Thanks

This is the book, part of a series called Baseball's Great Teams [sic]. It may still be in my parents' attic, for all I know.

I don't agree with the position, but it's perfectly logical to be a peak/prime voter who believes Jones was legitimately that great. It's also entirely logical as a peak/prime voter to dismiss Pettitte without a second thought. That position I agree with.

Peak/prime voting confuses me. It seems nobody really votes on peak/prime, otherwise why not support Charlie Keller? He clearly had "Hall of Fame talent") 152 career OPS+, 40.6 WAR in only 4604 PA. Without the war, he likely puts up 50 WAR in 8 seasons.

Even if you give Jones full defensive credit and Keller no war credit, 40 WAR in 4600 PA (with war credit probably 50 WAR in 5600 PAs) seems more like a peak HoFer to me than 58 in 7150 PA (ignoring Jones collapse period).

It seems nobody really votes on peak/prime, otherwise why not support Charlie Keller?

1) Charlie Keller is in the Hall of Merit. With a relatively generous evaluation the 42/43 American League and fair war credit, Keller seems like a similar enough case to Jones.

2) It seems like nobody really votes on peak/prime, otherwise why not support Charlie Keller Sandy Koufax or Dizzy Dean?

I used to have a book called "Chicago Cubs," a history of the franchise, which had an article about this game, in which Reuschel threw a 12-hit shutout. When they asked Reuschel how he managed to throw a shutout despite allowing 12 hits, he responded, "Damn good defense." In fact, that was the title of the article: "Damn Good Defense."

Funny because I would categorize that as a bad defensive game.

Reuschel pitched well -- he allowed no walks or homers while striking out 7. (Granted he got extra opportunities to strike out hitters due to the 12 hits allowed.) But I thought that was one of the points of DIPS, that 12 hits in 9 innings on balls in play just seems unlucky.

The lucky part was that they led to no runs. But I don't know how a defense can be said to have been good in a game that it allowed 12 hits. Was the defense so good that it allowed no runs, and yet such a good defense couldn't prevent 12 hits allowed? What was it, Clutch Defense?

9 of the hits allowed were singles; 3 doubles, FWIW.

FWIW, when b-r "neutralizes" Reuschel, he loses something off of his numbers:

Actual: 214-191, 3.37 ERA
Neutral: 208-172, 3.62 ERA

----

Also, not really related but Sean F has these fun notes buried in the explanation on neutralization:

Aaron with the 2000 Rockies has 1030 career home runs, and with the 1968 Dodgers has 653 home runs.

Cobb has a .436 career average playing for the Rockies.

Pedro with the 1968 Dodgers has a career ERA of 1.75 and with the 2000 Rockies a career ERA of 3.98.

questionable HoMers like Randolph, Stieb and Saberhagen

No worse than Ken Boyer and Billy Pierce from an earlier era. I actually think the Hall of Merit bar for pitchers is too high.

2) It seems like nobody really votes on peak/prime, otherwise why not support Charlie Keller Sandy Koufax or Dizzy Dean?

So two guys in 80 years? Maybe 3 with Kiner.

It's relatively rare for a player to be Hall of Fame quality for long enough to make a true peak/prime argument, but not be even competent long enough to have a true career argument.

However, all players have different weightings of peak / prime / career. Andy Pettitte is nearly all career, so if you are looking for peak/prime, you're not going to find much that's appealing about Pettitte.

Al Rosen is probably the most severe "peak" guy. Among the ten best players in the game over a five year stretch, and thanks to being blocked on the front end and injuries on the back, essentially nothing otherwise.

As to the question as to how big the Hall "should be," about the only way to even begin to answer that kind of question is to try and figure out where the frequency of players of that quality jumps up a bunch, and just above that is the border. Easier said than done though.

No matter where the HOM puts it, it could only change from Willie Randolph being a questionable pick to Charlie Gehringer being a questionable pick. There isn't any level where the issue goes away.

Other peak/prime electees include Dobie Moore and Hughie Jennings. Several people have voted for Al Rosen and Ed Williamson and we see votes for Dean too.

But I don't know how a defense can be said to have been good in a game that it allowed 12 hits.

It's really not that hard. A dozen hard hit balls that no defense could been expected to prevent, and the defense makes a couple of decent plays in the field to prevent more/keep runs off the board. Maybe not likely, but it's not like you need some super keen imagination to envision the possibility.

Most hits are, in fact, hits against everyone. They happen independent of the opponent's defensive prowess.

No worse than Ken Boyer and Billy Pierce from an earlier era.

I didn't say the questionable HoMers were limited to a single era. In fact, the structure makes it easier for an iffy guy earlier in the game's history.

Most hits are, in fact, hits against everyone. They happen independent of the opponent's defensive prowess.

However when you go down that rabbit hole, you don't actually have to stop at the defense. Much the same can be said about pitchers too. Great pitches wind up as hits, meatballs get popped up. There is no bright line where an obvious cutoff in evaluating player contributions starts on any given play other than the end of the previous play. Theoretically you can end the pitching contribution to the play as soon as the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. The same ball leaving the same hand in the same way can result in a whole bunch of different game results.

However when you go down that rabbit hole, you don't actually have to stop at the defense. Much the same can be said about pitchers too. Great pitches wind up as hits, meatballs get popped up. There is no bright line where an obvious cutoff in evaluating player contributions starts on any given play other than the end of the previous play. Theoretically you can end the pitching contribution to the play as soon as the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. The same ball leaving the same hand in the same way can result in a whole bunch of different game results.

I don't see the need to go down that rabbit hole to address the question Ray asked: Can a team have played good defense if it allowed 12 hits? The undeniable answer is "yes.'

Most hits that happen in a baseball game are hits that would have happened against any defense. The question of whether, in an alternate universe, that ball laced to the corner was actually popped up is an interesting thought exercise, but really beyond the scope of evaluating how well a defense played.

I don't see the need to go down that rabbit hole to address the question Ray asked: Can a team have played good defense if it allowed 12 hits? The undeniable answer is "yes.'

Well, you're making the "can" in my initial comment do a lot of heavy lifting. I'd rather rephrase and talk about what giving up 12 hits suggests as to how well a defense played. (Particularly when from all indications the pitcher otherwise pitched well.) That is really more what I was getting at.

And to me it suggests a poor defensive performance, not a good one.

Well, you're making the "can" in my initial comment do a lot of heavy lifting. I'd rather rephrase and talk about what giving up 12 hits suggests as to how well a defense played. (Particularly when from all indications the pitcher otherwise pitched well.) That is really more what I was getting at.

And to me it suggests a poor defensive performance, not a good one.

I was just quoting you. You said "I don't know how a defense can be said to have been good in a game that it allowed 12 hits." If you didn't want it to do such heavy lifting, you shouldn't have piled so much weight on its shoulders. (-:

Generally speaking, I think 12 hits allowed suggests a team probably gave up a few hits that it otherwise might have turned into outs (how the pitcher otherwise threw wouldn't really factor into it for me).

Of course, that isn't all you'd want to look at to determine how well a defense played. Errors/PBs/WPs. DPs. CS/SB. Other outs on the bases.

In the game in question, the Cubs had no errors and turned two DPs. There weren't any runners put out on the bases. But a lot of the Pirates' hits were of the ground ball variety, the very kind that are most susceptible to swing between the hit to out category depending on the capabilities of the infielders.

So, just looking at the play by play, and given this team's reputation, my guess about this particular game is that Reuschel was being slightly charitable to his defenders. But that's just a guess. It's not hard to imagine the Cubs did in fact play a rare nice game behind him.

Fair enough, though isn't the rationale of the HOM still that their algorithm produces a Hall of the size of the current HOF, but with the "mistakes" replaced by the most deserving candidates? Or has the HOM itself made "mistakes" because of a flaw in their balloting structure?

As another poster noted, if there was a "mistake" it was in setting the size to equal the current HoF. Thanks to the VC, there are a lot of "replaceable" HoFers. Not including Negro Leaguers, etc. (because they don't show up in PI), there are about 60 starters in the HoF. Reuschel, Stieb, etc. are in that group. But when I see names like that all it does is remind how many lousy VC selections there have actually been rather than "yes, we statheads have done a better job."

Also by inducting the top vote getters without also at least including some floor minimum vote is just asking for an embarrassing induction that could be easily avoided by specifying a floor minimum. People whine about the HoF not having any living inductees. Well, if not for the glorious onslaught this season, the top vote getter among the backlog is Vic Willis. You don't get to a living backlogger until Tiant (he's still alive right?) at #12 overall. (Keeping people on the ballot forever is probably also a mistake. Willis has been on the ballot for nearly 100 "years". I think the HoM has fairly and fully adjudicated his case at this point.

On peak/prime: I don't see what's so hard about it. It's not about "giving credit for getting fat", it's about rewarding _greatness_. You've basically got 4 types of HoFers:

super-duper: great for 20 years
super: great for 7-10 years then good decline
peak: great for 7-10 years then little or nothing
career: very good for 20 years

The first two groups put up big counting stats and WAR numbers and nobody seriously debates their worthiness. The latter two groups often end up with similar career WAR totals or the "career" guys end up ahead ... but the "peak" guys were genuinely great for a while. So, which would you prefer, a guy who was great for 10 years or one who was never great? Of course you could simplify by just tossing out the last two groups.

To say there are few peak/prime HoF candidates is a bit disingenuous. As noted, a big reason for this is because players that are stars at 30 rarely collapse so completely as to see their careers end. Even if their production falls sharply, teams will keep giving them chances for several years and they may hit some milestone numbers. But when they are selected for the HoF, they are being selected because of that run of greatness. A debate has always been there of whether the BBWAA used milestones or not -- i.e. high peak but no milestone and you don't get in; high peak with milestone and you do. I do think it's pretty clear that the BBWAA rewards career length but that doesn't mean they should.

As an example, Ernie Banks. Was he a peak candidate or a career candidate? He got to 500 HR a major milestone. But Mathews and Killebrew both got there too and had to wait a few years for induction.

Ernie Banks sailed in because from 1955 to 1961, he was one of the greatest players baseball had ever seen, arguably the greatest SS since Wagner (esp since the BBWAA ignored Vaughan). He compiled 49 WAR in those 7 years and won 2 MVPs plus a 3rd and a 4th, 7 AS teams, 1 GG.

Outside of that time he did very little. He had one average season before that run and, after injury and the move to 1B, he put up just 10 WAR in 8.5 full seasons of PAs.

The Cubs let him hang on long enough to get to 500 HR (he'd have had 1500 RBI in almost any case) so, who knows, maybe the BBWAA did do it on career grounds. But probably not because everybody still refers to him as a SS and nobody talks about Banks's great seasons at 1B. He's in the HoF because of that amazing 7-year peak. If the voters needed those extra 9 years of below-average 1B to vote Banks into the HoF ... well, then they were idiots.

In essence, a "peak" voter is one who emphasizes "greatness" more than "value" in making HoF selections. Pettitte was never great so he has to compile a LOT of value to make up for that -- say Don Sutton. I don't think that Reuschel was ever great (he has no black ink of note) and I'm not sure he compiled quite enough value for me to put him in my HoF. Dave Stieb did have an impressive run and maybe was great enough despite a lower WAR total than either of those guys. (I'm very mean to pitchers I have to admit, they've got to be in the super category or be Koufax ... which ain't right but so it goes.)

As to Andruw Jones: the argument (well blunt statement) in 44 is just fine in the abstract. That argument is the same as the Ozzie Smith argument. Smith was the greatest defensive SS of all-time so, as long as he wasn't a total embarrassment with the bat, then he's an HoFer. Smith was an average or slightly better hitter for a SS so he's in.

IF Jones is the greatest defensive CF of all-time and was a decent hitter for a CF ... well, all those HR is enough value that he was a decent hitter as a CF (you could also cite OPS+). The problem with this argument, even putting aside the Rfield squabbling, is whether he was the greatest defensive CF for long enough. Ozzie was ridiculously good for about 15 years, Andruw for just 11. Also CF is not as key a position as SS so we can rightly demand a stronger offensive showing even from a defensively great CF.

So to go for Andruw you've got a "peak great defense" argument which is about as weak a borderline HoF argument as you can come up with.

I was just quoting you. You said "I don't know how a defense can be said to have been good in a game that it allowed 12 hits." If you didn't want it to do such heavy lifting, you shouldn't have piled so much weight on its shoulders. (-:

I wrote it, yes, and I subscribe to the general rule that if something was not clear it's the fault of the person who wrote it.

I also think a little common sense should intrude on the reader every now and then, to maybe not take something so literal.

I mean, "can" Mila Kunis read this thread and decide that she wants to dump Ashton Kutcher for me? Yes. Is it bloodly likely? No.

I mean, "can" Mila Kunis read this thread and decide that she wants to dump Ashton Kutcher for me? Yes. Is it bloodly likely? No.

And I'd say you're seriously overstating the unlikelihood of a team playing good defense in a 12-hit shutout. Is it the default assumption? No. But just as you want to credit Reuschel for otherwise throwing well, you'd have to assume that the defense made some plays (double plays, outs converted on the bases) to keep that many runners on base from scoring. Hits allowed is just one measure of defense, and one that may or may not have much to do with the defense itself.

Thank you to everyone for this informative thread.

setting aside my personal view of the cubs from that era everything about that '74 cubs smacks of a poor defense

hits allowed--led the league
double plays turned--3 worst in the league
errors charged--led league (and it wasn't close)
stolen bases allowed-second most
passed balls--second most
wild pitches--third most

third base double plays to errors: 25:33 which is awful

and then from my sometimes unreliable memory i would tell you that they stunk.

i don't know how you consider all of this and everything others has posted and then point to rick being nice in a quote and say that maybe the defense wasn't bad. it was sh8t. and bad smelling sh8t. ripe, sitting in the sun, hog sh8t.

and let me tell ya', that's some bad smelling sh8t

I mean, "can" Mila Kunis read this thread and decide that she wants to dump Ashton Kutcher for me? Yes. Is it bloodly likely? No.

No offense Ray, but being an upgrade over Ashton Kutcher is nothing to boast about.

i don't know how you consider all of this and everything others has posted and then point to rick being nice in a quote and say that maybe the defense wasn't bad. it was sh8t. and bad smelling sh8t. ripe, sitting in the sun, hog sh8t.

And I don't know how you got this ####### far down the thread without realizing what the conversation is about.

We're talking on the individual game level here. And yes, I'm sure the ripe-ass, sitting-in-the-sun #### ass 1974 Cubs defense played some good defensive games from time to time. Whether this one qualifies is really beyond any of our ability to ferret out without looking at the footage. Moreover, Ray and I were talking less about this specific 12-hit shutout and more about what 12 hits allowed says about a defensive effort.

But unless you remember the specifics of this particular game, get bent.

post 97

i didn't realize folks were dissecting a single game

and my comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular

but if you feel better for lashing out unnecessarily have at it

i didn't realize folks were dissecting a single game

and my comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular

I was the only one taking up that particular line of argument, so there was no one else the "you" could be referring to.

And if you don't like getting lashed at, don't post crap like 95.

post 99

last time. i wasn't posting at anyone in particular. that's a fact. i obvious misinterpreted the direction of thread

i only respond given the obvious misunderstanding

if you are adamant about being upset then there is nothing else i can do