Let's emphasize numbers that nobody ever emphasized before to justify not paying to attention to the main number that has been used for pitcher effectiveness for 100 years or so.

Teams thought he was good and he pitched a lot! Sure he gave up a lot of runs, but who cares!

Tainted.

Heyman's original comment on Morris:

2. Jack Morris: He defined workhorse and ace in the '80s and early '90s, yet he remains as controversial a non-steroid candidate as there is. He made 14 Opening Day starts, tied with Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young for second most ever, behind only Tom Seaver, and was also the No. 1 pitcher of three World Series winners, clear evidence of his reputation and impact in his day. Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated had the stat that defines him: in 14 consecutive seasons, he pitched eight innings or more in 52 percent of his starts. Detractors point to a less-than-glowing career 3.90 ERA, but his career is better summarized by a great decade (most wins of the '80s) and great moments (his Game 7 performance for his hometown Minnesota Twins was maybe the best pitching performance under the circumstances in decades). He was thought good enough to be the ace on teams that had Bert Blyleven and Dave Stewart, and to receive Cy Young votes in seven seasons. I can't allow his vast accomplishments to be re-evaluated downward by a new emphasis on different numbers.

The bolded part has been removed, presumably because he never played with Blyleven and was awful (6.19 ERA) the one year he played with Stewart. (H/T Calcaterra)

Heyman: Why Bonds Belongs in the Hall

It's probably easier just to promise not to vote any steroid users into the Hall. But I am not ready to wipe out an entire era. I can't prove that a majority of baseball players used steroids in that era, but the evidence suggests that many of the best players did. Just look at the MVP winners who have been linked to PEDs or have admitted using: Ken Caminiti, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi, Alex Rodriguez.

The Hall already inducted spitball pitcher Gaylord Perry without a stitch of uproar. Perry wrote the book (literally) on how to deface baseballs to get hitters out. A case can be made that Bonds' type of cheating is worse. But unlike Perry, I'd say he did it at a time when many were doing it, and he didn't start doing it until he already had a Hall of Fame career. I don't admire Bonds as anything other than a ballplayer. But that's what he was -- a ballplayer, probably the best I or many of us have ever seen.

new numbers - ERA.
old numbers - in 14 consecutive seasons, he pitched eight innings or more in 52 percent of his starts.

If you want to say that Jack Morris defined being a workhorse in that era, you've got a decent argument, though his innings pitched totals look much more impressive now than they did then.

But to say that a guy who ran up a career ERA+ of 105 defined being an ace in that era is silly. Morris salted in pretty average seasons in his resume in the prime of his career.

He worked to a pretty blah 4.18 era (99 ERA+)in 1980 as the Tigers were trying to rise to being contenders and Jack didn't give them ace work.

He worked to a mediocre 4.06 era (100 ERA+) in 1982 as the Tigers were *still* trying to rise to being contenders and still failing in some part because their "ace" Jack Morris wasn't turning in ace quality work.

He worked to a mediocre 3.94 era (97 ERA+) in 1988 as the Tigers were trying to get back to the playoffs they'd reached the previous year (and seen their ace, Jack Morris, get his ass kicked by the Twins).

He rolled up shitty 4.86 and 4.51 era's the next two years as the Tigers fell away from relevance as contenders.

Yes, all that time, Tigers Stadium was a good hitters park. But he had what were probably very good defenses around him with Chet Lemon in center, Trammell and Whitaker up the middle and Parrish behind the plate.

Morris was a guy who pitched a lot of innings at a pretty good clip overall. But only selective memory could lead anyone to say that he defined what it was to be an ace in that era. He was never the best pitcher in the majors or even the AL. His hall of fame case is sketchy at best. I wouldn't vote for him.

If only the BBWAA had worked half as hard at ferreting out the steroid story as they work at selecting and rotating Jack Morris data until it hits the light juusst right.

What does Biggio have to do to get in? The voters do realize he was a middle infielder, and not a DH, right?

He hit with power, hit for average, drew walks, stole bases, and played a helluva second base. What else is there?

Moustache, intestinal fortitude, mullet, "single handedly" winning 1 playoff game, and also having a moustache and saying lots of stuff about being gritty and gutting it out and hur dur pound some budweiser and also the moustache.

He hit with power, hit for average, drew walks, stole bases, and played a helluva second base. What else is there?

He had the misfortune of being named the best player of the 90's by Bill James. The writers couldn't live that one down, if Bill James likes him, he must be a crappy player.

if morris gets in, how far is he from the bottom of the hof barrel? he's above marquard and.... ?

maybe if you heavily discount 19th century pitchers, he passes galvin? welch?

by my reckoning, here's where he falls on the depth chart (bunch of non-hof-ers, ruth, ward deleted from list obv)

(lemon)
(fingers)
(sutter)
(bender)
Al Spalding 181.7
Herb Pennock 177
Jack Morris 166.8
Mickey Welch 163.4
Jesse Haines 156.5
Burleigh Grimes 153.5
Jack Chesbro 139
Richard Marquard 117
Jim Galvin 111.5

note that there is an epochal diminution curve here (applied season-wise), and 19th century pitchers are heavily penalized. the factor for 1871 was 0.45 (raw positive multiplied by 0.45, raw negative multiplied by 1.55), today is 1.04 (raw positive multiplied by 1.04, raw negative by 0.96), basis is integration to dh in al, integration to 1989 in nl.

so morris is only above 6 full time pitchers, 2 of whom were 19th century, and none of whom pitched after 1940. by raw score, morris had a 160.6, and he only beat marquard, who had a 156. ruffing, who has the highest era in the hall right now, pitched in the 30s and basically had two careers, so you can rationalize his inclusion by separating the one from the other and considering him w/r/t his era. morris, however, never had a sub-3 era or sub 1.1 whip in any year of his career, and he pitched in the relatively low-offense 80s. he was a consistently slightly above average pitcher for contending teams. i'd call him an ace from 83-87. it seems like he is getting the kind of credit for his career that clemens got the one year he wasn't amazing for the yankees but went 18-3 and won the cy.

so, long story short, morris wouldn't be the worst pitcher in the hall, but the only one you can really firmly put him above is marquard.

He had the misfortune of being named the best player of the 90's by Bill James.

I think it was best player in the game in 1999. James had Bonds as the best player in the 90s.

Heyman is the guy who I have lost the most "respect" for during his time on MLB. I think all the other sportswriters who they have on are at least decent.

I think it was best player in the game in 1999. James had Bonds as the best player in the 90s.

Not sure. Now that I think of it, I don't think he said best player of the decade, but did a comparison between him and Griffey and said that Biggio was arguably better for the decade(this was when Griffey was listed as the player of the decade)

Ballots like his make ones head hurt. No room for Biggio, Trammell, Martinez, Walker or Lofton but space for Morris, Murphy, Mattingly, McGriff. Actually, there were 4 open slots but he decided to leave them blank. I guess if you aren't a 1B or OF you cannot be impressive enough for this voter.

Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated had the stat that defines him: in 14 consecutive seasons, he pitched eight innings or more in 52 percent of his starts.

I'll give Tom Verducci and Jon Heyman 20 bucks if either one of them can tell me how well Dave Stewart or Charlie Hough or Mark Langston or Dave Stieb or Fernando Valenzuela or John Tudor or Bret Saberhagen or any other non-Hall of Fame pitcher compares on this "stat."

The Hall already inducted spitball pitcher Gaylord Perry without a stitch of uproar. Perry wrote the book (literally) on how to deface baseballs to get hitters out.

I think that argument is a bit disingenuous, as Perry had to wait a few years to get in despite a first-ballot resume. I wasn't around at the time to know if there was media drama (I suspect not, since the internet has a way of bringing that out), but I can't think of any obvious reason why he'd have to wait 3 years besides writers punishing him for doctoring the ball.

FTFA:

My ballot
1. Tim Raines: The second greatest leadoff hitter of his era walked a lot and rarely was thrown out trying to steal (second best steal percentage for those with 300 steals). Works for those who want to see greatness (like myself) with seven superb years to start the career, but also for those who like career numbers since he hung around for 16 mostly good to very good seasons after the initial seven great ones. Should take a big jump and eventually get in ...

There was a stat called "quality start" that would get at the same thing, with the additional feature that the extra innings pitched weren't taking one for the team. It's not used commonly anymore. Probably for good reason. They could say he had 14 years in a row of 17 quality starts (may be true). Most of us would say isn't that special. But these writers are trying to invent a story that makes Jack Morris a Hall of Famer (and makes Roger Clemens not one). See posts 4 and 8.

I think that argument is a bit disingenuous, as Perry had to wait a few years to get in despite a first-ballot resume. I wasn't around at the time to know if there was media drama (I suspect not, since the internet has a way of bringing that out), but I can't think of any obvious reason why he'd have to wait 3 years besides writers punishing him for doctoring the ball.

I mentioned it in another thread but guys like Whitey Ford had to wait 2 years to go in. Perry was penalized by stronger players on the ballot. Bench and Yaz on his first one, Palmer and Morgan on the next. 300 wins was never a first ballot guarantee... Sutton took 5 tries to get in, Niekro also took 5, Early Wynn took 4. The writers really do take this first ballot business serious, at least for a short period of time. (Mays only got 94.7% of the vote)

There was a stat called "quality start" that would get at the same thing, with the additional feature that the extra innings pitched weren't taking one for the team. It's not used commonly anymore. Probably for good reason. They could say he had 14 years in a row of 17 quality starts (may be true). Most of us would say isn't that special. But these writers are trying to invent a story that makes Jack Morris a Hall of Famer (and makes Roger Clemens not one). See posts 4 and 8.

Quality start is used frequently nowadays, heck it's a better stat than looking at wins for a pitcher(even with it's known flaws). In Morris's day, not such a great stat.

BBref has quality starts for pitchers, although apparently not in leaderboards, which makes comparisons difficult. Morris had 297 career quality starts, which seems like a lot, but his career QS percentage of 56% is not much over the league average of 52%.

I mentioned it in another thread but guys like Whitey Ford had to wait 2 years to go in. Perry was penalized by stronger players on the ballot. Bench and Yaz on his first one, Palmer and Morgan on the next. 300 wins was never a first ballot guarantee... Sutton took 5 tries to get in, Niekro also took 5, Early Wynn took 4. The writers really do take this first ballot business serious, at least for a short period of time. (Mays only got 94.7% of the vote)

Going by WAR, only Morgan was clearly superior. Yaz's WAR was a hair better, but not definitely so. Palmer wasn't close, and neither was Bench (though WAR has issues with catchers, so I'll cut some slack there).

Reposted from the Gizmo thread - Heyman on Clemens:

One of Clemens' legal mouthpieces recently chastised writers who might dare omit Clemens from the ballot. But I have news for him.

This isn't like his case where the lawyer gets to pick the 12 dummies who might fall for his courtroom BS. And even though Clemens' high-priced talkers somehow got him acquitted of perjury, that hardly erases the mountain of evidence that he's one of the greatest juicers in baseball history.

Going by WAR, only Morgan was clearly superior. Yaz's WAR was a hair better, but not definitely so. Palmer wasn't close, and neither was Bench (though WAR has issues with catchers, so I'll cut some slack there).

You are using a stat that didn't exist at the time, to compare two players relative to hof voting? War is ok stat to compare position players to other position players, but it's useless for pitchers, catchers, relievers, utility players etc. My point was that there wasn't a spitball faction keeping Perry out of the hall, it was normal voting patterns that kept him out. The writers at the time have shown consistently that they didn't recognize the value of pitchers on the first ballot.

2. Jack Morris: He defined workhorse and ace in the ‘80s and early ‘90s, yet he remains as controversial a non-steroid candidate as there is. He made 14 Opening Day starts, tied with Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young for second most ever, behind only Tom Seaver, and was also the

Wait - you mean he's not even first in the silly opening-day-starts stat?

No. 1 pitcher of three World Series winners, clear evidence of his reputation and impact in his day.

Actually, clear evidence would be Cy Young or MVP awards.

Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated had the stat that defines him: in 14 consecutive seasons, he pitched eight innings or more in 52 percent of his starts. Detractors point to a less-than-glowing career 3.90 ERA, but his career is better summarized by a great decade (most wins of the ‘80s) and great moments (his Game 7 performance in 1991 for his hometown Minnesota Twins was maybe the best pitching performance under the circumstances in decades).

Heyman rings all the typical bells here.

He was good enough to receive Cy Young votes in seven seasons.

"Good enough to receive Cy Young votes" is now a Hall argument?

I can’t allow his vast accomplishments to be re-evaluated downward by a new emphasis on different numbers.

What different numbers? ERA, innings, and ERA+?

new numbers - ERA.
old numbers - in 14 consecutive seasons, he pitched eight innings or more in 52 percent of his starts.

new numbers - innings
old numbers - he had 14 opening day starts

Frankly, I can see an ironclad case for Jack if he'd thrown 12 consecutive seasons of 7 2/3 or more innings in 59 percent of his starts or 15 non-consecutive seasons of 8 1/3 or more innings in 47 percent of his starts, but this 14 consecutive seasons of 8 or more innings of 52 percent of his starts just seems like one of those made-up stats.

Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated had the stat that defines him: in 14 consecutive seasons, he pitched eight innings or more in 52 percent of his starts.

I figured I wouldn't find anything earth-shattering because I'm sure it would have been pointed out by somebody else if there was something there. But the Verducci stat did give me a bit of pause. Simply because there is all the "new" research about the difficulty going through a lineup a 3rd and 4th time. I don't know how you'd exactly give Morris HOF credit for it, but it would be interesting if part of the reason why his ERA was so bad was due to it being inflated in innings that other pitchers of his era were turning over to firemen.

So without doing anything other than going to b-ref, I looked at Morris' splits:




So much for that theory. It is kinda interesting how his 7th - 9th stats are better than the 1st - 6th. But nothing more than just kinda interesting.

Heyman rings all the typical bells here.

Not all, Ray: He left out the "pitch to the score" myth this time.

Going by WAR

Maybe not the most reliable indicator of perceived value in the late 80s. :-)

The Jim Palmer love was undeniable if not explainable. He easily outpolled Morgan receiving 93% of the vote. He did win 3 CYAs but Perry won 2 so it was more than that. Bench and Yaz rightly blew Perry out of the water.

There may have been enough "make him wait for throwing the spitter" to keep Perry out (he came very close in year 2) but it was more than just that. In addition to debuting with Bench and Yaz followed by Morgan and Palmer, he also debuted with Jenkins and you had Bunning on the ballot as a 74.2% backlogger. Those 4 newcomers used up 3.1 spots per ballot (plus Kaat another .2) and you had Bunning. Following that with Palmer/Morgan and then Carew/Fingers (66% in his debut -- ridiculous) was the first ballotgeddon. Bunning got destroyed.

Anyway, it is easier to quibble that on a ballot with Perry, Jenkins and Bunning Palmer was over-rated than it is to say that Perry should have sailed in. I'd say that with the possible exception of Palmer on the 1st ballot that they navigated that stretch just fine. Evil didn't start until 92 with the election of Fingers and the debut of Perez at 50%. Since then the voters have gone downhill and been pretty inconsistent.

Seriously, isn't the lack of Cy Youngs and MVPs damning to the whole "he defined workhorse and ace, 14 opening day starts, No. 1 pitcher of three World Series winners, I was there he had a reputation" thing?

So much for that theory. It is kinda interesting how his 7th - 9th stats are better than the 1st - 6th. But nothing more than just kinda interesting.

In the 1st-6th he let them score, then pitched to it in the 7th-9th.

So much for that theory. It is kinda interesting how his 7th - 9th stats are better than the 1st - 6th. But nothing more than just kinda interesting.

I suspect it's the result of:

1) He isn't allowed to pitch the 7th-9th unless he's already pitching well; and
2) He will tend to get pulled at the first sign of trouble in the late innings.

And something to do with his mustache.

This Gaylord Perry discussion is interesting. I started following baseball in 1981 and by that time Perry was already a gray-haired old man bouncing from team to team with his "does he or doesn't he?" schtick. So I always thought of him as just "one of those guys who pitched forever" -- like Don Sutton, Tommy John or Jim Kaat -- and not as an elite pitcher. Looking at his stats now, I see he was considerably better than that.

For those of you who are older than me, what was the contemporary opinion of Gaylord Perry in his prime? I know he won two Cy Young awards, but the second one looks like it was a "no better options" vote, as he and Ross Grimsley (84 K in 263 IP!) were the only 20-game winners in the NL. He made "only" 5 All-Star teams in 22 seasons, which seems relatively low. He had his best years with some bad, forgettable Cleveland teams in the '70s -- probably a lot of fans didn't even notice.

Was he generally considered an "ace"? How about a "future Hall-of-Famer"?

Most guys do better in their 7th-9th splits, presumably for the reasons Ray notes.

But b-r gives splits by times faced:

1st PA 682 OPS
2nd PA 703
3rd PA 707
4+ PA 676

So not a lot of variation for Morris in that regard. If little variation is "good", Morris is probably better than usual. For comparision, here's Dennis Martinez:

1st PA 670
2nd PA 690
3rd PA 719
4+ PA 742

Yes, those are just as SP. Jack did have about 600 more PA of 4+ so it's unlikely to be random variation.

On CYA, the "telling" stat is that he received only 6 first place votes in his career. He was almost never considered by anybody to be the best pitcher in any single season.

Martinez and Tanana received none. Stieb received 5 (all in 82), Reushcel received 9 (8 in 87), Hershiser won one and Saberhagen won two.

As to Verducci's magic stat -- just look at the freaking complete games dude, it's essentially the same damn stat. Or innings per start. Morris was tops of his era but paled in comparison to the era before him but of course looks much better than the era after him. Pitching usage is in regular flux, usually declining except for the 60s/70s freaks.

In terms of durability, Mnrris was just a guy caught in-between eras and he was the only guy to survive it.

Anyway, 1965-1995, number of starts (not percentage, too much trouble) of 8+ innings:

Perry 377
Carlton 359
Niekro 341
Seaver 337
Jenkins 318
Blyleven 317 (oops)
Ryan 314
Sutton 292
Palmer 289
Morris 248
John 243
Hunter 237
Gibson 235
Koosman 224
Tiant 219
Lolich 219
Tanana 216
....
Martinez 189

Blyleven did it in 46% of his starts; Morris in 47% of his starts. Hunter a smidge under 50%, Jenkins 53.5%, Palmer 55.5%.

Expanding the search Clemens leads the modern guys with 232, about 1/3 of his starts. Johnson is close to Clemens in percent, Maddux at 29%.

I suspect it's the result of:

1) He isn't allowed to pitch the 7th-9th unless he's already pitching well; and
2) He will tend to get pulled at the first sign of trouble in the late innings.

Also, I'd imagine a pitcher is more likely to reach the 7-9th innings against weaker hitting opponents.

I suspect it's the result of:

1) He isn't allowed to pitch the 7th-9th unless he's already pitching well; and
2) He will tend to get pulled at the first sign of trouble in the late innings.

Also, I'd imagine a pitcher is more likely to reach the 7-9th innings against weaker hitting opponents.

See this is exactly what Heyman is talking about. You take a classic, well respected stat like consecutive-seasons-in-which-a-pitcher-pitched-8-innings-or-more-in-at-least-52%-of-his-starts and ruin it with all your new age sabermetric mumbo jumbo.

See this is exactly what Heyman is talking about. You take a classic, well respected stat like consecutive-seasons-in-which-a-pitcher-pitched-8-innings-or-more-in-at-least-52%-of-his-starts and ruin it with all your new age sabermetric mumbo jumbo.

True. Why cook up VORPies when you can use something simple like CSiwaPP8IOMiaL52oHS's?

He was good enough to receive oung votes in seven seasons.

What's defining about Morris is how pathetic his Cy Young showing was. He got virtually no support for the Cy in any season of his career. How many HOFers did worse?

Cy Young did worse.

From 1965 to 1995, as Starter, (requiring IPouts>=24), top 20 greatest number of games, sorted by winning pct

                                                          
Rk           Player        #Matching   W  L W-L%  ERA WHIP
1     Steve Carlton   359 Ind. Games 274 57 .828 1.84 1.01
2      Mike Cuellar   207 Ind. Games 155 34 .820 1.70 0.95
3        Don Sutton   292 Ind. Games 203 47 .812 1.60 0.87
4        Tom Seaver   337 Ind. Games 232 56 .806 1.65 0.90
5        Tommy John   243 Ind. Games 169 43 .797 1.57 0.97
6     Juan Marichal   199 Ind. Games 144 40 .783 1.85 0.92
7        Jim Palmer   289 Ind. Games 201 58 .776 1.75 0.96
8    Fergie Jenkins   318 Ind. Games 231 67 .775 2.01 0.91
9         Vida Blue   210 Ind. Games 145 43 .771 1.80 0.97
10    Jerry Koosman   224 Ind. Games 150 45 .769 1.71 0.99
11       Luis Tiant   219 Ind. Games 151 51 .748 1.73 0.93
12   Catfish Hunter   237 Ind. Games 167 58 .742 1.90 0.91
13    Mickey Lolich   219 Ind. Games 152 53 .741 1.98 1.02
14       Nolan Ryan   314 Ind. Games 203 78 .722 1.83 1.03
15       Bob Gibson   235 Ind. Games 160 63 .717 1.86 1.00
16      Phil Niekro   341 Ind. Games 217 87 .714 2.01 1.01
17    Gaylord Perry   377 Ind. Games 240 99 .708 1.87 0.96
18    Bert Blyleven   317 Ind. Games 191 84 .695 1.92 0.97
19      Jack Morris   248 Ind. Games 150 74 .670 2.38 1.03
20     Frank Tanana   216 Ind. Games 129 65 .665 1.81 0.95

Bobm - so those are a pitcher's starts in which he went at least 8 innings?

This ballot is probably the worst I've seen (Chass doesn't count). How in God's name can someone justify Mattingly over any of the players other than Lee Smith in his #7-13 spots? I'd love to hear it.

Cy Young did worse.

Are you retarded? He was Cy Young every year of his career. Even Clemens couldn't say that. I suspect steroids.

How in God's name can someone justify Mattingly over any of the players other than Lee Smith in his #7-13 spots? I'd love to hear it.

You've got to be a peak voter in a big way AND you have to believe that Mattingly's peak was superior to those players. I think it's fair to say that at the very least Mattingly was perceived from '84-'86 to be superior to Trammell.

Not saying I'd vote that way but that is the only logic argument I can think of that gets me there.

Are you retarded?

I am not casting a Hall of Fame ballot this year, if that's what you were asking.

Bobm - so those are a pitcher's starts in which he went at least 8 innings?

Yes.

Too bad Heyman didn't play in the majors. Would he have been given the nickname "Buster"

What does Biggio have to do to get in? The voters do realize he was a middle infielder, and not a DH, right?

It seems like around 30% of the writers aren't going to vote for Biggio. That raises an interesting question: Are 30% of the workers in any profession totally incompetent at their jobs, or is it something exclusive to sportswriters? If I get on a bus, is there a 30% chance that the driver will just go wherever he wants, instead of following his assigned route? If I go in for surgery to have a kidney removed, is there a 30% chance that I'm going to wake up with two kidneys, no gall bladder, and a new pair of DD breasts?

If I go in for surgery to have a kidney removed, is there a 30% chance that I'm going to wake up with two kidneys, no gall bladder, and a new pair of DD breasts?

Something I learned from the most recent entry from xkcd - what if?, via CNN: "According to a 2006 study looking at the frequency of surgical errors in the United States, each year there could be as many as 2,700 mistakes where a surgery is performed on the wrong body part or the wrong patient. That's about seven per day."

Was he generally considered an "ace"?

Perry was considered the kind of guy who was an ace on a bad team, maybe like Zack Greinke today. It's almost comical the way Perry made the circuit of the most-ignored teams in baseball, from the Indians to the Rangers to the Padres to the Mariners. (I'm not old enough to recall his time with the Giants.)

Perry was always considered the #2 (to Marichal) on the Giants. The one year Marichal got hurt (1967) was the year McCormick won his fluke Cy Young Award. Furthermore, Perry was hurt by getting substantially less offensive support than did Marichal. In 1968, Perry and Marichal had very similar stats -- but Marichal went 26-9, & Perry went 16-15.

If I ever have surgery, I'll be one of those guys who writes on himself in magic marker WRONG LEG and YES, CHOP THIS LEG OFF.

NYT, August 1987:

Gaylord Perry, who won more than 300 games, is almost certain to be elected to the Hall of Fame despite admitting that he relied on the illegal spitball throughout his career. He was suspended briefly after being detected in 1982. Whitey Ford, a Hall of Famer, recently said that he tampered with the ball in his final years. Tommy John and Rick Rhoden of the Yankees, Don Sutton of the Angels and Mike Scott of the Astros are among those often accused of dirty tricks nowadays. Sutton even threatened to sue Umpire Doug Harvey for defamation of character when Sutton was accused of defiling baseballs a few years ago.

January 1991:

The election of Carew and Perry kept intact the Hall of Fame streak of players who have collected 3,000 hits or 300 victories. All 15 players in each category who have been eligible for the hall have been elected.

Perry had failed in his first two years on the ballot, falling only 13 votes short a year ago. One assessment of his failure was that his admission of throwing illegal pitches -- spitballs, greaseballs -- hurt him.

February 1991:

To the Sports Editor:

I'm not sure if Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame; I am sure that Gaylord Perry doesn't. Perry's induction mocks the principles of the game. His lasting achievement isn't that he won 300 games, but that he did so while eluding the fair-play doctrine of baseball. His contributions to the game are as transparent as the Vaseline on the brim of his cap. JIM ENGLISH Flushing, N.Y.

Also amusing from January 1988:

''Do you think I'll be a unanimous choice?'' Rose once asked Jack Lang, the writers' association secretary-treasurer who counts the ballots each year. ''Do you think I'll be the first unanimous choice?''

''Hank Aaron wasn't even unanimous,'' Lang said. ''Who knows how the writers will vote? Some guys think Bo Derek is a 9.''

Among Roger Clemens' many sins: he did not use public defenders.

Cheating has been ever-present in baseball, and has even been thought charming and perfectly legitimate. And then suddenly, it was learned that players were doing steroids, which was considered cheating, and that -- that -- was cheating that could. not. stand.

Quoting from a 2003 SI article:

Cheating is to baseball as Bernoulli's principle is to fixed-wing aircraft: the invisible constant that keeps everything aloft. Hitters erase the back line of the batter's box; catchers "frame" pitches to induce called strikes; infielders occupy a different congressional district from second base when turning a double play; sluggers juice up on steroids till their forearm veins resemble bridge cables; and outfielders pretend that a one-hopper was in fact caught on the fly, holding up the baseball to the umpire like a prized tomato in a produce aisle.

"Cheating is baseball's oldest profession," wrote Thomas Boswell. "No other game is so rich in skulduggery, so suited to it or so proud of it." The game's greatest moment—the Shot Heard Round the World—was allegedly authored by a batter, Bobby Thomson, who knew precisely what pitch was coming, his Giants having employed a spy to steal the catcher's signs from centerfield.

Corking isn't even the most egregious equipment modification in baseball, much less sports, as any pitcher who has loaded a loogie onto his fastball can attest. Gaylord Perry knows KY ain't just the postal code for Kentucky. Whitey Ford said he took an entire toolbox to the mound. Former journeyman pitcher George Frazier denied ever having applied foreign substances to a baseball. (He preferred, he said, domestic substances.)

What is cheating, and who's to say? The New England Patriots, in 1982, had one swath of their field snowplowed, helping them to kick a fourth-quarter field goal in a 3-0 win over the Miami Dolphins.

Can be compared to only three batters after age 33: Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Bonds. Before that, he was compared to Jay Buhner.

I have no idea where Heyman came up with this and how an editor allows it to go through.

If I ever have surgery, I'll be one of those guys who writes on himself in magic marker WRONG LEG and YES, CHOP THIS LEG OFF.

My wife did this before a surgery to remove a plate, screws and a pin from her ankle. They were there mainly because when she suffered the initial break of both the tibia and the fibula, the ER doctor and later her family doctor only noticed one of the fractures, despite the fact that my layman self pointed out both of them to the radiology nurse.

Chuck Norris' beard fears Jack Morris' moustache...

Are you retarded?

Ugh. Can we use a different word, please?

There are some great stats around somewhere about how many years Perry and Marichal pitched as teammates, with both racking up a lot of good innings but Marichal having far superior W-L records because the Giants kept scoring more runs for him than for Perry.

Plus Marichal had a cool leg kick and elegant air (when he wasn't swinging a bat at a catcher's head, anyway), while Perry seemed like the innings-eater that Morris was - even though his best years were a LOT better.

EDIT:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/hall_of_merit/discussion/juan_marichal

from dagnabbit, post No. 2:

"From 1964-71 Marichal's run support was equivalent to the career run support of Allie Reynolds. For those same years Gaylord Perry had run support reminiscent of Phil Niekro's career mark. That's right -- the same line-up would hit like the Casey Stengel Yankees for one guy, and the Ted Turner Braves for another."

For those of you who are older than me, what was the contemporary opinion of Gaylord Perry in his prime? I know he won two Cy Young awards, but the second one looks like it was a "no better options" vote, as he and Ross Grimsley (84 K in 263 IP!) were the only 20-game winners in the NL. He made "only" 5 All-Star teams in 22 seasons, which seems relatively low. He had his best years with some bad, forgettable Cleveland teams in the '70s -- probably a lot of fans didn't even notice.

Was he generally considered an "ace"? How about a "future Hall-of-Famer"?

Perry was considered #2 on Giants behind Marichal even though he outpitched him some years. When Gaylord went to Indians he did pick up "ace" label although, as others have mentioned, he was on some really bad teams.

Now, here are some things I think are interesting in this context - per the table in #44 above, Perry and Carlton are the two pitchers with the highest # of games in which they were able to go 8+ innings. They had close to the same # of decisions - Carlton 331, Perry 339. They had almost identical ERAs, both pitching very effectively, as one would expect when a pitcher is able to go at least 8 innings. Carlton had a 1.84 ERA in these games, Perry a 1.87. But look at the W-L records - Carlton went 274-57(!) whereas Perry "only" went 240-99 in these games. That's a huge difference, giving one the impression that Carlton was getting much better run support than Perry in these games. As we now know, back then not many people paid attention to run support, but if you look at that table you'll see the usual suspects - pitchers the writers always labeled as "just barely a .500 pitcher" or "not in the same class as the truly elite pitchers like Carlton or Seaver or Gibson" - pitchers like Perry, Ryan, Blyleven and Niekro are in the bottom portion of the table based on winning %. These pitchers were thought at the time to be "compilers" needing to get to 300 wins to really have any chance of enshrinement - their pitching accomplishments on their own were not considered to be worthy of Cooperstown. And they knew it, thus the tendency to maybe hang on a bit too long at the end of a career. Had Perry perhaps received Carlton's run support, he would have reached 300 wins much sooner and wouldn't have had to hang around so long as a journeyman pitcher at the end.

Speaking of Carlton and Perry, here is a one-year analysis to illustrate what I mean. In 1972 each won the Cy Young award in his respective league. Carlton, as we know, went 27-10 for a horrible Phillies team that won only 59 games all season long. He also had an outstanding 1.97 ERA in 346 innings. Dominant. Perry, meanwhile, posted a 1.92 ERA in 343 IP, also outstanding, although it should be noted in context that the AL was much more of a pitching dominant league that year than the NL (AL league ERA 3.06, NL 3.45). Much of what was written that year was how Carlton had the significantly better season - I think WAR goes along with that as well.

But here's some details no one paid attention to:

Carlton - record when getting 2 runs or less of support: 10-7 (undeniably outstanding!)
Record when getting at least 3 runs of support: 17-3

Slightly less than half of Carlton's decisions were impacted by poor support, to be expected when playing on such a poor team, and he was actually outstanding in those games, somehow still putting up a winning record even with poor run support.

Perry - was 24-16 overall, not close to Carlton's 27-10 record. Here's the breakdown:

When getting 2 runs or less of offensive support: Perry went 9-16. That's not good, certainly nowhere near Carlton's 10-7. On the other hand, 25 of Perry's 40 starts - 62.5%! - resulted in poor run support, the highest % of starts for a major name pitcher that I've seen in any season ever.

Record when getting at least 3 runs of support: a perfect 15-0!

Now, whereas everyone talked at the time about how Carlton was on a much poorer team (true), the Phillies actually played much better as a team behind Carlton than the 72-win Indians did behind Perry.

What if the percentage of time each pitcher received poor run support was reversed? Each putting up the same identical stats as before, giving up the same number of runs per game they actually did - only the run support % changing - here's how the W-L records would look:

Carlton - 37 total decisions x 62.5% with poor support = 23 decisions in poor-support games. A 0.588 winning % in these games would translate to a 14-9 record.

Taking Carlton's actual 17-3 record in games with at least 3 runs of support and translating that down to only 14 decisions yields a 12-2 record. Overall W-L record: 26-11 (only one game worse than actual).

For Perry - with Carlton's level of poor support - 40 total decisions x (17/37) = 18 decisions from poor-support games with a 6-12 record.

This leaves 22 decisions from games with at least 3 runs of support - and a sparkling 22-0 record in these games! Overall record: 28-12.

So did Carlton really have the better year? Yes, probably so. But the gap isn't nearly as big as most people thought it was at the time.

Gaylord Perry had one of the most dominant seasons ever in 1972 but most people didn't realize it because of the 24-16 W-L record he was stuck with.

19 Jack Morris 248 Ind. Games 150 74 .670 2.38 1.03
20 Frank Tanana 216 Ind. Games 129 65 .665 1.81 0.95

Thank goodness I've finally found out what all this has to do with Frank Tanana!

Thanks for that, Moeball, very interesting. When I was looking at Perry's BB-Ref page yesterday I realized that his 1972 season was truly outstanding -- 1.92 ERA (168 ERA+), 342.2 IP, 10.4 WAR -- yet people hardly ever talk about it.

Interestingly, it was a close vote for Cy Young that year. Wilbur Wood finished second, pitching 34 more innings than Perry (376.2!), throwing 8 shutouts (Perry had 5), winning 24 games (same as Perry), with 10.3 WAR.

Despite those stats, Perry didn't get a whole lot of black ink: Wood led in games and innings; Luis Tiant took the ERA crown with a 1.91 (but in only 179 IP); Nolan Ryan led in strikeouts and shutouts; Catfish Hunter led in winning percentage. Perry only led in wins and complete games.

Not sure the best place to put this, but did anyone see the MLB Network roundtable? Costas, Leiter, Reynolds, Verducci, Russo, and Posnanski discussed who should/shouldn't go in. It was a collection of nonsense and misinformation, and I felt demonstrated the biggest problem in the whole discussion. Posnanski was constantly shouted over (Russo did this to everyone), and was the only one willing to try to meet the others somewhere in the middle and not step on toes. Of course, no one responded in kind.

Verducci said that steroids compared to every other form of cheating was like nuclear weapons compared to conventional weapons. Costas all but said his number-one-with-a-bullet concern was the breaking of records that happened in the last twenty years. Apparently there were no noteworthy record book achievements from WW2 until Canseco showed up. Russo was incapable of doing anything but shouting. He would set a standard for the Hall, and break it five minutes later.

The majority of the table made up their own whimsical standard and would only act shocked when someone else disagreed, and just immediately move on to shouting their standard, and shouted over Posnanski when he tried to respond (he was way too nice, this can't be said enough). There needed to be someone more willing to challenge these guys, and a moderator that forced them to actually respond to the challenges. Needless to say, I was pretty disappointed (albeit, my expectations were way too high to begin with).

Costas is going to be pretty much useless in a discussion like that. I don't know who Russo is, but sounds like he's a talk radio type of guy.

If you had any expectations at all from that panel, those really were way too high.

Posnanski has some massive flaws, including the Paterno book that made him richer and his publisher poorer, while he ignores those facts and feigns piety. Or more likely, as a pretty decent person, he rationalized guaranteeing his family permanent financial security justified his inclinations that weren't very groundbreaking anyway.

But he would be the most reasonable and intelligent person in that HOF ballot crowd, at least.

Not sure the best place to put this, but did anyone see the MLB Network roundtable?

I did. Posnanski looked quite lonely and, as you said, it seemed like Harold Reynolds or Chris Russo interrupted him everytime he tried to make a point.

And Costas was indeed insufferable at times, particularly when he brushed aside the impact of Aaron/amphetamines and Bonds/steroids. In particular, I wish he would try to explain how Bonds was able to have a monster '04 season after league-wide testing had been implemented.

Costas all but said his number-one-with-a-bullet concern was the breaking of records that happened in the last twenty years.

This seems to be Andy's concern as well.

If you had any expectations at all from that panel, those really were way too high.

I kind of expected more out of Verducci.

It's funny because the average age on that panel is like 54 and yet Posnanski is the only one with a strand of gray hair.

Performance enhancing pigments?

It seems like around 30% of the writers aren't going to vote for Biggio. That raises an interesting question: Are 30% of the workers in any profession totally incompetent at their jobs, or is it something exclusive to sportswriters?

This time of year drives me nuts because, besides just me, people get frustrated and go too far and I find myself "defending" the BBWAA ... I feel unclean. And Vlad, you're usually so sensible.

I mean, Biggio is 11th on this ballot in career WAR (and JAWS for that matter) so a strict career WAR voter wouldn't go for him. Three guys behind him are Piazza, McGwire and Sosa who one could argue are more deserving (or not).

Now voting for nobody or voting only Morris or voting for Mattingly over Biggio or that insane ballot with Shawn Green on it ... now you're talking sheer incompetence or pointless point-making.

And the answer to your question, at least before the internet drove them all out of business, was large chain record store employees.

69 - Yeah, Russo is "Mad Dog", talk radio at its finest.

70 - I guess my expectations were set before I saw the names on the panel. I wish someone like Sheehan was there instead of Russo (who knew nothing, and was insistent on demonstrating as much), and having a second former player added nothing (I'd remove Reynolds before Leiter). Add Brian Kenny to moderate, a position that show desperately needed with all the talking over each other, and I think you can get a legitimate discussion between guys who have a serious interest in the game and its history. Would that really have been less appealing to viewers than having a talk show host make #### up as he went along and Reynolds frequently repeating the "Morris just knew how to win" thought over and over? Maybe, don't answer that question.

I mean, Biggio is 11th on this ballot in career WAR (and JAWS for that matter) so a strict career WAR voter wouldn't go for him. Three guys behind him are Piazza, McGwire and Sosa who one could argue are more deserving (or not).

Yea, but you would have to be a certified idiot to vote strict career war. That is akin to voting for Morris in my book.

Moeball (#65),

Terrific bit of analytical breakdown. Besides "only" having a 24-16 record, though, I think that Perry suffers from the fact that Carlton's record leads to so many easy pegs**, which made it almost impossible to consider any other pitching performance by comparison. Ironically, the most ink I ever remember Gaylord Perry getting came two years later in 1974, when he ran off a 15 game winning streak before losing an extra inning game to Vida Blue. At that point his record was 15 and 1, and I almost had to look it up to remember that he only finished 21 and 13 that year.


**Just to take one example, Carlton's WP was better than the 1927 Yankees, while the rest of the Phillies staff's WP was worse than the 1962 Mets.