User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6360 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
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.
1. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 28, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4220497)oh, really?
Walt Terrell says, "Dash it all! Confound it!"
true--Morris has a higher VORM
As always:
Morris was better and more highly-regarded in every ex ante test of value imaginable, and ex ante value is as valid a measurement of value as ex post.
Any analysis that fails to address and confront that reality is incomplete and flawed (*), notwithstanding its arrogance in insisting otherwise.
It's really that simple.
(*) Worse, actually. It's non-responsive.
EDIT: Didn't realize until further down TFA, but I passed something called the "Tango Challenge." Woo-hoo!!!!
Podcast on Reuschel Brothers '77 Topps card
Rick Reuschel was the best pitcher when I was a kid who I thought I could throw harder than. He may have thrown hard, but it certainly didn't look like he was.
Awesome. That's some gross tonnage right there.
Note that the names are backward; Paul is the one wearing glasses.
In other words, the only test of value SBB can imagine that existed in the 1980s was pitcher wins.
jack morris:
Black Ink Pitching - 20 (97), Average HOFer ? 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 193 (48), Average HOFer ? 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 122 (67), Likely HOFer ? 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 39 (77), Average HOFer ? 50
rick reuschel:
Black Ink Pitching - 7 (336), Average HOFer ? 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 111 (183), Average HOFer ? 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 48 (284), Likely HOFer ? 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 31 (136), Average HOFer ? 50
Though Morris was better than Reuschel in the metric, pitcher wins are ex post.
I think that three factors hurt Reuschel's recognition:
*He was fat and generally perceived as being out of shape. He looked nothing like a dominant pitcher was supposed to look like.
*He moved around a lot during the second half of his career, from Chicago to New York, back to Chicago, and then on to Pittsburgh and San Francisco. His career had a lot of peaks and valleys.
*Finally, he didn't have much postseason exposure, in direct contrast to Morris.
Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but I can’t possible see how predictions are just as good as actual performance. If the predictions turn out right, or they turn out wrong because of an unreasonable amount of luck I can see the value in looking at them, but in the end value should be determined by actual results.
Now I realize this is not the case in most businesses, but that is often because most businesses are lousy at evaluating talent both ex ante and ex post (in some cases because its hard, and in others just because they are lazy)... but in baseball, talent evaluation has come such a long way that this should no longer even be a discussion? What am I missing?
#16: The main thing that hurt him was pitching for mostly crappy teams which kept the win totals (and postseason appearances) down.
I'll be damned -- Reuschel's first name is Rickey! Separated at birth those two. From 1972-1980, Reuschel was just 11 games over 500 ... for a team that was 86 games below 500 (and their only good season was Reuschel's rookie year when he threw just 129 innings).
Run support per game:
Reushchel: 4.1 vs a league average of 4.3
Morris: 4.9 vs. a league average of 4.4
Of course we know that run support has nothing to do with how many games a pitcher wins or loses but just for kicks ... .7 runs per start (to keep consistent with league average) for Reuschel's 529 starts is about 380 runs or about 38 wins which would put Reuschel on 252 wins. Morris had 254 so clearly Morris was better.
Reuschel was always considered the Cubs star pitcher when I was growing up, and he had the misfortune of getting hurt soon after he finally escaped the Cubs. Even a shell of his former self had big success with the Giants despite a fastball about 7 or 8 MPH slower than when he was a Cub.
I never had any doubt he was a better pitcher than Morris, who didn't have Reuschel's command nor did he change speeds as well. It was obvious that the different environments the two guys pitched in greatly affected how they were perceived, even as a kid. But looking at it now I feel like I gave Morris too little credit. I still think Reuschel was better, but not by much due to Morris' durability.
Of course, the question isn't really Morris vs. Reuschel or Morris vs. Hershiser, it's why Morris and not Reuschel, Hershiser, Blue, Stieb, Pappas, John, Kaat, Tiant, Brown, Saberhagen, Cone...
Everyone congratulate the Phillies and Brewers on their ex ante division titles this year!
Maybe this is obvious (and a rhetorical questions), but my first guess is it is likely just the simple theory that most people have a very hard time letting facts get in the way of a good narrative. Most people learn or form opinions via narratives, not statistics or facts*. Even when confronted with the facts and they understand that they contradicts the narrative, the power of the narritive usually decides how people will think. Studies have shown that the best way to convince people they are wrong is to show the facts in a narrative form or a personal experience.
Someone with more knowledge of history would have to determine if this makes sense here, but the little knowledge I have of the way the press wrote about Morris suggests that his may be the case.
*For an excellent layman's book that deals with the science and experiments of this theory check out "Thinking Fast And Slow". (Actually i think this book should be required reading for all humans)
One of the many things that impressed me about Reuschel in his Giants' tenure was despite his old age and vast middle region, the dude could get off the mound and field his position like a cat. A remarkable athlete.
Crappy teams in the best hitter's park in the league, so he didn't even have good ERAs.
The big thing is that, as Dag says, WAR loves Reuschel because it think those Cub defenses were so bad, and I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in that.
The point about "if you're going to make up a framework to support Morris, that framework needs to be applied across the board" is a perfectly legit point. But the Morris supporter's made-up framework is more complicated than "254 wins" -- it is the mix of IP and CG and wins, most wins over X time period and "big game guy" (opening day starts, 1st game playoff starts, game 7). And of course such a framework doesn't necessarily rule out other pitchers citing CYA in their list of accomplishments, it simply means that Morris's generally poor CYA results don't disqualify him. That is the Morris supporter's proposed pro-Morris framework does not have to be an exhaustive list of all HoF criteria. But they are right that any pitcher which also meets the Morris standards would be inducted -- good luck finding one.
The "beauty" of the pro-Morris framework is that his supporters have had to dig so far into the arcana of his career to make him "unique." Opening day starts? Nobody's ever used this as a criterion before and nobody had any idea how many opening day starts Seaver had and nobody can show that it means anything other than (at most) the manager thought this guy was his best healthy starter at the start of the year. Most wins over this time period, consecutive 10-year periods leading in wins, etc. Again, who had ever heard such a criterion before Morris and what does it tell us other than (a) he won a good number of games which we already knew and (b) there weren't very many good starters during his era which we already knew.
And now the ex-ante/ex-post challenge in which, near as I can tell, we are asked to prove that Morris wasn't the pitcher "everybody" thought he was at the time without using Morris's actual performance as evidence.
Look at this one, (ostensibly) autographed by both brothers! They signed in the right place, too.
It's kind of astonishing how often the fat pitchers end up being sneaky-good athletes, hitting and fielding really well for their position. Reuschel, Fernando, and Livan Hernandez are three who come immediately to mind. And of course the original of the type, Babe Ruth.
Games started by 1974 Cubs second basemen:
Vic Harris 50
Dave Rosello 33
Billy Grabarkewitz 29
Rob Sperring 27
Ron Dunn 18
Carmen Fanzone 5
Collectively, they committed 46 errors.
Actually, "most opening day starts" was a list you used to see a lot. It obviously went nowhere as a criterion -- maybe because Bert Blyleven had 12 -- but it got a disproportionate amount of attention. Now it gets almost none.
"No. No, no, no, no," Jackson said. "Blyleven wasn't even the dominant pitcher of his era, it was Jack Morris."
Babe Ruth the pitcher was not fat. You'd think God would know that.
Reuschel and Jose DeLeon were teammates in Pittsburgh for a couple of years, and I always thought of Reuschel as the anti-DeLeon. Reuschel was a terrific fielder, very fast delivering the ball to the plate, was a good hitter and bunter. DeLeon had no skills to support his terrific arm, and so was in trouble every time he put a man on base.
That said, the 23rd anniversary of the game in which DeLeon faced the minimum over 11 innings is coming up on Thursday. A game worth a mention.
Carlos Zambrano is not small, and does both things well. Not sure about Sabathia's fielding, but he's hit well in limited opportunities.
Clearly Hershiser should have played for a large media market team like Detroit instead of the media backwater of Los Angeles.
Above Morris' 254 wins, every eligible 20th century pitcher is either in or at least was vaguely in the conversation: Jim Kaat hit the 20s a bunch of times in HOF votes, Tommy John hit 30%. Looking at Morris' slot there, you'd expect him to at least get 20-30% of the vote; he started at 22%.
On Innings Pitched, it's more mixed: You get Jack Quinn and Sad Sam Jones and Jerry Koosman and Dennis Martinez and Frank Tanana who got basically no support. But still most of the people who are eligible above him are in.
In both categories, the worm turns between Morris and Hershiser. There are some guys who got in with totals closer to Hershiser's than Morris', but many--and close to Hershiser the vast majority--didn't.
So Morris defines the bottom line of what you need to do to get considered if you are considered something less than super lights out.
Why Hershiser never got the lights-out bonus that he might have--he was truly great at times--is a different story. Given his Cy Young, his famous record, and his postseason exploits, you'd wonder why he didn't.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Todd Van Poppel and Brien Taylor, Hall-of-Famers!
Arguments in favor: run and defensive support
Tend to be the kind of factors overlooked,
Easier to stick with wins,
Runs allowed, the like.
Never appreciated in his time, while Morris
Overrated, then and now.
Big time. Next he'll be telling us that Noah put every pair of gnats into an ark.
If this was really true you wouldn't need a study; an anecdote would do.
this is always an interesting phenomenon to ponder in baseball. Whether it really happen or not. I think Bill James was agnostic on the subject. One that struck me was of course the 1969 Mets with a lot of those guys seemingly playing over their heads. But the one I was more familiar with was the 1979 Pirates. Omar Moreno was like a career .220 (if not worse at times) and I think he hit .290. Foli had a big year. Bill Robinson never made an impact anywhere but Pitt. John Milner seemed to always come through with hits.
I never did form an opinion, I can see it happening sometimes but mostly not.
Are all posts
????now to be made in the form
????????of free-flowing modernist poetry?
Outre.
Babe Ruth had the soul of a fat man. He was always fat in his heart.
And, just to throw more fuel on the Jack Morris fire, it's not just WAR. Take a look at the New Historical Abstract. Bill lists his top 100 pitchers (as of the book's time). There are about 65 pitchers in the Hall of Fame, leaving out the Negro Leaguers, whom Bill doesn't include in his list. Rick Reuschel is #81, between Addie Joss and Tony Mullane, but not in the Hall of Fame. Jack Morris is not on the list. At all. He's not one of Bill's top 100 pitchers, much less one of the top 65. Now, Bill's system is, shall we say, not exactly identical to WAR's. It's very different, and comes up with a lot of results that don't mirror WAR's. When two very different systems come to the same conclusions (Morris is not a Hall guy at all, and Reuschel was better), that's a lot more convincing that if it were just one system or a group of systems that do the same thing as each other. And Reggie Jackson is hardly the place to start when looking for balanced comments on a pitcher whose candidacy rests so strongly on one postseason game. Reggie just might have some bias about postseason success.... - Brock Hanke
ERA+: Reuschel 114, Morris 105
K/BB Ratio: Reuschel 2.16, Morris 1.78
Well Carmen only got 5 starts because he had to play the "The Star-Spangled Banner" prior to games at Wrigley Field. He was so good that in the television program Transformers Animated, the captain of the Detroit Police Department was named Carmine Fanzone as a tribute.
Ye gods, what a bad defensive team. They had exactly three players with a positive dWAR: Steve Swisher (0.2), Andre Thornton (0.1) and Jim Tyrone (0.1). Meanwhile, there was Rick Monday, Jerry Morales, Vic Harris, Don Kessinger...the mind reels. (How do you beat the '74 Cubs? Hit the ball fair.)
And yet, somehow, Reuschel won 20 games. He deserves the Hall just for that alone.
Career WAA (and WAA as % of career WAR):
Reuschel: 38.2 (59%)
Morris: 9.7 (25%)
How was Morris the more dominant pitcher?
????now to be made in the form
????????of free-flowing modernist poetry?
Can't
Help
It, the muse
Loudly
Demands
Reply,
An odd
Poetic
Energy
This is a fascinating way of looking at life, sort of a "majority rules," I guess.
If it's 1855, aren't you defending slavery as something that has high popular support (among the unenslaved, anyway)?
Are mortgage decisions by banks (and people) in the mid-2000s seen as sensible because, well, everybody was doing it?
Is it time to salute flat-earthers from the 1400s - and should we really question their analysis?
Wondering where this admiration with "what people believed" leads outside of a Morris-for-HOF campaign.
Also on the '97 ballot with at least 50 WAR: Sutton (in), K Hernandez, John, Bonds, Allen, Torre and Tony Perez (in).
FWIW, Morris (if I'm counting correctly) got six first-place CYA votes in his entire career – I'd imagine not very many of them outside of his home city's writers. Reuschel got nine, and Hersisher 27 (including a unanimous CYA). Which means little, except that if there were lots of reasons to believe Morris was a great pitcher, award voters weren't really noticing them very much. Morris was a fine pitcher and finished well down several CYA ballots, of course, which is all to the good; at least he was on them.
But that's ex-post. That doesn't count in a Morris debate.
Joe Carter - 2nd 1991
Danny Tartabull - 2nd 1992
Bobby Bonilla - 1st 1992-1994
Cecil Fielder - 1st 1995-96, 2nd 1997
Mo Vaughn - 4th 2003
RR 26-20-20-19-18-17-17-15-15-14 career 240
JM 21-20-20-19-18-17-16-15-14-14 career 225
Just looking at the personnel on the field, they don't look all that terrible to me. The 1974 team had that disaster at second base (which they quickly replaced with Manny Trillo), and they had Bill Madlock at third, who was never considered very good... but they also had a former Gold Glove winner at shortstop, and a catcher who was considered outstanding defensively, and good speed in the outfield (aside from the ancient Billy Williams, who was only a part-timer at that point). I would expect the worst defense of all time to have a lot of Madlocks out there and no Kessingers.
Broadening it out a bit, Reuschel actually pitched in front of a fair number of fielders who won Gold Gloves: Kessinger, Beckert, Santo, Manny Trillo, Randy Hundley. I know, we're supposed to turn up our noses at Gold Glove voting, but certainly, no one thought those guys were horrible defensively at the time.
For his career, Reuschel had a BABIP that was 11 points greater than the league average. You would expect sinkerballers to have a higher BABIP than normal; Tommy John was six points higher than league for his career, as was Geoff Zahn. Aaron Cook is probably the most extreme sinkerballer working today, and his career BABIP is 11 points above league, just like Reuschel. So I'd guess that Reuschel's subpar defenses cost him about 5 points of BABIP over his career. How many runs that translates to, I couldn't tell you.
and has anyone mentioned his 1987 season which i think is marvelous. 12 complete games. 4 shutouts
Yeah, he was great that year.
Anyone else remember the BOMB Bo Jackson hit off of him in the all star game? Not many could tag Reuschel like that.
Back of the envelope:
BIP = 11,629 (BF - BB - SO - HR - HBP)
11,629 * .005 = 58 extra hits
58 * .8 = approx 46 extra runs allowed
Exactly. I'm having major problems figuring out the post/ante thing. Maybe it means we should judge pitchers by how well people initially thought their careers would turn out, which would put David Clyde way up there :)
Sorry SBB, your whole argument is ludicrous.
The problem is that the HOF should be looking to elect the very best candidates first, while guys like Morris should wait in line. Even if we only look at pitchers since the Expansion Era began there is Reuschel and 20 others who were better than Morris.
There are 50 HOF candidates with 30+ Pitching WAR who debuted since 1957 and retired by 2006.
Career WAR
Rk Player WAR ERA+ IP
1 Rick Reuschel 64.6 114 3548.1
2 Kevin Brown 64.5 127 3256.1
3 Luis Tiant 61.8 114 3486.1
4 David Cone 58.2 121 2898.2
5 Tommy John 56.9 111 4710.1
6 Bret Saberhagen 56.0 126 2562.2
7 Chuck Finley 54.3 115 3197.1
8 Dave Stieb 53.5 122 2895.1
9 Jerry Koosman 53.1 110 3839.1
10 Frank Tanana 52.6 106 4188.1
11 Kevin Appier 51.9 121 2595.1
12 Wilbur Wood 49.3 114 2684.0
13 Orel Hershiser 48.0 112 3130.1
14 Mark Langston 46.9 107 2962.2
15 Jimmy Key 46.1 122 2591.2
16 Ron Guidry 45.4 119 2392.0
30 Jack Morris 39.3 105 3824.0
Among those 50, most seasons with 3.5+ Pitching WAR
Rk Yrs From To1 David Cone 10 1988 1999
2 Kevin Brown 9 1992 2003
3 Luis Tiant 9 1964 1978
4 Bret Saberhagen 8 1985 1999
5 Jimmy Key 8 1985 1997
6 Dave Stieb 8 1980 1990
7 Steve Rogers 8 1973 1982
8 Rick Reuschel 8 1973 1987
9 Kevin Appier 7 1990 1997
10 Chuck Finley 7 1989 2000
11 Dennis Martinez 7 1987 1995
12 Frank Viola 7 1984 1993
13 Tommy John 7 1968 1982
14 Sam McDowell 7 1964 1971
15(12-man tie) Jack Morris 6 1979 1991
Among those 50, most seasons with 4.5+ Pitching WAR
Rk Yrs From To1 David Cone 7 1988 1999
2 Rick Reuschel 7 1973 1985
3 Dave Stieb 6 1980 1990
4 Luis Tiant 6 1968 1978
5 Sam McDowell 6 1964 1970
6 Kevin Brown 5 1996 2000
7 Al Leiter 5 1995 2004
8 Kevin Appier 5 1990 1997
9 Mark Langston 5 1987 1993
10 Bret Saberhagen 5 1985 1994
11 Steve Rogers 5 1973 1982
12 Wilbur Wood 5 1968 1974
13 Jerry Koosman 5 1968 1979
14(14-man tie) Jack Morris 4 1979 1987
Among those 50, most seasons with 5.5+ Pitching WAR
Rk Yrs From To1 Kevin Brown 5 1996 2000
2 Dave Stieb 5 1982 1990
3 David Cone 4 1993 1997
4 Frank Viola 4 1987 1992
5 Mark Langston 4 1987 1993
6 Orel Hershiser 4 1985 1989
7 Rick Reuschel 4 1973 1985
8 Luis Tiant 4 1968 1976
9 Jerry Koosman 4 1968 1979
10 Brad Radke 3 1999 2004
11 Kevin Appier 3 1992 1996
12 Chuck Finley 3 1990 1998
13 Bret Saberhagen 3 1985 1989
14 Frank Tanana 3 1975 1977
15 Jon Matlack 3 1972 1978
16 Wilbur Wood 3 1971 1973
17 Vida Blue 3 1971 1978
18 Sam McDowell 3 1965 1970
19 Dean Chance 3 1964 1968
Jack Morris 1 1979 1979
Among those 50, most seasons with 6.5+ Pitching WAR
Rk Yrs From To1 Kevin Brown 4 1996 2000
2 David Cone 4 1993 1997
3 Dave Stieb 4 1982 1985
4 Chuck Finley 3 1990 1998
5 Bret Saberhagen 3 1985 1989
6 Frank Tanana 3 1975 1977
7 Wilbur Wood 3 1971 1973
8 Kevin Appier 2 1992 1993
9 Mark Langston 2 1991 1993
10 Orel Hershiser 2 1988 1989
11 Frank Viola 2 1987 1988
12 Jim Kaat 2 1974 1975
13 Mickey Lolich 2 1971 1972
14 Vida Blue 2 1971 1976
15 Luis Tiant 2 1968 1974
16 Sam McDowell 2 1965 1970
17 Jim Maloney 2 1965 1966
Jack Morris 0 1979 1979
Among those 50, Quality Start % leaders
Rk Player QS% From To1 Mel Stottlemyre 0.694% 1964 1974
2 Kevin Brown 0.660% 1986 2005
3 Steve Rogers 0.659% 1973 1985
4 Andy Messersmith 0.658% 1968 1979
5 Claude Osteen 0.656% 1957 1975
6 Jon Matlack 0.648% 1971 1983
7 Rick Reuschel 0.637% 1972 1991
8 Larry Dierker 0.635% 1964 1977
9 Dean Chance 0.633% 1961 1971
10 Orel Hershiser 0.629% 1983 2000
11 Jerry Koosman 0.622% 1967 1985
12 Tommy John 0.616% 1963 1989
13 Burt Hooton 0.615% 1971 1985
14 David Cone 0.613% 1986 2003
15 Dwight Gooden 0.612% 1984 2000
16 John Tudor 0.612% 1979 1990
17 Jimmy Key 0.609% 1984 1998
18 Jose Rijo 0.606% 1984 2002
19 Bob Welch 0.606% 1978 1994
20 Bret Saberhagen 0.604% 1984 2001
21 Ron Guidry 0.604% 1975 1988
44 Jack Morris 0.564% 1977 1994
Among those 50, Average Game Score leaders
Rk Player GmScA From To
1 Andy Messersmith 59.3 1968 1979
2 Sam McDowell 58.4 1961 1975
3 Jim Maloney 57.8 1960 1971
4 Dean Chance 56.9 1961 1971
5 David Cone 56.8 1986 2003
6 Ron Guidry 56.8 1975 1988
7 Mickey Lolich 56.4 1963 1979
8 Mel Stottlemyre 56.4 1964 1974
9 Luis Tiant 56.3 1964 1982
10 Vida Blue 56.2 1969 1986
11 Jose Rijo 56.0 1984 2002
12 Jon Matlack 55.8 1971 1983
13 Kevin Brown 55.7 1986 2005
14 Steve Rogers 55.7 1973 1985
15 Larry Dierker 55.7 1964 1977
16 Bret Saberhagen 55.6 1984 2001
17 Dwight Gooden 55.5 1984 2000
18 Jerry Koosman 55.1 1967 1985
32 Jack Morris 53.4 1977 1994
A small part of what we're looking at is probably park factors, but even in road games the Cubs allowed a BABIP of .297 (.318 at home -- league average of .282) . They turned a DP when it was in order 8.9% of the time compared to a league average of 12.2 (and when you remove the Cubs -- IE compare them to the other 11 teams -- it looks worse). They allowed a slightly above average number of stolen bases and had a slightly below average CS%.
And as bad as their BABIP is, it slightly flatters the defense. They were easy league leaders in ROE. 35 more than the average of the other 11 teams.
Add it up and it should grade out just awful, regardless of the names involved.
But it also looks like there's a massive park effect there: The difference between the Cubs' home and road BABIP is larger than the difference between their road BABIP and league average. Give the way Wrigley affected hitters - small foul area, great visibility, but not particularly short fences - that's no surprise.
Conventional park effects don't really work all that well for Cub pitchers (particularly the old days. As Clay Davenport noted, more night games means fewer games with the wind blowing out). There was an old Stats study that showed that it pretty much played as 3 different parks depending on the prevailing wind. (extreme hitter's park when the wind is blowing out, more or less neutral with a cross wind and a good pitcher's park with the wind blowing in) A little bit of bad luck with the number of starts when the wind is blowing out and there's almost nothing the pitcher can do.
The 7 remaining "long career" guys on the list are John, Koosman, Tanana, Kaat, Martinez, Lolich and Hough. Those first six would seem to be in line for the HOF ahead of Morris.
The remaining nine all have shorter careers than Morris, but WAR says they all have more career value and much better peaks. I'm seeing Hershiser, Guidry, Finley, Appier, Wood, Langston, Viola, Blue and Gooden. If you think that character issues disqualify that last one from Hall consideration, replace him with Key or Rogers.
Of course, WAR is not the whole story in HOF consideration and you can make arguments to put Morris ahead of some of these names. It doesn't change the overall point that there are more than a handful of pitchers from the past 50 years that should go in the HOF before Morris. With Reuschel, Cone, Brown, Stieb and Saberhagen all one and done on the BBWAA ballot, there is no justification for giving Morris serious consideration.
HOF voting for Morris is something to behold. It's like the electorate said pick one Tigers player from the 1980s and get behind him, let the rest fade away. You got Trammell, Whitaker, Lance Parrish, Darrell Evans all who have as good or better arguments as Morris but the workhorse pitcher from the 80s apparently makes the best print story.
Interestingly enough Morris was valued by the Tigers as much as Trammell and Whitaker combined. Going by salaries between 1985 and 1988. Before that not enough data is on BB-ref, and they would have been in their pre free agent years anyway. Lance Parrish made about the same amount of money as Morris in 1985-86. Kirk Gibson made more than Morris in 1986, less in 1987.
You can't make too much of this. Mainly 1) Collusion f's things up, and the prime period between these players getting their service time rights and the point where they declined as players/ moved to other teams happens to be the exact years of the collusion. 2) The market, such as it were, was ridiculously inefficient. Good hitting infielders who could also field were greatly underpaid. 3) What an amazing crop of talent, getting these 5 HOVG to borderline HOF talents all pretty much at the same time.
The Detroit Tigers' mainstays 1981-88.
Rk Player WAR/pos OPS+ Rfield PA From To Age G1 Alan Trammell 42.7 122 61 4748 1981 1988 23-30 1122
2 Lou Whitaker 35.0 117 38 4863 1981 1988 24-31 1125
3 Chet Lemon 27.2 121 64 3826 1982 1988 27-33 972
4 Kirk Gibson 23.0 131 8 3444 1981 1987 24-30 830
5 Lance Parrish 20.0 116 35 3179 1981 1986 25-30 762
6 Darrell Evans 13.3 121 36 2809 1984 1988 37-41 727
7 Larry Herndon 10.2 110 28 3013 1982 1988 28-34 843
8 Tom Brookens 7.8 80 34 3144 1981 1988 27-34 995
Rk Player WAR ERA+ PitchW IP From To Age G GS1 Jack Morris 25.3 114 12.75 2023.1 1981 1988 26-33 272 272
2 Dan Petry 11.3 108 4.15 1376.0 1981 1987 22-28 215 205
3 Willie Hernandez 8.6 145 6.60 452.1 1984 1988 29-33 326 0
4 Walt Terrell 6.1 100 0.22 897.1 1985 1988 27-30 132 131
5 Frank Tanana 6.1 103 1.13 747.1 1985 1988 31-34 118 117
6 Milt Wilcox 4.6 105 1.57 778.2 1981 1985 31-35 120 120
7 Juan Berenguer 2.4 102 0.57 427.2 1982 1985 27-30 101 60
8 Aurelio Lopez 2.3 110 2.30 462.0 1981 1985 32-36 227 3
I'm not going to lie down in the street to defend Sparky Anderson, but I think your chart of pitching WAR shows why they only went to the World Series once. Morris was by far their ace, and as we've established, he's a HOVG pitcher with a very modest case for the HOF, and probably no chance at the HOM. Dan Petry had a few good years, and their other starters, including the elderly and much-diminished Tanana, were extremely ordinary. It's a bit like trying to get to the Series with Johan Santana plus an assortment of the Pelfreys and Maines and Nieses of the world, except your Santana isn't quite as good as the real one.
That said, the Tigers' lineups were awesome, much like Sparky's 1970s Reds lineups (just as their pitching staffs, like the Reds', were unawesome). It's hard to say whether Sparky deserves credit for winning three Series with the staffs he handled, or blame for not coming up with better pitching to feast on the benefits of his great lineups.
Say what?
I'd vote them in, but put them just barely over the borderline. There are plenty of people in the HOF that I would not support if we could do it over again, from Rice down to all the vet picks from the 1930s. I don't mean "borderline" in any insulting way. Just that they aren't absolute, no-doubt HOFers. If they were they'd be in already.
For Whitaker I see his career as interchangeable with guys like Sandberg, Alomar, Grich, Biggio. I'd be happy putting all of those guys in. But they are just over my borderline. Go one step down and you get Willie Randolph. He was everything those other players were except that instead of giving you 15-20 homers a year, he'd only hit 4. He had a better career than most people think but I'm not ready to advocate his HOF case.
Trammell's a bit different, as there are fewer shortstops similarly qualified. WAR has him right there with Jeter, Ozzie, and Larkin. This may be subjective but in my estimation he's a notch below those two. He's about even with Pee Wee Reese and well above Luis Aparicio. For SS my dividing line is right between Aparicio and Campaneris.
.550 / 1981: 99 OPS+ - 107 ERA+
.512 / 1982: 103 OPS+ - 106 ERA+
.568 / 1983: 112 OPS+ - 103 ERA+
.642 / 1984: 114 OPS+ - 113 ERA+
.522 / 1985: 103 OPS+ - 108 ERA+
.537 / 1986: 107 OPS+ - 103 ERA+
.605 / 1987: 114 OPS+ - 106 ERA+
.543 / 1988: 100 OPS+ - 103 ERA+
Ave 106.5 OPS+ - 106.1 ERA+
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main