MLB Offseason 2013-2014

[Yanks]

Jerry Coleman has died. Link

This is a huge bummer; Coleman was one of the all-time greats. We're going to be losing more of them, soon: Vin Scully doesn't have much time left, nor do Ralph Kiner or Milo Hamilton.

I came to "know" him while we lived in San Diego. Great announcer. If I remember correctly he took a lot of heat for critiqing the Padres when they made boneheaded moves. (trading Ozzie, etc).

...and of course, he won 4 WS with the Yankees as well.

"You can hang a star on that one baby"

 

[Timby]

Not sure how you can not consider wins as a factor.

Because a pitcher's wins, again, are an artificial statistic -- it only means that his offense happened to score more runs than he gave up during a particular game (to say nothing of any defense-independent pitching statistics). It says absolutely nothing about his actual performance. For example: Ryan Dempster was a balls-out awesome starter for the Cubs in 2012, but he didn't get his first win until June 5 because the offense was complete dogshit.

Let's take it a step farther and look at Maddux. In 1994, when he had a fucking ridiculous 1.56 ERA and a 271 ERA+, he "only" had 16 wins. In both his 20-win seasons, his ERA+ averaged 168 (still excellent) and his WHIP was north of 1. Again, still excellent stats, but not as lights-out as 1994 -- but if you were to look at his wins, you'd think that '92 and '93 were better, which is wrong on its face. Even if you disregard 1994 due to it being strike-shortened, every single season in which Maddux had more than those 16 wins had him boasting a worse ERA+ and WHIP.

This is why Morris' entire case for the Hall of Fame falls apart as soon as you look at any meaningful number: He was a good, occasionally very good pitcher who ate a ton of innings and did nothing else of note. As soon as you remove Game 7 from the equation (which was really due to Lonnie Smith being a knucklehead and Kent Hrbek having a cannon of an arm), you cannot make an intellectually honest argument for Morris in the Hall.

I'll agree with the ERA point. I ended up supporting King Felix getting the CY Young over CC. But it's really hard to discount wins as a factor. Felix was SO good that year I made the exception.

But I will take issue with "it only means that his offense happened to score more runs than he gave up during a particular game"

Take someone like Andy Petitte. He was his best in important games and that's what he thrived in

"it only means that the pitcher held the opposing offense to less runs than his team scored during a particular game"

If Mattox is left off someones ballet, I'm going to go shoot him. There is no reason on the planet or in the universe to leave him off a ballot.

Take issue with it all you want, but you still haven't explained why. Again, look at my example of Ryan Dempster in '12 -- he was pitching lights-out for two consecutive months, but didn't have a single win during that time. Why? Because the offense was scoring an average of about 1.8 runs/game during his starts. You need to look beyond the basic stats like "wins," because in addition to not telling you the whole story, they don't even really tell you any part of the story -- shit, Vida Blue won 20 games in 1973, and he did so while walking almost as many people as he struck out, giving up a lot of dingers and being just a notch above league-average in every other rate and counting statistic. But if you just look at WINZ, then it was a great season ... except by any objective metric, it absolutely wasn't.

The fact of the matter is that no pitcher can "win" a game on his own, because he has no control over three things: The defense around him, his own team's offense, and how the opposing team's pitcher is performing on that given day. Ultimately, the point of baseball is to score more runs than the other guys. Here's a fun little read.

Really, pitcher wins is one of the three most bullshit statistics in baseball, in the unholy trinity with pitcher saves and batter RBI.

If Mattox is left off someones ballet, I'm going to go shoot him. There is no reason on the planet or in the universe to leave him off a ballot.

There will be several who do. Remember, the all-time record for votes is Tom Seaver, who topped out around 98.8 percent in ... '92, I want to say. Maddux is, when you drill down to the meaningful numbers, a better pitcher than Seaver was. However, there are two factors at play:

- There are voters who continue to return a blank ballot every year in protest of the Hall of Fame's decision to make Pete Rose permanently ineligible.

- There are voters (better known as fucking lunatics) who believe, for some misguided reason, that no one should ever get into the Hall on their first ballot.

I don't expect Maddux to be the first unanimous vote.

 

[Tom Servo]

Schilling - Nope, 216 wins isn't enough.

Mussina - Yup, I think so.

If Mussina gets in, Schilling gets in easily. One of the best PS pitchers of all time.

Not saying Mussina shouldn't get in, but Schillings incredible postseason numbers makes up for his lower career wins totals.

 

[Timby]

As I have said on multiple occasions, Schilling is the best modern-era postseason pitcher of all time. There's no one that even comes close since the deadball era. Even if he weren't, he's clearly over the line just based upon his regular-season statistics: More than 3,100 strikeouts, a ridiculous 4.38 K/BB average, and he's ranked 27th in JAWS, putting him ahead of noted Hall of Famers Nolan Ryan, Jim Palmer and Bob Feller.

Again, this is a case where you see why WINS is a bullshit stat. In 2003, Schilling had a 2.95 ERA, and an ERA+ of 159. His K/BB ratio was north of 6, and his WHIP was 1.04. He had a solid six WAR value, holy shit. Yet he only went 9 - 10, because Arizona's bullpen was a disaster, and their offense had morons like Junior Spivey and Craig Counsell playing all the time.

The fact that he is a ridiculous piece of shit off the field doesn't matter. Schilling is as much a sure-fire Hall of Famer as Mike Mussina.

 

[Tom Hendricks]

This is a huge bummer; Coleman was one of the all-time greats. We're going to be losing more of them, soon: Vin Scully doesn't have much time left, nor do Ralph Kiner or Milo Hamilton.

I will be devastated when Ralph Kiner dies. He has been part of my baseball life since I can remember, I remember watching him on WWOR as a kid. His Kiner's Corner was the best show on television.

Being a Mets fan, I can't claim to be objective but I really do try. Mike Piazza should be in the hall of fame. His offensive numbers demands he should be there. He also wasn't as much of a liability behind the plate as people make him out to be. He is on average with most catchers in that aspect. However if the voters feel he needs another year or two before he gets in, I'm okay with that. While I don't BELIEVE he did steroids, he flat out denies it in his book. Even if he did, I don't care. I don't care if any baseball player used steroids, let them all I say.

 

[Scout101]

Just to pick at the swipe at Ortiz while we're at it: why does DH disqualify him (as well as Edgar)? It's an official position, and has been for what? 30-40 years now? It's not going anywhere. With his bat, he'd play 1B if there wasn't a DH position, but why would playing mediocre 1B make him any more desireable at a HoF candidate? If, say, Prince Fielder was up for a vote tomorrow, would anyone discuss his fielding abilities? Not so much. Ortiz hasn't been a disaster when he's played the field (actually, really not bad at all), but he plays for a AL team, so doesn't HAVE to.

From a hitting standpoint, he pretty much fits all the criteria. Power, average, RBIs, face of the franchise, one of the 'most feared' hitters of the era (the usual metric used for judging hitters). Perfect narrative with all of those 'big moment' stories that people use to convince themselves mediocre candidates are better. MVP votes over multiple seasons (should have won over ARod that year!), 3 WS Rings, WS MVP this year when he batted somewhere just north of .750 AVG. Part of the 2004 Red Sox team that broke the 86-year drought... I mean, can go on like this a while, but everything's there.

Has one more year on his contract, and is 69 HRs from getting to 500. If he has his regular year (.300, 30HR. 100RBI), he'll likely get another year added on, and can't see him retiring without getting his 500 HRs.

At that point, what argument can you really use to justify keeping him out? If all that you have to point to is that he DHed, i dunno. Especially when you keep touting other inferior players. DH is a real position, and has been for a long time. It's time for Edgar to get in, and when Ortiz hangs it up, he should be a shoo-in as well. At the end of the day, if you're a pitcher in a 1-1 game, bottom of the 9th, pick any batter from 2003-2013 you'd LEAST want to face in that situation. Ortiz is going to feature very highly on that list. Based on personal prefernce, may not be #1, but out of the thousands of names to pick, he'll be top 5-10 on pretty much every list. Kinda how you should be picking HoF candidates, instead of just people with counting stats who were mediocre for 20 years.

Can argue about the Mitchell Report if you like, but with the caveat that a lot of things got people on that list, not all just straight-up steroids, and we don't know who was doing what. That was also before Ortiz's HoF-worthy years, so almost all of his stats have been firmly in the Testing Era. Not that people aren't still doing things, just that more and more testing going on, and he's never been popped outside of that report. Not saying I think everyone in baseball is perfectly clean, or that Ortiz is an angel, just that I'm sure he gets tested plenty and nothing has come up.

That, and I think we're nearing the point where you have to let it all go and just start letting in the Clemens and Bonds of the world. In that era, EVERYONE was cheating, basically. And there wasn't shit for testing, so how do you throw one person out when the 3 guys next to him were also doing it? And the batters get dinged for being obvious with HRs, but not like the pitchers weren't juiced as well, so the whole thing was effed up. Either all in, or blank the whole era until after the Mitchell Report. Just because no one has every SAID anything about so and so doesn't mean anything, as we didn't even hear about the OBVIOUS ones until years later. And there are already more than a few definite users in the Hall.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

As I have said on multiple occasions, Schilling is the best modern-era postseason pitcher of all time. There's no one that even comes close since the deadball era. Even if he weren't, he's clearly over the line just based upon his regular-season statistics: More than 3,100 strikeouts, a ridiculous 4.38 K/BB average, and he's ranked 27th in JAWS, putting him ahead of noted Hall of Famers Nolan Ryan, Jim Palmer and Bob Feller.

Again, this is a case where you see why WINS is a bullshit stat. In 2003, Schilling had a 2.95 ERA, and an ERA+ of 159. His K/BB ratio was north of 6, and his WHIP was 1.04. He had a solid six WAR value, holy shit. Yet he only went 9 - 10, because Arizona's bullpen was a disaster, and their offense had morons like Junior Spivey and Craig Counsell playing all the time.

The fact that he is a ridiculous piece of shit off the field doesn't matter. Schilling is as much a sure-fire Hall of Famer as Mike Mussina.

I kind of wonder how much his low win total is attributable to playing on the Phillies. Even his post season wins record would be better if (iirc) Mitch Williams hadn't blown the save in each of his starts in the 1993 NLCS.

 

[Timby]

I don't think anyone swiped at Ortiz, at least recently, but I will pick a bone with the idea of Edgar Martinez being in the Hall, because he's a marginal choice at the very best and I'm rapidly becoming convinced he isn't even that (and, in any event, voting for Edgar on a ballot with at least 11 locks and several more clearly more deserving / less marginal players than him is moronic).

Based on the usual traditional milestones, the answer to his candidacy is rather clearly no, and frankly, it's not even all that close. You just don't get in as a 2,200-hit, 300-dinger, 1,200-RBI post-war guy when career hitting value encompasses your entire case. You need more, some kind of reason: You could get in if you added value elsewhere or had one hell of a narrative, and you might even get in if you pulled in some award hardware, but Edgar Martinez doesn't really have any of that. To the extent that he's carried support, it's in large part because of the aforementioned argument that "he's the best DH ever," so the funny thing is that if Martinez were just a bad 1B, he'd have much less support than he actually has.

In terms of just putting him in because of a blanket "great offensive guy reasoning"... it's not really there. He's 59th in career runs created, which sounds really high -- until you consider that that's behind ballot contemporaries like Fred McGriff and Luis Gonzalez, who also have at least some defensive value. Martinez is generally treated somewhat kinder in rate stats that don't dock him for a relatively short career: T-41st in OPS+, T-57th in wOBA, T-34th in wRC+, 60th in offensive winning percentage. But those aren't really blow-away numbers, and you don't have to stretch far at all to find an eligible player who has a similar but superior case that isn't in the Hall, and that would be Dick Allen.

I'm not saying Martinez is someone to rally for or rally against. He's a guy for whom you can make a statistical case that I think is definitely questionable, but at least it's not outright insane in the same way that, say, Jim Rice was an insane case.

As for Ortiz ... he'll be the worst position player ever elected by the writers (and certainly one of the shortest-tenured -- he's only had ten years of being really good), but he has a lovable, cozy relationship with the media, and because of that and the ~postseason magic~ narrative case, he'll get Jim Rice'd in, but probably not until the third or fourth ballot at the soonest -- that Ortiz could only have had the career he's had in one of the two leagues does matter, to some extent or another.

Which will make the "Sacred Hall of Fame" argument put forth by lunkheaded fucksticks like Shaughnessy and Chass even more ludicrous than it already is.

I kind of wonder how much his low win total is attributable to playing on the Phillies.

I think that's a huge factor. The Phillies averaged 71 wins a year during Schilling's tenure, and that number drops to about 68 when you remove 1993 from the equation. They were a very, very bad team for a very, very long time, and Schilling is far from the first pitcher to have his win totals wrecked by pitching for a shitty team.

 

[Timby]

We have confirmation that Maddux isn't getting 100 percent, as Ken Gurnick of MLB.com voted for only Morris:

As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won't vote for any of them.

The thing I can't believe is that you'd write that and then vote for Jack Morris. PED use in baseball became widespread in the early to mid-'80s, and Morris even had an unexplained career resurgence after that. Keeping your vote when you are going to refuse to vote for almost the entire ballot as part of a dumb moral crusade is a hell of a troll.

There's also a dickhead at MLB.com who only voted for three people because he doesn't want too many people getting in, which is almost as stupid as a Morris-only ballot.

I know we go through this every year, but, Christ, what a bunch of ass-backwards, sanctimonious pricks baseball writers are.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^I said as much earlier to a friend. These people earn their living covering a game. Why any of them think it's appropriate to use the HOF ballot as their platform for a moral crusade is something I'll never understand.

--Sran

 

[Yanks]

Schilling - Nope, 216 wins isn't enough.

Mussina - Yup, I think so.

If Mussina gets in, Schilling gets in easily. One of the best PS pitchers of all time.

Not saying Mussina shouldn't get in, but Schillings incredible postseason numbers makes up for his lower career wins totals.

Thanks for bringing up the post season.

It's my understanding that post season numbers/performances shouldn't be considered?

Don't know for sure, just putting it out there.

 

[Timby]

Why on Earth would you say that?

Postseason statistics don't apply to the regular season awards (MVP, Cy Young, etc.), because those votes are taken prior to the beginning of the playoffs, but postseason performance absolutely applies to Hall of Fame merits, and I have no idea why anyone would think otherwise. Shit, a single postseason performance is the only case people make for Morris' candidacy.

In any event, even if it didn't, Schilling is clearly over the line based on his regular-season statistics alone.

 

[Yanks]

Why on Earth would you say that?

Postseason statistics don't apply to the regular season awards (MVP, Cy Young, etc.), because those votes are taken prior to the beginning of the playoffs, but postseason performance absolutely applies to Hall of Fame merits, and I have no idea why anyone would think otherwise. Shit, a single postseason performance is the only case people make for Morris' candidacy.

In any event, even if it didn't, Schilling is clearly over the line based on his regular-season statistics alone.

Breathe in, breathe out...

Just asking for clarity. I'm not a walking baseball reference manual like you.

So Andy Pettite is in then.

 

[Scout101]

One more poke at the Ortiz discussion: does Frank Thomas getting an easy walk-in affect the discussion? Play 19 years, but pretty sparingly at 1B after the first few. He was, in reality, a DH that just occasionally played 1B. Less than 1/3rd of his games, if I'm doing the numbers right, and less than 6 full seasons using a full 162-game average. He was a DH.

Ortiz is more a 'pure' DH than a bad 1B that eventually migrated, but does Thomas getting in on the first try show that that's waivering a bit? Or does playing a BAD 1B for a small amount of your career get you DH immunity for the rest? Can't find any defensive metrics that show him as anything other than terrible in the field.

Anyway, just wanted to have that discussion, as a DH finally made it in, even if we're pretending he's not really a DH...

And yeah, that's obviously wrong, post-season counts. Small sample size, but when you are STELLAR in that sample, it can't hurt. Schilling's PS numbers are basically best ever there, he was just another pitcher in those games, and elevated on the big stage. Not that he was bad in the regular season, just epic when it counted. If you're not a walking baseball reference, GOOGLE works pretty well. First result is, in fact, baseball-reference.com , which is where we're getting these stats.

Pettite is interesting. Not sure about either way, at first glance. At the very least, his post-season stats don't force the issue like Schilling. 19-11 with a 3.82 ERA isn't quite the 11-2 Schilling has. And Schilling's numbers are only that bad because of Game 1 of the 2004 ALCS where as you recall he had a minor ankle issue. Had experimental surgery and came back to win in Game 6, though...

Anyway, back to Pettite. Long career, 256 and 153. Cy Young votes 5 times, got 2nd once but never won. Good stats, narrative around the 96-2000 Yankees. Maybe? I'm torn between saying yes and saying he's one of those borderline GOOD players that's not HOF-worthy. Only won 20 games twice. Was a good #2 or #3 pitcher for a lot of those years. As a Yankees fan, did you LIKE him, or did you ever think you were really seeing one of the best ever? What were the EPIC games? Tough to define, I guess. When Pedro was good, for example, you knew it even at the time, he's a 1st ballot guy, no questions. Just electric. With guys that have longevity, it's harder to sort out the great stats from the diluted counting stats at times.

Definitely not black and white yes or no, though. Post-season or not. He was a .626 win percentage guy in the regular season, and a .633 guy in the post season, so just more consistently good than epic or anything.

Sorta my problem with Biggio. Hall of Very Good, and got some of the magic milestones. But because he played for a million years. Nice player, you'd be happy to have him, but ever think you were seeing greatness? Or just pretty good for a long time? Fans want to dilute the HoF too much, kinda happy the voters are pricks and don't let as many in. Even if they screw it up at times, or cave over the years.

 

[Skywalker]

Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas all made it in. No-brainer for all three of them, IMO. Surprised but pleased to see Thomas get in on his first ballot. Apparently Craig Biggio came up just two votes short of making it.

Scout101, if you ask me I do think that Frank Thomas' getting in will help Ortiz's case, especially if Ortiz sticks around for one more season after this one and gets over 500 home runs. I'm pretty sure he'd actually have a shot at surpassing 500 this season if he hadn't missed half of 2012.

 

[Timby]

Biggo getting snubbed is bullshit. (As is Mussina only getting 20 percent of the votes, what the hell.) Schilling's drop is pretty crazy, too, but I have to imagine his off-the-field issues over the past year had a part in that.

And Bonds and Clemens slid way backwards, which means they're going to have problems in the future. Ugh.

Edit: Holy shit, Armando Benitez, Kenny Rogers and Jacque fucking Jones all got a vote. I demand to know who did that and their BBWAA membership be immediately revoked.

 

[Kirby]

Biggo getting snubbed is bullshit

Agreed. After last year, I was positive he'd make it this year. Maddux and Glavine are no-brainers for a first ballot. Thomas? eh, ok.

 

[Timby]

I don't think there's any argument that Thomas is a Hall of Famer, but I don't think he would have made it in on the first ballot if it weren't for the PED thing, which helped him, possibly a lot. A lot of people who ordinarily would have been suspicious about Frank Thomas remembered him screaming from the rooftops about the issue when nobody gave a shit and was all "dingers lol," he was submitting his own piss for tests to an independent lab as early as like 1995, and he was also the only player who willingly cooperated with the Mitchell Report against the advice of his own union. In an era of "did he or didn't he," Thomas is probably the one guy who you can say, without a doubt, was not a steroid user.

He also avoided the usual discussions about being a one-dimensional slugger who was a horrible runner / defender and played the majority of his career at DH (as Scout pointed out), which are discussions that I think would have pushed him off first ballot if they came up.

 

[Tom Hendricks]

So based on these results, Biggio will be elected next year and Piazza in two or three years. Looking at those who are eligible in the next few years, its going to be interesting times indeed for the Hall of Fame.

 

[Kirby]

He also avoided the usual discussions about being a one-dimensional slugger who was a horrible runner / defender and played the majority of his career at DH (as Scout pointed out), which are discussions that I think would have pushed him off first ballot if they came up.

Yep, personally I think the DH is a silly rule, but the fact that he hit the ball so well is a testament to his abilities. Thomas should be a HoF'er but not on a first ballot.