This is the 2nd post in a series on the 2011 Hall of Fame ballot. My first post on Jeff Bagwell covered the criteria I am using for analyzing HOF players.
The next player on our hypothetical ballot is Bert Blyleven.
WAR Totals: 145.1 Peak-Adjusted WAR – 90.1 career WAR + 1 MVP seasons (+10) and 9 All-Star seasons (+45)
Stats: 22 seasons, 287-250 / 3.31 ERA / 1.198 WHIP / 4,970 IP / 3,701 K / 1322 BB / 242 CG / 60 Shutouts / 118 ERA+
162 Game Stats: 14-12 / 245 IP / 34 GS / 12 CG / 3 Shutouts / 183 K / 65 BB
I wrote a post on Blyleven 2 years ago that still holds up (it’s not like he’s played since then). His total score is only bested by four post-WWII players who retired by 2005: Tom Seaver, Gaylord Perry, Phil Niekro, Warren Spahn. The only top 20 pitchers not to be in the Hall-of-Fame are Blyleven, the underrated Rick Reuschel (#15) and Kevin Brown (#16). The following Hall of Fame starting pitchers are lower than Blyleven: Bob Gibson (140.6), Steve Carlton (129.4), Fergie Jenkins (121.3), Robin Roberts (120.9), Don Drysdale (115.7), Nolan Ryan (114.8), Juan Marichal (114), Bob Feller (111), Jim Bunning (105.1), Hal Newhouser (96.3), Sandy Koufax (94.5), Jim Palmer (93.5), Don Sutton (90.8), Early Wynn (77), Whitey Ford (65.3), Bob Lemon (62.4), and Catfish Hunter (47.5).
One item that has hurt Blyleven’s HOF chances is his lack of a Cy Young or he was never an ‘ace’. But his 1973 season of 9.2 WAR was the best in AL and he had several top 5 pitching WAR seasons. So he pitched like a Cy Young winner and he pitched like an ace. Isn’t reality more important than perception?
Another perceived demerit is Blyleven’s 53.4 winning percentage (287-250) and that he fell short of 300 wins. Putting aside the fact that Wins heavily depend on factors outside of the pitcher’s control (team offense and defense), here are several Hall of Fame pitchers with comparable records:
It is hard to see how any of these six – let alone all of them – can pass objective criteria that Blyleven could not. None of the six had as many All-Star or better (5.0+ WAR) seasons as Blyleven and only Drysdale had a better ERA+ (which is only because Drysdale’s last season was at 31). There really isn’t a big difference between all the winning percentages (the difference between 53.4% and 55.7% for 35 decisions is 19.5-15.5 vs. 18.7-16.3). None of the others have better career totals than Blyleven in Wins, K’s, or any other meaningful statistic.
Another fun comparison is Nolan Ryan who went 324-292 for a 52.6% winning percentage. Besides passing the 300 win plateau, Ryan also is the all-time leader in strikeouts (Blyleven is 5th also behind Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, and Steve Carlton). Nolan Ryan out-K’d Blyleven per 9 innings (9.54 vs. 6.7) but he also out-BB’d him (4.7 vs. 2.4). This is probably the main reason that Blyleven has the better ERA+ (118 vs. Ryan’s 112).
If you are interested in hearing more on both sides of the Blyleven argument, here are links to SI’s Jon Heyman and BaseballAnalysts.com’s Rich Lederer. I like Heyman’s reporting on breaking news but I really think he’s out of his depths on these things.
Fun (and potentially fictional) facts:
Blyleven is the first and only great baseball player to be born in The Netherlands – unless you count Andruw Jones (who was born in Netherland Antilles) or Dutch Leonard (who liked his dates to pay for their share of the bill).
In 1986-1987 with the Twins, he gave up 50 and 46 Home Runs – setting a single-season record (50) and having the third highest total (Jose Lima’s 48 is 2nd).
As an announcer, Blyleven loves to drop the f-bomb and, based on the above pic, you can take a man out of the Netherlands but Dutch ovens die hard.
This is the first in a series of posts reviewing players on the 2011 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot. Here is some background on how I analyze players for the HOF:
Much like the Earth and many a good joke, the views on Hall of Fame worthiness have two poles. The first pole is the traditional view which focuses on seasonal and career ‘baseball card’ stats like AVG/Hits/HR/RBI or Wins/ERA, factors in dominance based on MVP/Cy Young voting + reputation during one’s career, and the post-season success for that individual and their team(s). The second pole is the sabermetric view which relies on more advanced statistics with the aim of crediting the best players based on objective criteria.
I am much, much closer to the sabermetric pole than the traditionalist pole. My view on baseball (and life) is to question and adapt my views when presented with compelling information. I’ve been convinced that OBP & Times on Base are superior to AVG and Hits and that the traditional view of baseball has underestimated the value of walks. I can’t view HRs or even slugging percentage as an absolute reflection of power and look for advanced stats to adjust for era and park factors. Runs and RBIs are clearly important – you need to score runs to win games – but it’s hard to balance these stats against lineup strength, era, park factors, etc. The same goes for pitching: I think ERA/WHIP needs to be adjusted per era/park factors/team defense, Wins are a questionable measure given their reliance on team strength, etc.
As advanced statistics have improved, I put less faith in MVPs/Cy Youngs/All-Star voting. The writers (and fans for All-Star) voting for those awards over the years didn’t either have access to the advanced learnings that sabermetrics has provided and/or don’t believe it. For instance, let’s look at the 1996 MVP voting. Juan Gonzalez had a fantastic hitting year (.314/47/144 with a .368 OBP, below average running/defense and favorable park that led him to not even make the AL Top 10 in OPS+) but exactly how could that be considered more valuable than Ken Griffey Jr. (.303/49/140 with a .392 OBP, solid baserunning, and the most valuable defensive player in the league based on Defensive WAR) or Alex Rodriguez (.358/36/123 with a .414 OBP, positive baserunning and above-average SS defense)? In fact, of the 21 players to get at least one AL MVP vote in 1996, Juan Gonzalez had the worst Wins Above Replacement (WAR). In addition, there are also some years where a player wins the MVP/Cy Young by default because there really isn’t a player who warrants it and vice versa (see 1996 where Ken Griffey and Alex Rodriguez – as well as Chuck Knoblauch – were worthy MVP candidates). Does that make their year any less MVP-worthy?
So here are the criteria/stats I’m using for my HOF analysis:
1) Career Excellence - I am measuring this by career WAR (Wins Above Replacement). This statistic – which was developed by Sean Smith and is available for free on Baseball-Reference.com or Sean’s own BaseballProjection.com – calculates the value of a hitter’s offense/defense/running or a pitcher’s pitching vs. those of a replacement player (minor leaguer or waiver wire claim). Many factors such as position, era, park, defense (for pitchers) are accounted for. (Note: there are slight differences in WAR calculations between Baseball-Reference and BaseballProjection.com – I use those from B-R unless otherwise noted.)
2) Peak Excellence – I think most traditional and sabermetric fans and voters agree that – everything equal – a player who had a dominant peak is more preferable to one who was just very good for a long period of time. Rather than focus on awards, I’ve taken the B-R (and I assume Sean Smith) suggested breaks of 5.0+ WAR for an All-Star season and 8.0+ WAR for an MVP season. For reference, between 1901 and 2010, there were 282 hitting seasons and 132 pitching seasons that surpassed 8.0. That roughly 2.7 hitters and 1.2 pitchers per year which seems fair when you consider there are about 2x the hitters than pitchers who play enough to reach this total.
(Bit of trivia: The year with the most 8.0+ WAR hitters is 2004 with 6: Barry Bonds (12.4), Adrian ‘El Senator‘ Beltre (10.1), Albert Pujols (9.4), Scott Rolen (9.2), Jim Edmonds (8.4), and Ichiro (8.1). The NL MVP vote went exactly in WAR order for the 5 NL’ers. Vladamir Guerrero (7.4) beat Ichiro for AL MVP who finished 7th. The year with the most pitchers 8.0+ was 1971 with 6: Wilbur Wood (10.7), Fergie Jenkins (9.2), Tom Seaver (9.2), Vida Blue (8.8), Mickey Lolich (8.6), and Dave Roberts (8.5). Vida Blue and Mickey Lolich finished above Wilbur Wood for AL Cy Young while Fergie Jenkins edged out Tom Seaver for NL.)
I’ve combined the above into one stat using the following formula: Career WAR + 10 * MVP seasons (8.0+ WAR) + 5 * All-Star seasons (5.0-7.9 WAR). I’ll call this ‘Peak-Adjusted WAR’ for the series of posts. This is admittedly arbitrary but seems to do a fair job at rewarding those with high peaks vs. long careers. Case in point: Carlton Fisk has one more career WAR than Gary Carter (67.3 to 66.3) aided by playing close to 2 more seasons worth of games. But Gary Carter had 8 seasons of All-Star value (most ever for a catcher amongst retired players as of 2005) while Carlton Fisk only had 4. This adjustment puts Carter ahead of Fisk 106.3-87.3 (2nd and 3rd behind Johnny Bench). Sandy Koufax has far less career WAR to Don Sutton (54.5 to 70.8) but his 3 MVP seasons (1963, 1965, 1966) and two All-Star seasons give him 40 extra points where Don Sutton’s 4 All-Star seasons give him 20. Thus, Koufax scores higher 94.5 to 90.8. (Click here for access to the spreadsheet on Google Docs).
In looking at the scores across all players, I’d say for me that a peak-adjusted WAR of 100 is a no-brainer selection, anything from 80-100 is in the consideration set (with more bias towards positions with less players who’ve reached that plateau, and anything under 80 isn’t a consideration except for relief pitchers or special cases (e.g., an untimely death, Negro-league players, a player lost peak time to serve in the war, etc.)
3) Hall of Fame Position Representativeness – While WAR takes position into account for single seasons, it cannot adjust for the fact that certain positions (notably Catcher and Middle Infield) are tougher to have long careers than other positions (notably corner OF/1B/DH). My general POV is that if a player was in the top 10 at his position in the past 60 years (1945-2005), he warrants Hall of Fame consideration even if their stats look lower than average.
This brings me to the top player on my imaginary 2011 ballot – Jeff Bagwell.
WAR Totals: 139.9 Peak-Adjusted WAR – 79.9 career WAR + 3 MVP seasons (+30) and 6 All-Star seasons (+30)
Don’t let the 449 career HRs fool you. Based on either career WAR or my Peak-Adjusted WAR, Jeff Bagwell was the best 1st baseman post-WWII (excluding Albert Pujols) and the 4th best ever behind Lou Gehrig, Albert Pujols, and Jimmie Foxx. Now just about everyone reading this lived through the Bagwell era (as it was known by no one outside of Houston and the Bagwell extended family). It didn’t FEEL like he was the best 1B in the past 60 years, did it?
Here are several reasons why it might not have felt that way:
1) Bagwell played his first 9 seasons (23-31) in the hitter un-friendly Astrodome. He still put up great baseball card stats (AVG/HR/RBI) but the Astrodome maybe cost him a HR championship or two. His OPS+ (OBP + SLG, adjusted by era and park) was top 10 in the NL for 8 of his 9 Astrodome years. His career OPS+ is the 10th best among retired post-WWII players. Ahead of him are (Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, Mickey Mantle, Mark McGwire, Stan Musial, Dick Allen, Frank Thomas, Willie Mays, and Frank Robinson).
2) He played in an era with a lot of great hitting 1Bs. Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Carlos Delgado, Fred McGriff, and Jason Giambi to name a few.
3) While his AVG was very good (career. 297), it was his ability to walk that led to his excellent .408 career OBP (14th best among post-WWII players). As mentioned above, walking/OBP has traditionally been undervalued (and the nominations of Jim Rice and Andre Dawson confirm they are still undervalued).
4) Baserunning isn’t generally expected nor valued for 1st basemen. Bagwell is clearly the best baserunner amongst modern-day 1Bs (even Cecil Fielder!). His career baserunning (using B-R’s Rbaser) of 29 runs above average is more than double that of the next modern 1B (Albert Pujols – 14). To give some perspective, Rafael Palmeiro is at -10 runs below replacement, Todd Helton at -11 runs, Mark McGwire at -19 runs, Frank Thomas at -26 runs, Jim Thome at -27 runs, and Carlos Delgado the worst at -30 runs. The conversion is 10 runs per win so Bagwell’s running led an estimated 3-6 additional teams wins in his career vs. other similar slugging first basemen of his era.
5) Fielding isn’t traditionally valued very high for 1st basemen. While Bagwell falls short of the pantheon of fielding 1Bs (top modern-day 1Bs based on B-R’s Rfield (very close to TZ) – are Keith Hernandez, Albert Pujols, and John Olerud), he’s at about the 20th percentile of qualified 1Bs and that is including an AWFUL 2005 season where Bagwell’s arthritic shoulder led to him being tied for the worst defensive 1B season ever. Take away the shoulder injury and he’d be closer to the 10th percentile. Several of the slugging 1Bs of the era were below-average fielders including Jim Thome (-22 runs below average), Mark McGwire (-30 runs below average), Fred McGriff (-34 runs) Carlos Delgado (-43 runs), Frank Thomas (-64 runs), and Jason Giambi (-73 runs).
6) Houston is a great city to have an excellent and anonymous career. Ask Jimmy Wynn and Jose Cruz Sr.
So even though Bagwell had 3 MVP-quality seasons (1994, 1996, 1997) – which is one more than Jim Thome (1), Todd Helton (1), Frank Thomas (0), Rafael Palmeiro (0), Mark McGwire (0), and Carlos Delgado (0) combined – he doesn’t register quite the same as some of his peers.
Add all this up and Bagwell is a no-brainer selection that probably will not get in 1st ballot but will by his 2nd or 3rd ballot.
Fun (and potentially fictional) fact:
The infamous Red Sox-Astro trade of Jeff Bagwell for reliever Larry Anderson was influenced by Boston’s management’s desire for players with hard A’s in their name. Studies at the time showed that opposing players would be distracted by the fans chanting these names. Larry Anderson has twice the hard A’s as Jeff Bagwell. If Bagwell’s name was Jack, he would’ve never been traded by the Sox. This odd policy paid dividends when they drafted Nomar Garciaparra sight unseen.
It’s the beginning of a new year. Time to reflect on the year that has passed. Time to make resolutions in the new year. Time to hope the Baseball Hall of Fame voters make a resolution to vote better.
Last year’s nomination was a mixed bag for us. Only one of our 5 nominations made it in (Rickey – the other four were Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, and Tommy John) and one of our ‘nays’ made it in (Jim Rice). For those who missed our HOF analysis from last year, we do our best to create objective parameters for measuring success at a specific position/role. Rather than focus on just a player or just those that are on the ballot, we look at all players that filled a specific type of role and analyze everyone outside the Hall of Fame to unearth any perceived injustices. Last year’s analyses were on (with returning nominees in parentheses):
This entry is going to focus on middle infielders since there are two prominent middle infielders that are on the ballot for the first time (Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin) and one returnee for review (Alan Trammell). We’ll review Fred McGriff and Edgar Martinez at another time (betting they’re not going to make it this year).
In all, there are 32 middle infielders who are in the Hall of Fame as players. We’re defining ‘Middle infielder’ as anyone who played 2B or SS for over 50% of their games – Robin Yount sneaks in (54% at SS) while Ernie Banks doesn’t (45%). If you scan through the offensive stats of these 32 players, you’ll find a number of head scratchers. Great defense and a momentous HR aside, Bill Mazeroski had a .299 OBP. Joe Posnanski has already expounded plenty on the poetic injustice of having Joe Tinker and Johnny Evers in the Hall (get it – they were in a famous baseball poem and it’s a statistical injustice…). Even several players who played at HOF levels have dubious counting stats – Lou Boudreau, Tony Lazzeri, Joe Gordon, Travis Jackson, Bobby Wallace, and Phil Rizzuto all fall below 2,000 hits (less than such HOF afterthoughts as Phil Garner and Jay Bell).
The point of this prologue is twofold:
Middle infielders shouldn’t be reviewed for the Hall of Fame using standard thresholds like 3,000 hits or 500 HRs. Guess how many middle infielders passed the 3,000 hit barrier? Three. Eddie Collins (a phenomenal 2B for the A’s and White Sox from 1906-1930), Cal Ripken, and Robin Yount. You can argue Collins is the only true Middle Infielder in the Hall of Fame to reach the mark since Ripken and Yount required position changes to reach the mark. (Note: Craig Biggio finished with 3,060 hits and Derek Jeter is at 2,747 by end of 2009). As for HRs, Ripken has 431 HRs and no other HOF middle infielder has more than 301 (Rogers Hornsby).
Middle infielders shouldn’t be reviewed for the Hall of Fame using the statistics of the weakest enshrined players at the position as the ‘floor’. The bar has to be set higher. For this post, we’ll generally use the 40th-60th percentile for thresholds (e.g., the 60th percentile for a stat means that only 40% of the enshrined middle infielders met these thresholds).
Below represents a quintile analysis of the stats across the middle infielders.
A couple of quick notes:
OPS+ – On-base percentage + slugging percentage adjusted for park and era with the average being 100. This provides a good baseline for a player’s offensive value. This is not weighted by position and, as you can see from the above chart, a good 30% or so of enshrined middle infielders are BELOW average vs. the average hitter (e.g., Ozzie Smith had an 87 OPS+).
H+BB+HBP – Counting stats are important for measuring a player’s longevity. While 3,000 hits is the standard of HOF counting stats, factoring in walks and hit-by-pitches is a better reflection of a player’s ability to get on base. Even adding in Walks and HBPs, you can see that only about 60% of the enshrined middle infielders passed the magic 3,000 number.
MVP Shares= This stat from Baseball-Reference.com sums the MVP vote percentages over a player’s career. I find this more useful than focusing just on MVPs as it rewards players who had a number of seasons that are MVP-worthy. Good example: Ryne Sandberg has more MVP Shares than Robin Yount (1.98 vs. 1.8) despite winning one less MVP as he had one more top-5 finish and one of Yount’s MVPs was far from unanimous (1989)
Below are all middle infielders retired as of Dec 2009 that got on base more than 2,500 times and had at least a 100 OPS+ (the ‘excepcion’ made for Dave Concepcion).
Craig Biggio (not eligible until 2012)
Craig Biggio – who isn’t eligible for the ballot until 2012 – guaranteed his first ballot nomination when he passed the 3,000 hit barrier. The fact that he stuck around an extra year or two to reach the mark will be long forgotten even by #1 fan Bill James and Astros owner Drayton McLane Jr. (renowned here for sponsoring the Brad Ausmus Welfare Program). Much like Rickey Henderson, Biggio limped to 3,000 hits because he took free passes during many of his plate appearances (including the 2nd most HBPs in history). The only players who started their career since 1962 who got on base more than Biggio were Barry Bonds and Rickey Henderson (Paul Molitor had 250 more hits but 45 less times on base). He also hit 668 doubles which is the 5th most of all time – the most for a right-handed hitter.
Vote: YES
Fun (and potentially fictional) anecdote: When Craig Biggio and Mo Vaughn were teammates at Seton Hall University in New Jersey, they went by the nicknames Taffy & Pork Roll. Oddly enough, Biggio was the one called Pork Roll.
Roberto Alomar (first time on ballot)
If you compare Roberto Alomar’s stats compared to the middle infielders in the HOF, his stats are in the top 40% on just about any statistic. Let’s take the most recent 2B to get voted by the BBWAA into the HOF – Ryne Sandberg. Despite Sandberg hitting 72 more HRs than Alomar (282 to 210), Alomar had the higher OPS+ (116 to 114). Alomar crushes him in times on base (3,868 to 3,240), has more RBIs, more Runs, more SBs, more World Series rings (sorry Cubs fans), and matches him on fielding prowess (10 GGs to Sandberg’s 9). While Alomar never won an MVP, he finished in the top 6 five times. So why might voters not vote him in? He doesn’t have 3,000 hits but if Sandberg can get in with 2,300 hits, how can Alomar be kept out? His career fell off a cliff after 33 but it wasn’t his fault that he was traded to the Mets. The only reason I can think of is the whole spitting incident with John Hirschbeck but if Ty Cobb is in there…
Vote: YES
Fun (and potentially fictional) anecdote: The Spanish-speaking Alomar was engaged to marry French-speaking tennis player Mary Pierce in a completely non-suspect heterosexual coupling that, alas, did not work out. There has been an infectious amount of chatter about his relationships since then.
Barry Larkin (first time on ballot)
Barry Larkin’s resume is about as good as you’ll find for a shortstop not named Honus Wagner: 116 OPS+, relative longevity for a middle infielder (19 seasons, 3400+ times on base), good glove (3 Gold Gloves), and excellent base-running (379 SBs at an 83% rate). Two interesting comparisons:
Barry Larkin vs. Cal Ripken – While Ripken has more than double the HRs of Larkin (431 to 198), Larkin actually has a higher OPS+ (116 vs. 112) , BA (.295 vs. .276), OBP (.371 vs. .340), and almost the same SLG (.444 vs. .447). They both even had a far less successful sibling in the pros. Factor in Larkin’s superior speed and you’ve got a pretty good case that Larkin was a better player than Ripken. Ripken’s big advantage? Durability. Larkin only played 150+ games in 4 of his 19 seasons. So Larkin might have been better when healthy but Ripken was more valuable overall.
Barry Larkin vs. Roberto Alomar – Same OPS+ (116). Same OBP (.371). Near identical 162 game rates – Larkin 99/15/71/28, Alomar 103/14/77/32. Multiple Gold Gloves. It’ll be fitting if they go in at the same time.
Vote: YES
Fun (and potentially fictional) anecdote: When Barry Larkin and Chris Sabo were teammates at the University of Michigan, they went by the nicknames Wolverine & Teen Wolf. Oddly enough, neither were given a cameo in the subsequent movies despite Larkin’s extensive workout routines and Sabo’s extensive commercial work.
Alan Trammell (7th year on ballot – 17.4% in 2009) & Lou Whitaker (no longer on ballot after being dropped off in 2001 with 2.9% of the votes)
It’s only fitting to analyze Trammell and Whitaker together as the double-play combo played together for 19 seasons. Their statistics are quite comparable and the areas where Trammell has the edge is in batting average (.285 v .276), SBs (17 per 162 G vs. 10), and MVP Shares (1.22 vs. 0.21). Trammell’s BA advantage loses luster when you realize Whitaker’s higher walk rate put him ahead on OBP (.363 vs. .352). Whitaker also has an advantage in power (17 per 162 G vs 13) and thus it isn’t surprising that Whitaker beats Trammell in OPS+ (116 vs. 110). Whitaker was on base 365 more times than Trammell (3,665 vs. 3,300) driven as much by Whitaker’s OBP advantage as Trammell’s knee and ankle injuries that led to him failing to pass 500 plate appearances in his last 6 seasons.
Trammell’s MVP Share advantage could be for a number of reasons but my take is it’s because Trammell’s best years were better than Whitaker’s. Trammell finished about 130 in OPS+ five times making top 20 in MVP each of those years – the peak being finishing 2nd to George Bell in 1987 despite Trammell having the higher OPS+ (155 vs. 146). Whitaker only reached 130 in OPS+ twice and never had a season one could argue was a top 3 MVP season. This could be the reason why Whitaker fell off the ballot while Trammell stayed on – short of hitting the big counting stats, MVP-like seasons are the best bet for getting nominated.
Both were excellent fielders winning multiple Gold Gloves though shortstop is regarded as the harder position.
Given all of the above, I think it’s fair to say that Trammell vs. Whitaker is very close to a draw and it’s near impossible to argue for one to make the Hall and not the other. That said, do both deserve to make the Hall?
While neither may rank quite as high as Alomar and Larkin, Whitaker and Trammell both would finish in the top 60% of enshrined middle infielders in OPS+, times on base, OBP, and just about every 162 G rate for R/HR/RBI/SB. More convincingly, here are the retired 2B and SS that have higher OPS+ and times on base than Whitaker and Trammell:
2B (5) – Eddie Collins, Charlie Gehringer, Rogers Hornsby, Joe Morgan, Frankie Frisch
SS (6) – Honus Wagner, Cal Ripken, Luke Appling, Joe Cronin, Robin Yount, Barry Larkin
It would seem that if only 5-6 players at your position were as valuable offensively (as measured by OPS+) for as long (as measured by Times on Base), you deserve to be a Hall of Famer. But let’s get some perspective using recent inductees who played different positions. Let’s use Jim Rice (OF), Eddie Murray (1B/DH), and Wade Boggs (3B) for the comparison.
Retired OF with greater OPS+ and Times on Base than Jim Rice (29) – Most surprising entry - non-HOFer Ken Singleton.
Retired 1B with greater OPS+ and Times on Base than Eddie Murray (0)
Retired 3B with greater OPS+ and Times on Base than Wade Boggs (0)
Jim Rice’s stat is a huge vote for Whitaker and Trammell. Eddie Murray and Wade Boggs don’t help the case at all.
Final verdict for me is that both players deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. When you can name only 5-6 players at your position which were clearly more valuable offensively plus had more longevity (with only a couple ever being televised in color) AND you were excellent fielders, I think you deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.
Vote: YES
Fun (and potentially fictional) anecdote: Trammell and Whitaker solidified their 1980′s cred by starring as themselves in a Magnum PI episode. The only more awesome 1980′s cameo by a baseball player – Reggie Jackson on MacGyver (see 33 minute mark).
Willie Randolph (no longer on ballot after being dropped off in 1998 with 1.1% of the votes)
Willie Randolph had a higher OBP (.373) and more times on base (3,528) than Jeff Kent (3,448 / .356) . Ryne Sandberg too (3,181 / .344). Shocking, no?
Another fun stat – Randolph had 1,243 walks and 675 strike outs. Since 1950, there are only 6 players with a better BB/K ratio: Ted Williams, Jim Gilliam, Richie Ashburn, Stan Musial, Gene Woodling, and Wade Boggs. Just below Randolph? Joe Morgan and Ozzie Smith.
While Randolph never won a Gold Glove, he had the misfortune of being in the same league as Frank White (Gold Glove 1977-1982, 1986-1987) and Lou Whitaker (1983-1985). But using Total Fielding Runs Above Average (Rtot) as a comparison, Randolph’s career total of 114.5 runs above average is better than Whitaker (76.8) and comparable to White (125.6).
The case for Willie Randolph doesn’t extend too much further than OBP/Times on Base and fielding. He had little power which counteracted his strong OBP and left him with a 104 OPS+. He had solid speed (20 SBs per 162 G) but nothing on the level of an Alomar or Larkin. He had no seasons that look remotely like an MVP season – his 1980 season of 99/7/46/30/.294 when his .427 OBP was only bested by the .390 hitting George Brett (.454 OBP) was his closest.
Voting for Randolph comes down to whether you feel above average OBP and fielding over a long time is HOF-worthy. I veer on the side of no. I think that if a player has below-average power, they need to be that much greater in terms of counting stats or fielding. Ozzie Smith was the best fielder of his time. Tony Gwynn had over 3,000 hits and an OBP of .388. Wade Boggs had over 3,000 hits and a ridiculous OBP (.415). That said, Willie at least deserved to stay on the ballot for more than a year.
Vote: NO
Fun (and potentially fictional) anecdote: Willie Randolph grew up in the dangerous Brownsville section of Brooklyn with future NBA star Lloyd ‘World B’ Free. While Randolph’s last name prevented a similarly creative and philanthropic first name change, he dedicated his omnipresent moustache to the fight against world hunger.
Dave Concepcion (no longer on ballot after 15 years on the ballot from 1994-2008 – highest mark was 16.9%)
The argument seems weak for Concepcion. His 88 OPS+ is only greater than four middle infielders in the Hall (Rabbit Maranville – 82, Luis Aparicio – 82, Bill Mazeroski – 84, Ozzie Smith – 87). Maranville is one of those historical picks that look bad in retrospect. The other three players are all in for their glove. Concepcion won 5 Gold Gloves and was renowned for the glove but his Total Fielding Runs Above Average for his career is only 48.3. Ozzie Smith is at 238.7. Aparicio was at 148.6. Mazeroski is at 148.1. The other great-fielding SS of his time – Mark Belanger – was at 238.0.
Based on this, it appears Concepcion was a very good SS but his fielding reputation (perhaps aided by the artificial turf at his home park?), the halo of playing on the Big Red Machine, and playing in a weak SS era gave him more time on the ballot than seems warranted.
Vote: NO
Fun anecdote: Dave Concepcion is beloved in his home country of Venezuela and several notable middle infielders such as Ozzie Guillen and Omar Vizquel have worn his #13 in tribute. This love did not extend to the city of Cincinnati however as WKRP in Cincinnati failed to crack the Venezuelan Nielsen TV ratings during the 1970′s even with the prominent featuring of Charo-like Loni Anderson.
Jeff Kent (not eligible until 2013)
Given that he has significantly more HRs than any other 2nd baseman (377 with Rogers Hornsby second at 301), he’s a Hall of Fame lock. The RBIs help too as he has the 2nd most career RBIs for a 2nd baseman (behind Hornsby) and has the most 100 RBI seasons (8). This power is the driving reason why his OPS+ (123) is in the 80th percentile among enshrined middle infielders.
(Note: The above uses total stats. If you go by just stats as a 2nd baseman, he’d still be #1 in HRs – 2nd to Ryne Sandberg – and 2nd in RBIs to Nap Lajoie)
His OBP .356 is about average for enshrined middle infielders and his fielding was about league average (his Rtot was -1.4).
Not much question on this one…
Vote: YES
Fun (and potentially fictional) anecdote: With his moustache and pension for not taking shit from anyone (ask Barry Bonds and Milton Bradley), it’s not surprising to hear that Jeff Kent dominated the MLB Chuck Norris Award in the late 1990′s/early 2000′s.
Bobby Grich (no longer on ballot after being dropped off in 1992 with 2.6% of the votes)
With only a career average of .266 and 224 HRs, it’s easy to see why Grich fell off the battle in 1992 before the Internet and Sabermetrics changed how many voters valued players. Growing up in the latter part of the ‘Grich Era’, my sharpest memory of him was sharing a baseball card with Dwight Evans, Tony Armas, and Eddie Murray as the 1981 AL League Leaders in Home Runs. Pretty impressive for a 2nd baseman I thought. So did he deserve more HOF consideration? Definitely.
His OPS+ of 125 was higher than Jeff Kent and, besides his above average power for a 2B, he had an impressive .371 OBP (a good eye balancing out his .266 AVG). He was a strong fielder – netting 4 Gold Gloves and a +70 in Total Fielding Runs Above Average. He never made the top 5 in MVP voting but arguably should’ve won the 1981 MVP (led the league in OPS+).
Taking a look at his era (1970-1986), here are the number of seasons where a 2nd baseman (defined as 50% of games at 2B) had an OPS+ of 130 or more and had 450 plate appearances. Note that the only other players who are near Grich are Hall of Famers.
Joe Morgan – 7
Bobby Grich – 5
Rod Carew – 3 (note: Carew accomplished this in 1969 and 4 more times during this era playing 1B)
Ryne Sandberg – 2 (note: Sandberg accomplished this feat four more times from 1989-1992)
Davey Johnson – 1
Bill Madlock – 1
Willie Randolph – 1
Lou Whitaker – 1
Steve Sax – 1
The argument seems to be not whether Bobby Grich was a Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman (because 125 OPS+ and strong fielding is HOF-worthy) but if he played long enough. He only had 14 full seasons and his 3,056 times on base is a little bit under the 40th percentile of enshrined middle infielders.
Using the same test of “How many players at their position have greater OPS+ and Times on Base?” as I used for Trammell and Whitaker, Grich matches Whitaker’s number with 5 (Eddie Collins, Charlie Gehringer, Rogers Hornsby, Joe Morgan, Nap Lajoie). Given that only one (Morgan) played post-WWII, I think Grich did enough to warrant HOF enshrinement.
Vote: YES
Fun (and potentially fictional) anecdote: Bobby Grich was heartbroken after the 1986 playoff loss to the Boston Red Sox and retired soon after. The biggest tragedy wasn’t that he never won a World Series – it was that, unbeknownst to Grich, he had been given the role of “Queen Killer” in the Naked Gun script and his retirement led the writers to give the role to Reggie Jackson instead.
The rest of the players I’d vote ‘No’ but here are some quick notes:
Tony Fernandez – Solid hitter and fielder but had so-so power, OBP, and times on base.
Larry Doyle – Deadball Era player who played mostly with the Giants. Earned an MVP and a #3 finish. He retired to coach at age 33 when it appears he still had more in the tank (105 OPS+ his final year). You can make a case he was more valuable than other players voted into the Hall from his era (see Johnny Evers).
Vern Stephens – It’s fitting he played some of his best years with the Red Sox as he was kind of the Nomar Garciaparra of his time. One of the top hitters in the game from ages 21-30 with 5 top 7 MVP finishes and a ridiculous 3 year stretch where he 29+ HRs and 137+ RBIs. After that, his career went off the cliff due to injuries – never reaching 400 plate appearances in a season again. I wouldn’t be surprised if he eventually gets voted in by the Veteran’s Committee given how impressive he was at his peak.
Del Pratt – Solid player in the 1910s and 1920s. According to The Baseball Page, he was a good fielder too. Without the longevity stats, hard to give him the thumbs up.
Jim Fregosi – While better known now as the ‘guy the Mets traded Nolan Ryan for’ and as a manager, Fregosi had some pop for a shortstop of his era. He had 8 straight years of OPS+ above 108 (ages 22-28) and then injuries wore him down.
Dick McAuliffe – Playing 2B and SS for the Tigers from 1960-1975, McAuliffe was a Moneyballer. Good power (15+ HRs 6 times) and good eye (had 100+ BBs twice). His OBP (.343) looks a lot better than his BA (.247). Like a lot of the above players, he just didn’t play long enough (or great enough) to warrant HOF enshrinement.
Jay Bell – Good but rarely great player for a number of years. Had his career year at 33 when he exploded for 38 HRs. I remember him being a good fielder but his stats indicate he was closer to average.
Chuck Knoblauch – Less you think that only 2B/SS of earlier eras fell off a cliff at 30, there’s the case of Chuck Knoblauch. He put together some fantastic years from 23-30 – mostly with Minnesota (with 2 decent years with NYY). His OBP was above .380 for 6 seasons including two seasons at .424 and .448. He was solid on the basepaths too, netting 30+ SBs in 7 of those years. But it seemed like all his skills deteriorated after 30. He had an infamous case of the ‘yips’ and eventually had to be moved from 2B (where he had been a solid fielder) to LF. After a ‘transition’ year with the Yanks and a single season with KC, Knoblauch was out of the game at 33. With perhaps 2-3 more peak seasons and no ‘yips’, he could’ve definitely warranted HOF consideration.
Marty McManus – Another solid middle infielder from the pre-WWII era (1920-1934). Never had anything resembling an MVP-like season but steady. Career likely hurt by playing under belligerent manager Biff Tannen.
Davey Lopes – Lopes’ career was completely opposite from anyone else on the list. Well, not completely opposite. He did play baseball…but his first full MLB season was at 28(!) and he was putting up solid stats past the age of 40. Lopes was well-known for his speed (averaging 50 SB per 162 G) and was very efficient at it (83% success rate). He had a surprising amount of pop for his speed – topping 10 HRs on 7 occasions – but he surprisingly didn’t hit as many doubles as you’d think given that combination (never hit more than 26 in a season – Biggio averaged more than double that from 1998-1999). Given that Lopes was just an average fielder and had just okay OBP, he’s not really an HOF consideration. But I’d have liked him on one of my fantasy teams and it would’ve been interesting if he started younger and compiled more counting stats (note: based on minor league performance, he likely would’ve been a quality starter at 26 or 27).
Apologies to Alan Trammell and Lee Smith as I didn’t get around to doing middle infielder and reliever posts. My guess is that I’d have ended up voting ‘No’ on both.
In this series of Hall of Fame nomination-based posts, we’re going to focus on specific roles/positions. We’ll be reviewing both players on the HOF ballot as well as non-HOFers who we feel deserve re-consideration.
This third post focuses on starting pitchers – with Bert Blyleven (61.9%), Jack Morris (42.9%), and Tommy John (29.1%) the three with the highest % of votes from last year’s nomination. Before we even look at their stats (and those of other non-Hall of Famer contemporaries), we need to set the criteria by which to judge HOF-worthiness. The criteria by which starters have been judged has been preoccupied by counting stats – primarily Wins but also Strikeouts tend to be considered (think Ryan, Carlton, part of Blyleven’s argument). Let’s first review modern pitchers in the HOF to determine what criteria seems to define excellence – with a bias towards those that factor out the bias of era, park, and team performance.
Here are the stats for starting pitchers with 200+ Wins since 1956 who are in the Hall of Fame (this factors out Koufax who had only 165 Wins):
The stats that best factor out the era/park/team performance biases are Quality Start % and ERA+. Quality Start % is the percentage of starts that went 6+ Innings and gave up 3 or less runs. While there is a bias here in that it was easier to give up 3 or less runs in ‘low offense’ years, it is a better statistic than Wins/Win % as it factors out team performance. ERA+ or Adjusted ERA adjusts a pitcher’s ERA according to the pitcher’s ballpark and the ERA of the pitcher’s league (100 is league-average). K/9 IP and K/BB ratio are good secondary measures to understand how dominant a pitcher was. WHIP (Baserunners/9 IP) is a great stat but has to be used directionally since it isn’t adjusted like ERA+.
I created composite stats based on the top 1/3, middle 1/3 and low 1/3 of these players – e.g., if you divide these players into 3 tiers, 314 wins represents the floor of that 1st tier.
If we look at these starters, we see all have Quality Start %s over 60%. ERA+ tends to be at least 15% above league average with Nolan Ryan, Don Sutton, and Catfish Hunter being the exceptions. If we look at just these two stats, it seems fair to say that the most questionable modern pitcher in the HOF is Catfish Hunter. His ERA+ of 104 is near league-average and that’s with less post-peak innings pitched than most since arm troubles and diabetes forced him to retire at 33. While Sutton’s ERA+ isn’t very impressive, his Quality Start % (aided perhaps by Dodger Stadium) looks mighty impressive. And Nolan Ryan’s strikeouts and no-hitters add enough intangibles to look past the ERA+.
So based on the above, let’s go with a 60% Quality Start % and a ERA+ of 115 as the tentative bar with Wins and K’s as secondary arguments.
Now, before we look at the eligible players, let’s apply this criteria against the dominant generation of pitchers that just retired or are nearing retirement:
The pitchers that are HOF locks – Randy, Pedro, Clemens, Maddux, and Glavine – easily hurdle this 200 Win, 60% QS% and 115 ERA+. I doubt I’ll be alone in marvelling at how impressive Curt Schilling and especially Kevin Brown stack up based on these criteria – if I’m still blogging in 5 years, expect me to be championing both their causes. It’s also interesting how the two other players on this list discussed for HOF – Smoltz and Mussina – pass these criteria while the four below the mark (at least on QS%) are generally considered below the bar. (Note: For David Cone fans, he had 194 Wins, 120+ERA, and a 61.6% QS%. Given the time lost at the tail end of his career due to his arm aneurysm, I can make an argument for him too…)
Okay, now let’s look at non-HOF pitchers since 1956 with 200+ Wins that are HOF-eligible (retired 5+ years):
One last chart before I go into each player. Since Wins are such a huge part of the debate, I calculated a metric called ‘Adjusted Wins’. For all I know, some sabermatrician did this already so I’m not going to say I invented it. To calculate ‘Adjusted Wins’, I first created a metric called ‘Wins Per GS / QS%’. This takes the % of starts that were Wins and then divides it by the % of starts that were Quality Starts. I ran this against the HOF bunch and it came out to an average of 73.1% (e.g., they had about 3 Wins for every 4 Quality Starts). I ran this against the HOF-eligible pitchers and it came out to 74.4%. Based on this, I created an Adjusted Win metric that is Quality Starts * 74%.
This metric has two inherent flaws:
Not all Quality Starts are equal. Giving up zero earned runs in 9 IP is much more Win-worthy than a 6 IP / 3 ER start
It doesn’t account for era or park bias (like ERA+). A Quality Start in a low offense era in a pitcher’s park isn’t as Win-worthy as the same one in a high offense era in a hitter’s park.
Nevertheless, I think this provides guidance as to whether a pitcher ‘deserved’ more or less Wins. The ‘Diff’ column is positive (blue) if the Adjusted Wins are higher than actual Wins and negative (red) if the Adjusted Wins are lower than actual.
Bert Blyleven – 62.6% of his starts were Quality Starts. His ERA+ was 115. His K/9 IP is better than 8 of the 13 HOFers listed earlier (bested by Ryan, Carlton, Gibson, Seaver, and Bunning) and everyone on this list except Chuck Finley and Mickey Lolich. His Wins per GS / QS% is at 66.9% which is well below the 74% average – leading to an adjusted win total of 317 (or 30 above actual). The only arguments I can see against Blyleven is that he didn’t ‘dominate’ his time – e.g., never won a Cy Young (top 7 four times) and only 2 All-Stars. I could see using this type of argument to separate borderline candidates but Blyleven is comfortably above the thresholds set by the pitchers already in the HOF.
Vote: YES
Fun facts/anecdotes: The first and only great baseball player to be born in The Netherlands – unless you count Andruw Jones (who was born in Netherland Antilles). In 1986-1987 with the Twins, he gave up 50 and 46 Home Runs – setting a single-season record (50) and having the third highest total (Jose Lima’s 48 is 2nd). As an announcer, Blyleven loves to drop the f-bomb and, based on the adjacent pic, we imagine he has no compunction about dropping a Dutch oven on his sleeping partner – proof you can take a man out of the Netherlands but you can’t take the smell if you’re trapped under the sheets when that man farts.
Jack Morris – The arguments for Jack Morris generally boil down to the following: ‘Best pitcher of the 1980′s”, “Three World Championships”, and “Big-game pitcher”. I imagine just about all the nominated Hall-of-Fame pitchers have similar superlatives. The only difference is that their statistics are clearly superior to Jack Morris.
Of those HOFers, the best comparison seems to be Catfish Hunter. Both were workhorses on generally good teams (Catfish won 5 Championships). Neither were big strikeout guys (Catfish 5.3/9 IP, Morris 5.8 K/ 9 IP). Both had ERA+s that are dangerously close to league average (Catfish 104/Morris 105). Catfish had a -6 in Adjusted Win Difference (won 6 more games than predicted) while Jack has a -34 (which is only bested by David Wells and Kenny Rogers among pitchers shown above). I’d argue here that Catfish shouldn’t be in the HOF rather than Morris should be in the HOF.
Let’s go back and compare him vs. the other non-HOF pitchers. His 56.4% QS ranks him near the bottom of the list. As does his 105 ERA+. And I already mentioned that his Win total is arguably as inflated than any other pitcher with 200 Wins since 1956. I don’t know…maybe he ‘gutted’ out a lot of 7 IP / 4 ER run games. But is there an argument that he had more ‘guts’ than the rest of these pitchers?
As for playoffs, his career playoff stats are 7-4 with a 3.80 ERA. Good, yes. Great, no. Four of these wins came in the 1991 Twins ALCS and World Series victories – the most famous of course being his 1-0 10 inning shutout against Atlanta in the 7th game. No doubt this was awesome and extremely memorable. He was also great for the 1984 Tigers going 3-0 with a sub-2.00 ERA.
Looking at those two playoff runs, you could forgive that he lost his only start for Detroit @ Minnesota in the 1987 ALCS (8 IP / 6 ER). But how about his 1992 playoff run for the Toronto Blue Jays – a team that gifted him 21 wins with his 4.04 ERA/102 ERA+? In 4 starts across the ALCS and WS, he went 0-3 with an 8.22 ERA. Toronto beat Atlanta 4 wins to 2 – Morris lost both of those games.
I’m not saying Jack Morris was a bad playoff pitcher – it is that he is remembered as better because of selective memory. For comparison sake, Dave Stewart went 10-4 with a 2.69 ERA during his playoff stints with Oakland and Toronto. John Smoltz went 15-4 with a 2.65 ERA. David Cone went 8-3 with a 3.80 ERA. Roger Clemens – who isn’t particularly regarded for playoff dominance – has a 12-8 record with a 3.75 ERA. Net-net, Morris was good in the postseason but not extraordinary (outside of that one start).
Lastly, I want to argue against the oft-repeated claim that he was the best pitcher of the 1980′s. This ‘best in decade’ argument is arbitrary to begin with – Mark Grace has the most hits in the 1990′s! Who cares? You can take any ten year period and find stats like that – it doesn’t make it any more relevant.
In any case, while Morris had the most Wins in the 1980′s, he was not the best pitcher. Dwight Gooden is clearly the best from 1984-1989 with a phenomenal 74.9% QS% and 132 ERA+. Dave Stieb bests Jack Morris in QS% (60.7% to 59.9%) and crushes him in ERA+ (127 to 109). Nolan Ryan, Fernando Valenzuela, Bob Welch, and John Tudor all best him in QS% and ERA+.
At the end of the day, an HOFer needs to exceed certain criteria in order to be enshrined. Based on 60+ QS% and ERA+ 115+, Morris doesn’t really come close. Based on all the other peripherals, he still doesn’t come close. Just because there weren’t a lot of starters whose peak was between 1980-1985 doesn’t change the fact that Morris was a good-to-very good pitcher and NOT a HOF-caliber pitcher.
Vote: NO
Fun facts/anecdotes: Jack Morris was definitely the most feared pitcher in his day…..by females in the media – as evidenced by this Jack Morris 1990 locker room gem to Detroit Free Press writer Jennifer Frey: “I don’t talk to women when I am naked unless they are on top of me or I am on top of them.”
Tommy John / Jim Kaat – Tommy John – best known for a surgery (that really should be named after Frank Jobe who actually invented it) – often gets lumped in with Jim Kaat as both have 280+ wins and unimpressive winning percentages. On first glance, it’s easy to disregard them as pitchers who just pitched for a long time.
But let’s dig deeper. Tommy John has the edge on QS % (61.6 to 58.4) and adjusted ERA (110 to 107). Neither had impressive K/9 IP ratios (both below 5) or WHIPS (both above 1.25). Tommy John finished in the top 5 in league ERA 6 times, 4 time All-Star, and 4 times finished in the top 10 for Cy Young. Jim Kaat finished in the top 5 in league ERA 3 times, 3 time All-Star, and finished once in the top 10 for Cy Young.
The most surprising difference between the two are their Adjusted Win Difference – while Tommy John has a +31, Kaat has a -13. In other words, if both won 74% of their Quality Starts, Tommy John would lead in wins 319 to 270. While Tommy John notably pitched for the successful late 70′s Dodgers and 1979-1981 Yankees, he also had a number of years with mediocre to bad teams ranging from the White Sox, Indians, Angels, and even the Yanks (in his second tour of duty). Jim Kaat spent the bulk of his career with the Senators/Twins (1959-1972) which had a number of strong Killebrew/Oliva led teams (incidentally, Kaat only led the team in ERA once during that period – Jim Perry had the top team ERA for 4 of those years).
I think the strongest argument against Tommy John is his 110 ERA+ and unimpressive WHIP. Given his low K-rate, these stats aren’t that surprising. But Tommy John was above average for enough years (besides the 61.6% QS%, he had 18 years with 150+ IP and 100+ ERA+, 13 years with 150+ IP and 110+ ERA+) that I think he warrants HOF nomination. It’s a close call, though.
As for Kaat, he falls below both the QS% and ERA+ thresholds and there isn’t much of a secondary argument for him that I can see.
Tommy John Vote: YES
Jim Kaat Vote: NO
Fun facts/anecdotes: Only Nolan Ryan (27 seasons) has pitched more seasons than John (26) and Kaat (25). Tommy John was successful in getting a surgery named after him but was unsuccessful in getting investors to finance his self-named port-o-potty. Jim Kaat finished his 25-year playing career with a 25-year broadcasting career. He plans on spending the next 25 years being that old guy by the Little League field who provides unsolicited and oft-ignored advice.
Rick Reuschel / Orel Hershiser – Who would have thought that Rick Reuschel would have the highest QS % out of this group? Not me. I just remember him on the Giants later in his career when he could go a whole game throwing a variety of mediocre fastballs and still win games. But there he is at the top with Orel Hershiser.
So both these guys pass the 60+ QS% threshold and by a significant amount (63.7% Reuschel, 62.9% Hershiser). That’s at or above Steve Carlton! In addition, both benefit from the Adjusted Win analysis that ekes up their Win totals to 249 and 217, respectively.
Their ERA+s fall just below the mark at 114 (Reuschel) and 112 (Hershiser). Their peripherals are just so-so – both had high WHIPS (greater than 1.25) and average K rates (below 6.0).
At the end of the day, I’d say both of these guys were very good pitchers and probably underrated (especially Reuschel) but fall below HOF-caliber. While Tommy John had 300+ Adjusted Wins, neither of these guys crack 250. If you’re going to go in with a ERA+ under 115, you at least need longevity on your side. For comparison’s sake, Tommy John had 700 GS. Blyleven had 685. Reuschel was at 529. Hershiser only 466.
Vote: NO
The Rest – No one else passes the QS % and ERA+ test. No one besides Tanana even passes 250 Adjusted Wins. All very good pitchers but none appear HOF-worthy.
Fun (and potentially fictional) fact:
Fun facts/anecdotes: The first and only great 
Jack Morris – The arguments for Jack Morris generally boil down to the following: ‘Best pitcher of the 1980′s”, “Three World Championships”, and “Big-game pitcher”. I imagine just about all the nominated Hall-of-Fame pitchers have similar superlatives. The only difference is that their statistics are clearly superior to Jack Morris.
Tommy John / Jim Kaat – Tommy John – best known for a surgery (that really should be named after Frank Jobe who actually invented it) – often gets lumped in with Jim Kaat as both have 280+ wins and unimpressive winning percentages. On first glance, it’s easy to disregard them as pitchers who just pitched for a long time.
