Hall Crap

Just so you don’t think I’ve been totally useless over the holidays, I did devote about 45 minutes one day to tearing apart Jon Heyman’s Hall of Fame ballot, but in the midst of some quick research, I noticed that Firejoemorgan had already taken it on (here and here).

Heyman’s post is peculiar in its (sort of) defensiveness, but it’s really no different than most HOF columns. It was filled with cherry picked stats from a guy who says that we shouldn’t rely on stats (we only shouldn’t rely on meaningless stats like the ones Heyman uses). Anyway I stumbled on Tracy Ringolsby’s column for the Rocky Mountain News regarding his Hall voting. Here, I’ll show them with commentary!

Time for one last pitch ? which will be swung at and missed.

That’s his first sentence. What the fuck? Either there’s a question mark in the sentence or there’s no capitalization to start the second sentence (fragment). I didn’t just get back from the grammar rodeo so I'll try not to discuss these things, but I’m also not a real f’ing writer like Tracy is.

I mostly like that he’s saying the voters will get this first vote wrong, which is unfortunate because Tracy’s a voter and he gets everything right.

Shortstop Dave Concepcion is on the Hall of Fame ballot for the 15th and final time. He has managed to draw the 5 percent support each year to get another shot, including being named on 13.6 percent of the ballots cast last year - 74 of 545.

Sounds like this guy is clearly not a Hall of Famer. Could the voters be THAT wrong? .

Concepcion is often overlooked because of the talent of the Big Red Machine, but he was the stabilizing force up the middle.

Nebulous and meaningless. Where does stabilizing force fall in the weighting of Hall of Fame worthiness? My guess? It’s somewhere after being one of the top 5 home run hitters ever (more later). I would argue that Concepcion gets TOO MUCH HOF recognition because of the talent of the Big Red Machine. If he played for the Royals, no one would give a shit. Playing on the Reds didn’t seem to hurt the prototypical marginal Hall of Famer Tony Perez.

He hasn't come close to being enshrined, though, because the intangibles he adds to his statistics never have been seen as enough to gain the support.

Right, why are they?

Oh, you're done, thanks.

He'll get at least one more vote in his final year of consideration by veteran members of the Baseball Writers Association of America.

Others who will get at least one vote:

Here Ringolsby starts with Blyleven and Gossage with some commentary. I have no problem with those picks or his reasoning (though he’s pretty brief).

* Jack Morris led pitchers in victories in the 1980s, made 515 consecutive starts, which was a record until Roger Clemens broke it in 2001, and is tied for second all time with 14 Opening Day starts, two shy of Tom Seaver.

Sooooo, did the guy pitch at a HOF level? I have no friggin’ idea based on these numbers. Opening day starts is the stupidest stat ever cited for a HOF argument, and the fact is that it is ALWAYS cited to support Morris, which shows you how weak his case is when you actually look at the numbers and take your head away from the awesomest game of all awesome games that he pitched in the 1991 World Series. See the FJM link above for Morris-opening day talk. It is, in my opinion, the worst number ever thrown out to support someone’s HOF worthiness. Most wins of the 1980’s is an obvious function of timing (if you care about wins, I don’t value pitcher W/L record very much). Jack Morris did lead the 1980’s in wins, beating out Dave Stieb and Bob Welch. Guys like Seaver and Carlton died off in the 80’s and Clemens and Maddux just got started, so it’s an obvious function of timing and how good the Tigers were. Morris was a great pitcher in many respects, mostly with regards to his durability, but I'm not voting him in when I get my BBWAA vote in a couple of years (that's easy to get, right?).

* Lee Smith was replaced by Trevor Hoffman as the game's all-time saves leader, but the seven-time All-Star did have 13 consecutive seasons of 20-plus saves, including 10 of at least 30.

I don’t know what to make of these arguments, generally. Should I care about “saves”? The all-time record for saves in a season is held by Bobby Thigpen. Smith did have longevity, but personally I think a closer needs to be absolutely dominant to be a Hall of Famer (Rivera/Eckersley level), because it’s just not that hard of a position to put up good numbers at (compared to starters, for instance) with respect to saves and ERA. I’m not sure Lee Smith is that guy. Are we going to throw John Franco in the Hall of Fame? He pitched slightly more innings with a better ERA+. No he wasn’t as good, but still… Smith will become a slippery slope. Am I watching a future Hall of Famer when Francisco Cordero takes the mound? I’m inclined to leave him out.

Ringolsby then notes Alan Trammel, who I support.

Can't get caught up in the Jim Rice bandwagon. Can't say that his offensive stats are lights out better than Andre Dawson and Dale Murphy, but while Dawson and Murphy were Gold Glove outfielders, Rice was a designated hitter who survived at times in left field at Fenway Park.

Rice, like lefty Tommy John, are both in their 14th year on the ballot, meaning they make it this year or next or wind up relying on the Veterans Committee for any chance of enshrinement.

I think leaving Rice off (and Dawson and Murphy) is the right thing to do, but “survived at times” is a bit harsh. He wasn’t good, but he wasn’t flat-terrible. He played 75% of his games in the field, and the only reason he was the DH on the early Red Sox teams was because they were trotting out an OF of Carl Yastrzemski, Fred Lynn and Dwight Evans….who were all, like, awesome fielders. True, Rice shouldn’t get credit for playing the field when Yaz was, but I have a hard time holding it against him too.

I guess Ringolsby is saying that Dawson and Murphy aren't HOFers, and they hit pretty well in comparison to Rice (agreed), but they were better fielders too.

No Mark McGwire, either, but it has nothing to do with questions about performance-enhancing drugs. He was a dramatic power hitter, but a Hall of Famer needs to have total greatness.

This is where Ringolsby just loses all credibility with me. Bull-fucking-shit. If you’re taking PED’s out of the question, you're telling me that McGwire isn’t a hall of famer – check out Rob Neyer’s take about a year ago here (insider only). Let’s pretend that that “steroid era” never happened, is he not saying that McGwire doesn’t get his vote? But Dave Concepcion does?

Here’s an excerpt of two paragraphs from Neyer:

If by "one-dimensional" you mean "all he did was hit home runs," then no, that's not precisely true. McGwire drew more than 1,300 walks, and eight times he ranked among the top 10 in walks in his league. He didn't strike out particularly often. He never led his league in strikeouts, and finished in the top (i.e., bottom) 10 only twice. McGwire was not the all-or-nothing slugger we might see in our mind's eye. Yes, he batted .201 in 1991, his worst season, and .187 in 2001, his last season. He also batted .289 as a rookie in 1987, .312 in 1996 and .305 in 2000. McGwire's .263 career batting average was dead-on with his leagues' averages (one of which includes pitchers hitting, obviously, but still ...).

And his summary:

McGwire was, in one sense, a one-dimensional player. All he did was hit. But you know, he really hit. Maybe you don't believe one-dimensional players belong in the Hall of Fame, and if so, you're not by yourself. But that standard has never been applied. Hank Greenberg was a one-dimensional player, and so was Bill Mazeroski. If you're good enough at your one dimension, you're in. And so if we're looking purely at performance on the field, there simply isn't any real precedent for keeping a player like Mark McGwire out of Cooperstown.

His defense was OK, at best, and it's interesting that, according to Baseball Reference, the most similar players statistically to McGwire are Jim Thome, Jose Canseco and Carlos Delgado, none of whom have Cooperstown on their horizon.

It’s interesting that you’ve completely bastardized the baseballreference list to support your case. Let’s look at the FULL list.

Jim Thome (826) - Will get some Hall support
Jose Canseco(808)
Carlos Delgado (803)
Harmon Killebrew(783) – Hall of Famer
Willie McCovey (767) – Hall of Famer
Jason Giambi (756)
Juan Gonzalez (739)
Norm Cash (736)
Dave Kingman (732) - career .302 OBP, McGwire was .394 - that's such a difference that it makes me give this "comparable players" thing like little credibility.
Manny Ramirez (730) – Future Hall of Famer, though I'm surprised that McGwire would compare that favorably to him.

Also, Jim Thome has over 500 homeruns and a lifetime OBP over .400. I think there will be some serious Thome consideration given when it comes to Hall of Fame voting – mostly depending on how the current era's Hall voting shakes out. Thome's baseball reference comps include Manny Ramirez, Willie Stargell, Duke Snider, Frank Thomas and McGwire.

Back to McGwire, let’s do a quick rundown:

Career SLG %: .5882. Ninth all-time.
Career HR: 583. 8th all-time.
Career OPS: .9823. 11th all-time.
AB per HR: 10.6 to 1. 1st all time.

McGwire is one of the 5 most prolific homerun hitters in the history of baseball. If you take the convenient stance of ignoring PED's, he's in.

I Tried To Get Buster Olney to Fight Rob Neyer

But it didn’t work.

Jeff (Ogdenville): Buster, Rob Neyer disagrees with your statements from last week's chat, where you were doubtful that any other pitcher would win 300 games, except Sabathia. Do you really think he's the last chance to win 300 games?

Buster Olney: What did that motherfucker say? I'll fuck his shit up, yo! You think I was named Buster by my momma? I was named Buster by my gang... the motherfucking Killaz! West siiiiiiiiide!

Okay that's not what he really said...real response below:

Buster Olney: Jeff: I don't have the breakdown in front of me, but it stands to reason that as time goes on, starting pitchers will continue to have fewer and fewer victories, which cuts down the 300 chances... Right now, among young and active pitchers, C.C. has the best shot. Rob and I will check back in 25 years and fight it out then...

It stands to reason that starting pitchers will continue to have fewer and fewer victories? Why would starting pitchers win less games than starting pitchers during the Maddux/Glavine/Clemens/Johnson era? Anyway, this topic is dead.

So let’s just move on to this:

Hal (Florida): favorite song?

Buster Olney: Shine, Collective Soul...

Buster and I are similar actually. Shine would be my answer to that question too. If you qualified it as the favorite Collective Soul song from the early 90’s that was on MTV/VH1 50 times a day that I never want to hear again.

A Voice of Reason in the 300 Win Discussion

This post, which you’ve no doubt read dozens of times by now, was basically about Mark Kriedlers’ insane assertion that we would see less players achieving 3,000 hits in the future because they were getting too rich or something. Numbers, logic, and history make that assessment sound sort of unrealstic. If anything, we seem to be trending towards more 3,000 hit club members. But the other point that Mark Kriedler was making was that there would be less 300 game winners. That’s a reasonable assumption, although it’s worth noting we have two active 300 game winners (way over 300) and two pitchers who are very close to 300. But 3 of those pitchers are on the short list of the best pitchers of the last 50 years, and the other is a first ballot hall of famer.

The 300 game winner thinking was explored more on ESPN.com this past week, first in this chat, with Buster Olney.

Jonathan (Tampa, FL): Will there ever be another 300 game winner after Glavine and possibly Randy Johnson?

Buster Olney: Jonathan: C.C. Sabathia might give himself a chance -- he'll get to 100 later this summer, after he turns 27. But beyond that... I doubt it, with the way pitchers are protected at an early age and with the way teams will quickly place high-priced guys on the DL for even a minor injury.

So Buster seems to be saying that C.C. Sabathia may be the last guy with a chance to get to 300 wins. That’s pretty bold. C.C. Sabathia is a fine pitcher, but to insinuate that we’ve seen the last of the Sabathia’s of the world is nonsense. It’s not like Sabathia came up at 16 years old, or has done anything that dozens of other pitchers won’t do in the near future.

Jason (Brooklyn): Buster, I completely disagree with you that there will probably not be a 300 game winner beyond C.C. Just because the game is currently trending in a particular direction (protecting pitchers) doesn't mean that it will continue to do so in the future. Also, it always seems that every generation of baseball players have a few all time greats that are able to buck the trend. Who will it be? who knows, but someone probably will. I'll bet you any amount of money some guy you've probably never heard of will break 300 wins within the next 30-50 years.

Buster Olney: Jason: OK... disagree, but see your point.

Jason’s overall point is a decent one, but I disagree with his thoughts that “protecting pitchers” may go out of vogue. Not when good ones are more than $10 million a year and they are so scarce. If we had 50 Johan Santana type quality pitchers, then yes they would be pampered less, because the supply is greater. But I doubt that the quantity of great pitchers will ever become so skewed that pitcher protection becomes less important.

Let’s summarize Buster’s points:
1. Pitchers are protected at an early age
2. Teams quickly place high priced guys on the DL to avoid injury

Isn’t this likely to lead to more pitchers being healthy for longer and pitching into their 40’s? There’s always going to be injury prone pitchers, but there’s also always going to be those pitchers that escape injury and pitch long enough, under the right circumstances, to win 300 games. Tommy John won 288 games and had a certain well known arm ailment that required a surgery. With modern medical advances he was just able to pitch a very long time and was “pretty good”. He’s not in the Hall of Fame.

As usual, Rob Neyer came along as the voice of reason, with this blog post (on 7/3):

Somebody will win 300 again

(parts deleted)

In other news, Roger Clemens pitched well, which I find inherently more interesting than his reaching a round number. Nevertheless, the question does come to mind: Who among our current young moundsmen might even approach the lofty marks set by Mr. Rocket?

I've got a Baseball Digest article, somewhere in the pile of materials on my desk, that laments the imminent demise of the 200-game winner. This was published in the 1950s, and you probably know that a great number of pitchers have won 200 games since then. So yes, it's difficult to imagine any currently active young pitcher winning 300 games. My prediction, though: Somebody will do it. I don't want to run through a big list, but just looking at this page, I see a few intriguing combinations of youth, health, and success: Roy Oswalt, C.C. Sabathia, Johan Santana.

Will one of them win 300? Probably not. But somebody.

So what about 350? Clemens is there, and a year from now Greg Maddux probably will have joined him. But if it's hard to imagine any young pitcher someday winning 300, it's almost impossible to imagine one of them winning 350.

Is it really, though? Do we really have any idea what doctors and druggists will be doing for pitchers in 20 years, when Yovani Gallardo and Felix Hernandez are "only" 41? If I'm lucky here and there, I've got another 50-some years of being a baseball fan. And I believe someday I'll see a pitcher win more games than Roger Clemens won.

I took a rudimentary look at a handful of active pitchers focusing on their career wins and their ages. I then did a rather simple calculation. I calculated the years they had until turning 40 (using baseballreference’s age), and then plugged in an average win total of 15 per year, and lastly I added in their current win total. Full of flaws I know, but I wanted to just gauge where this situation was. I'm sure that people smarter than me have these things down to specific probabilities.

If the following pitchers can average 15 wins a year until they are 40, this will be their approximate win total at that time (this is really skewed because we are in the middle of a season, as well):

Sabathia – 303
Jeremy Bonderman – 294
Dontrelle Willis – 290
Carlos Zambrano – 284
Jon Garland – 283
Mark Buehrle – 282
Jake Peavy – 276
Barry Zito - 273
Roy Oswalt – 270
Johan Santana – 267
Josh Beckett – 263
Roy Halladay - 254
John Lackey/Ben Sheets – 251

Now, many of those guys won’t even win 200, so I’m not at all saying that they will win that many games. There’s a chance that none will. But if Johan Santana can stay healthy, I’d put some money on him getting to 250. Believe me, I get the flaws in this calculation, but I did it for a sanity check. I'm also not considering mechanics and current volume of innings.

I also get that hardly any of those guys projected to win 300 games. However running the same calculation on a 27 year old Clemens, Maddux, Glavine and Johnson would have projected them at 311, 310, 290 and 239, respectively. More than one of those guys above will likely pitch past 40 as well. Who knows, one or two could pitch to 44 or 45. If they are good enough to be in a major league rotation at that point, there's a decent chance they're winning 300.

Stating the obvious, to win 300, any player will need to play on good offensive teams for a while, be healthy, and a good bullpen will definitely help. A lot of things out of their control, which is why I don’t give a crap if a guy makes it to 300 wins anyway. You want to make a bet that as long as Santana is healthy he’s averaging at least 15 wins? I would take that bet. He’ll have a few years around 18-20 to help the cause too. Plus there’s guys like Verlander and Hamels, who are off to a great start to make a run at 300. The point is, one of those guys could hit their stride, stay healthy, and pitch into their 40's to get to 300. If they all fail, there will be the future generations.

So many variables are involved that’s its crazy to try to get too scientific. But please, tell me why we won’t see another Tom Glavine? That makes no sense.

So once again, Rob Neyer brings some reason to a discussion. Well, him and Jason from Brooklyn.