POLL: Jack Morris and the Hall of Fame
Posted by Andy on July 4, 2010
(It seems that this has become a regular feature for Sundays. I'll keep up with that schedule from now on.)
Jack Morris will be on the Hall of Fame ballot for the 11th time in 2001. Will this be his year? Will he ever get in? Click through and join the debate.
Our readers have already had a ton to say about Morris. You can go back and read comments on the Mike Mussina HOF thread or the Mussina/Schilling debate. For some reason both of those threads led to lots of discussion about Morris.
Here is a brief summary of arguments for and against Morris' Hall of Fame credentials, culled in part from what readers wrote on those other posts.
For Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame:
- 254 wins (top 50 all time) and most wins in the 1980s
- Pitched for 3 World Series winners (1984 Tigers, 1991 Twins, 1992 Blue Jays) and turned in one of the best-ever World Series pitching performances in Game 7 of the 1991 series: 10 innings, 7 hits, 2 walks, 8 K's, and the win. He also pitched 3 excellent games in the 1984 postseason and some other good ones as well
- 175 complete games: Morris was one of the last great workhorses. He had at least 10 CGs in 10 different seasons, including even 1990-1991
- 5-time All-Star, got Cy Young votes in 7 seasons, including 2 third-place finishes
- Won 20 games in a season 3 times
- Extremely durable, ranking in the top 6 in IP in 8 different seasons
Against Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame:
- His neutralized pitching numbers suggest that he was incredibly lucky to win 254 games. His neutralized record is 195-218! (a .472 W-L%.) Compare that to his actual record of 254-186 (.577). Even if we apply the .472 percentage to the same total number of decisions, that yields 207-233. If his record were anything like that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Morris played for a number of good Tigers teams and then finished up on 3 straight World Series winners--the 1991 Twins and the 1992 and 1993 Blue Jays. (He also pitched for a good Indians team in 1994.)
- Another way to look at how lucky he was record-wise is that among the 16 pitchers since 1901 with (currently) 240 to 270 career wins, Morris has the worst ERA+, tied with Jamie Moyer (who will fall off this list if he wins 4 more career games.) Yet somehow he's middle-of-the-pack in terms of career W-L% and losses. Keep in mind this is a few seasons we're talking about--this is hundreds and hundreds of decisions.
- He was 3rd in the 1980s in losses, behind Jim Clancy and Frank Tanana, and had just a 109 ERA+ for the entire decade and a 105 mark for his career.
- Morris' 21-win season in 1992 was one of the flukiest ever. Of the 161 times a pitcher has won 20 games with at least a .750 W-L%, Morris' 1992 features the second worst ERA+.
- He turned in some stinkers in the playoffs and finished with a career postseason ERA of 3.80, just a tick better than his regular-season career ERA of 3.90. That's not terrible, but Morris was not the incredibly dominant post-season force that some folks remember him as. Sometimes he was that guy, sometimes he was not.
- Career WPA of just 14.98, good for 89th place. That puts him just about equal with John Candelaria and Rick Reuschel. Even in his peak years of 1985-1987, he was only 6th in MLB on WPA, well behind leader Dwight Gooden (14.949 to 9.807.) And his WAR? 11th over that period behind Bob Welch and Charlie Leibrandt. [Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying 11th best pitcher by WAR is bad--but it's hard to justify him as a HOFer when his absolute highest peak years don't even put him in the top 10.]
OK, now vote and add your comments below.
July 6th, 2010 at 11:01 am
"As time goes on in this debate, I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to this view--Morris was not elite in terms of the peripheral numbers but he was a big part, a huge part, of winning team after winning team."
Morris was good, and he was on winning teams, but for the most part those teams won because there were better players than Morris on them. It is insulting to Trammell and Whitaker among others that Morris gets credit for team wins when the position players were the stars and it can clearly be demonstrated that the team was winning because the team had a great offense. Why did all of the other Tigers starters with slightly above average ERAs have about the same winning percentage as Jack? Why don't the Morris advocates focus on getting Trammell and Whitaker (one and done) elected and then focus on Jack?
"Here's another subjective statement- Jack would have won 20 for that team, instead of 12 or 14."
I highly doubt it. Jack averaged 5.3 runs of support in his 20-win seasons. Bert averaged under 4 runs in his Pirates years. Even if Jack was secretly a peak Babe Ruth-type hitter had he played in the NL, I doubt it...
July 6th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Good points Bill Johnson. I just did a check of the leaderboard on Jon Lester and Phil Hughes --it's somewhat a good example of perception and sabremetric stats not adding up. Lester is basically at or near the top for ERA+, WPA, WAR, wins, win%, but other than wins, win % and K's, Hughes is no where to be found. However, Hughes is an all-star but Lester isn't (not yet at least). The players voted Hughes in, but surely statheads would claim he's undeserving (I actually agree he shouldn't be on the list over some others). With all that said, I tend to respect the fact that the players voted him in and therefore I can respect the pick though. Maybe they see something I don't b/c they have to face him. Now, Swisher is having a good year, but he shouldn't go either --many other players more deserving. As someone said about Jack, he didn't care about his BB/K ratio or WHIP, he just wanted to win games.
July 6th, 2010 at 11:17 am
"As someone said about Jack, he didn't care about his BB/K ratio or WHIP, he just wanted to win games."
My guess is all pitchers WANT to win games. The way they go about winning the game is by limiting base runners who become runs. Guys get on base primarily by hits or walks. WHIP is just walks & hits allowed per inning pitched. Whether he called it WHIP or not, I guarantee you Morris cared about keeping it low. Each time a batter entered the batter's box he wanted to get the guy out. WHIP just measures how successful he was at accomplishing that goal.
July 6th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Matt,
Your point about Lester-Hughes is a perfect example of why W/L is such a terrible/overrated stat.
Jon Lester is one of the top five pitchers in the A.L., and one of the top 10 pitchers in the Majors this year. Lester has a 2.76 era and a 161era+. He ranks 5/56 in the A.L. and 10/112 in the majors in era+. 1/240 A.L. WAR.
Phil Hughes is having an above average season but looks much better than it actually is because he's been getting an amazing 7.7 runs per game, The best in the majors. I think he was even at 8.3 runs per game about two/three weeks ago. Hughes has a 3.83 era, 22/56 in the A.l., 52/112 in the majors. He has a 106era+ 25/56 in the A.L. and 56/112 in the majors. He's 49/240 in A.L. WAR. He's the fourth best Yankee pitcher this year, Pettite, C.C. and Mariano are have better seasons.
Hughes will be lucky to win 15 games this year because there is no way the Yankees can maintain that runs/per game pace. He's going to start getting 4 runs per game and his record will be about 4-7 and people will say he had a terrible second half when in reality he pitched the same.
And the players didn't choose Hughes, it was his Manager Joe Girardi.
July 6th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
By the way Trammel and Whitaker are deserving of the HOF IMO. Da-n anti-Tigers bias.
July 6th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
"And the players didn't choose Hughes, it was his Manager Joe Girardi."
Hey, isn't that the same guy who overlooked Youkilis?
July 6th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Largebill,
No, the players chose Hughes. You are wrong. He was the third pitcher chosen by the players. Girardi chose Sabathia. When Buchholz went down Pettitte was next in line b/c he was the sixth pick by the players. Youkilis should get the last pick hopefully, which I agree, he should already be on the team as should Lester. While still having some warts, the way the All-star team is picked now is at it's fairest in many, many years! I know, you all know more than the players too.
Wins are as underrated as they are overrated. 🙂
July 6th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Yes, Youkilis not being on and A-Rod being on the team is not good. You still have a few of these every year. Trammel should be in and Whitaker should have made a nice run at the Hall.
July 6th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Sorry Largebill, above email should be to John Q. I guess Lester is on the team.
July 6th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Matt,
No problem. We all do it occasionally.
July 6th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Yeah - I have always wondered about this. On one hand we are supposed to believe that Jack Morris was a warrior bulldog - the ultimate competitor who would be willing to throw a ball at his grandma to keep her from winning. Then we are asked to believe by the same people that this uber-competitor, who willed his way to victories with nothing more than grit and passion somehow didn't mind if he gave up hits, walks, or runs. Yeah right.
July 6th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Last year, Yankees headache-inducer Michael Kay started blabbing about something... "There was a pitcher who would give up a lot of runs, but really knew how to win..." I knew whose name was coming. "His ERA was high because he WANTED it to be high." Yes, he actually said that. I can't remember my reaction was to laugh or yell at the TV -- I do both a lot when he talks. Could he sound like any more of an ignorant cliche spout? Does he actually listen to the words coming out of his mouth? He wanted his ERA to be high. Oy.
July 6th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
And Kay is the lesser of two-evils. The Yankees have perhaps the worst radio broadcast in the history of baseball. Kay is actually better than John "Pa Pinstripe" Sterling and Susan "Georgi Girl" Waldman. They are awful.
July 6th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Sometimes I want to listen to the radio broadcast just for a change of pace. Unfortunately, it's not synched with the TV. I was without cable the season Waldman started and she was horrendous. I haven't heard her enough since then to know if she's improved at all. Sterling's so bad he's sort of enjoyable just for being a complete buffoon. If I listened regularly again I might take that back, however.
July 6th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Johnny Twisto,
LOL with Michael Kay, he's a joke. I was watching a game in which he said Tommy John had 3 errors on ONE play, during the end of the 1989 season against the Twins. Al Leiter and Paul O'neil asked how that was possible, and Kay reassured them that it happened and that's why John decided to retire.
I went back and looked for this so-called 3-error game and it never happened.
July 6th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
LOL John Q that really did happen. I saw it live.
July 6th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
I saw it also. Using the event finder and scanning all ROE against John, shows that the play occurred on July 27, 1987 against the Brewers.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYA/NYA198807270.shtml
July 6th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
If the three error game caused John to decide to retire he sure didn't act very quickly on the decision. He pitched two more seasons after that game. I think it is more likely he retired because in 1989 he had an ERA close to six (5.80) and was 46 years old with little chance of getting any younger.
July 6th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Holy Crap, John actually had a 3 error play, that's insane. It happened in 1988 not 1987. Wow, what threw me off is that Michael Kay was insistent that it was against the Twins at the end of the 1989 season and that John felt compelled to retire at the end of that season because of that play.
So Kay got the team and the year wrong and kind of fabricated the whole "he was embarrassed so he retired" point.
July 6th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
The Yankess announcers are terrible, but I think Joe Castiglione is the worst announcer I have ever heard. His voice makes me want to deafen myself with icepicks. All you have to do is turn on the radio for ten seconds when the Sox are playing to tell if they're winning or losing.
And the sad thing is that the Sox TV announcers are great. Remy is one of the best. I just wonder who Castiglione has pictures of to still have his job with that nasally, whiny, nails on a chalkboard voice.
July 6th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
In slight defense of Kay (cringe), I think he was mostly focused on the fact that some old pitchers retire not because they can't get guys out, but they can no longer field the position. (This may have been the game the Yanks faced Moyer.) He brought up the John anecdote as an example of an older pitcher having defensive problems, but I don't remember him harping on that one game forcing John into retirement, nor harping on the details of when and who. I think Leiter remembered the game too, since he was on the team at the time.
July 6th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Johnny Twisto,
You might be right about Kay's motivation but he did say it was the end of the 1989 season against the Twins and that John knew he couldn't field anymore so he had to retire. But the reality is it happened in 1988 and he retired because he couldn't pitch anymore as LargeBill alluded to in post #118.
I think broadcaster/writers forget that there's an internet with sites like baseball reference so fans can basically check whatever they say in about a minute. For years broadcasters could just pull things out of thin-air and the average fan would just have to take their word for it.
July 6th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Well they can't exactly check online every memory they have before sharing it. In the Oscar Azocar thread I posted about other Yankees who debuted that year, and after looking it up I realized one of my clear memories was wrong. Honestly, as much as I can't stand Kay, I don't get worked up about his having some facts wrong, because the three-error play is an interesting story, and moreover it's quite possible part of the reason John's ERA got bloated is because he did have trouble fielding his position. I'm far more annoyed by stuff like the Jack Morris quote I cited above, where it's so obviously not a real memory but just his buying into the collective "truth" that's been invented in the past 15 years, and moreover has been debunked by numerous studies. Joe Morgan says stuff like that a lot too, things where the details are what matter and are proven false.
This reminds me of something, though I may not get a good answer as this thread is dying. It's an old baseball "truism" that drawing in the infield "turns .200 hitters into .300 hitters." Al Leiter, who is the only Yankee announcer I like, frequently cites this as if he has the actual stats on it: "On average, a hitter improves his BA by 100 points when the infield is in." This is exactly the kind of thing that we should be able to check these days, but I'm not sure how and I've never seen the actual numbers on it. I'm quite certain Leiter hasn't either. Anyone have an idea? I really have no idea whether the change is 20 points, 150 points, or what.
July 6th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Here is a famous study on the subject:
http://danagonistes.blogspot.com/2005/12/playing-infield-in.html
July 6th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
My attempt to answer this question. In 2010, 31% of PA result in ground balls. The MLB BA on grounders is .231. The overall BA is .259. So, if the common wisdom were true, when the infield is in, the average hitter goes from .259 to .359. Presumably this is simply because more grounders will get through. Assuming nothing else changes (i.e., BA on fly balls and line drives remain constant, batters hit the same % of grounders, strike outs, etc), for the overall BA to rise 100 points, the BA on grounders would have to be .554, or nearly 2.4 times higher than with the IF at regular depth. Now, it's probably not true that "nothing else changes"; batters change their approach to some extent. I don't think the changes are that significant. It doesn't pass the smell test that 55% of grounders get through when the IF is in. Do others disagree? Suppose the BA on grounders goes up to .400 (still no idea if this is correct). Then the overall BA would go up about 50 points.
July 6th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Thanks Matthew, I never saw that one. Obviously a lot of assumptions in his identifying infield-in situations. Others have probably followed up on that but I haven't seen them either and am too lazy to look right now.
July 6th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Actually, that study does make me realize that some more line drives will get through. I was only accounting for more grounders.
July 6th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
YEah, I am sure there have been some more in-depth studies the past 6 years,m but this is the only one that I recall ever seeing. Take it for what it is worth. 2004 is like the stone-age in sabermetrics.
July 6th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Jeez, I was alive back in 2004 and I felt like there was some insightful research going on...
July 7th, 2010 at 2:31 am
Johnny Twisto,
You made some very valid points, especially about the "truisms" in baseball. For some reason, there's a "herd" mentality in baseball that's much more prevalent than other sports. Baseball players/announcers/fans will hold on to these truisms whether they're valid or not. Also there's very little innovation with baseball teams as compared to football teams.
Or most pitchers are very fond of saying that "Strike 1 is the most important pitch in an at bat". Which it isn't. Obviously "Strike 3 is the most important pitch for a pitcher" But strike two is almost as important. There's a huge difference between being 2-1 or 1-2, so the pitch on a 1-1 count is very important. In reality there's not much difference between throwing a first pitch ball or a first pitch strike.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:54 am
After a 1-0 count, OPS is .828. After an 0-1 count, OPS is .618. That's quite a difference.
July 7th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
John Q,
The business of "X is most important" is not really being stated as a fact that can be proven. It is more an instructional comment by coaches to emphasize getting a head in the count. I like nit-picking on announcers as much as the next guy, but we should differentiate between anecdotes said to fill dead air space and comments said as facts.
July 7th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Johnny Twisto,
Where are those numbers from?
I went to 2010 MLB splits on baseball reference and this is what I found:
First Pitch: BA: .338, OPS: .885
1-0: BA: .341, OPS: .894
0-1: BA: .318, OPS: .801
Getting the first pitch strike is not that big a deal. If you pitch a strike, you've turned a .338 hitter into a .318 hitter.
Now let's look at the 1-1 count:
1-1: .325, OPS: .824
2-1: .329, OPS: .854
1-2: .166, OPS: .413
Getting strike Two on a 1-1 count is much more important than getting a strike one on the first pitch. If you can get a strike on a 1-1 count You've basically turned a .325 hitter into a .166 hitter.
July 7th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Here's the link:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=b&lg=MLB&year=2010
July 7th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
You're looking at the wrong numbers. Those are when the batter puts the 1-0 or 0-1 pitch in play. The numbers I'm referring to are further down, "After 1-0" and "after 0-1." That gives you the results of all PA, no matter how many pitches they last, depending on whether it was strike 1 or ball 1.
Now, I see that the spread between "after 1-2" and "after 2-1" is even bigger, so you are correct, the 1-1 pitch is also very important. Of course, to get to 1-1 you need a strike in the first place, and just being at 1-1 already makes hitters worse than average. And batters do better when putting the first pitch in play than putting the 1-1 in play, which adds to the first pitch's importance. I won't argue that the 1-1 pitch is big and maybe it is even more important than the first pitch, but the first pitch is definitely a big one. There's always a first pitch; there may not be a 1-1 pitch.
July 7th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
"If Morris was SO lucky, and the team wasn't exceedingly lucky, wouldn't it make sense then, that SOMEONE on that staff was VERY Unlucky? Because in the end, with all the Neutralization, doesn't the team still have a Won-Lost record that is carved in stone?"
Well, it seems obvious to me that team luck and pitcher luck are not the same thing.
Pitchers are considered lucky when they get great run support. The pitchers are lucky whether that great run support comes from fluky events, or from great offensive players on their team. The team is only lucky if it's from fluky stuff.
So when you have a great offensive team, *every* pitcher on the staff is generally "lucky" in terms of run support.
Morris played on a number of teams with fantastic offenses. Hence his high win total despite an ERA+ of barely above average for a starter. He was a solid starter for 17 years with a lot of IP/year. That makes his a very good pitcher, but nowhere near as good as the guy currently making the hall. Plenty of guys who've had far better careers haven't even gotten a sniff, despite being similarly iconic. Was Hershisher not iconic? Cone? Gooden? All these guys had higher career WAR, higher WPA, much better ERA+, much better DICE, stronger peaks, and all of them dropped off the ballot in year 1.
The only good argument for Morris is his icon status, not his baseball resume. But I fail to see how you put Morris in on that basis, yet drop like a stone, a number of pitcher with similar iconic status and *much* better career baseball resumes. You guys who argue for Morris, why aren't you making the same arguments for Hershiser? Or Cone? or even Doc Gooden?
How about Dave Steib? Morris's contemporary and teammate on the jays, and a better pitcher. Morris had the most "wins" int the 80s, but Steib had the most WPA and WAR.
July 7th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
BTW, if you're going to poll guys like Jack Morris, you need to add a "HELL NO" category.
July 8th, 2010 at 5:39 am
Johnny Twisto,
I see where you got the numbers, you took them from the "after" category.
My point is that there's a baseball adage repeated a million times that says "First Pitch Strike One is your most important pitch" which just is not true. Obviously Strike Three is the most important pitch when it happens. Strike Two is a much more pivotal pitch than strike one. A batter takes a slight hit with strike one but can recover to actually get the count in his favor. A batter is essentially dead when he gets strike two. The best thing he can hope for is to work the count full and get a walk.
First pitch: .338/.343/.542, .885
0-1: .318/.325/.477, .801
0-2: .156/.166/.217, .382
1-2: .183/.171/.242, .413
2-2: .188/.193/.292, .485
3-2: .234/.468/.380, .848
It's interesting, once a batter gets two strikes, he can never recover in batting average or slugging percentage to the advantage he had with 0 or 1 strike and there's not much of a But if he can work the count full, he can put himself in a good advantage to get a walk.
July 8th, 2010 at 5:49 am
John Q, I strongly disagree with your argument. Strike three is very meaningful, yes, but the odds of getting there go way down if the first pitch is a ball instead of a strike. Your argument is analogous to saying that the 10th pin you hit in bowling is the most important one for getting a spare. Well that's only true if the first ball you rolled hit 9 pins. If you rolled a gutter ball the first time then that 10th pin is a lot less important. Strikeouts in baseball are less than half as common as all other outs. Is strike three the most important if I induce a double play on the 0-1 pitch? My point is the same as JT's: you are not considering the relative frequency of outcomes in your argument. Strike 1 instead of Ball 1 leads to the most positive outcomes from the pitchers' perspective and is more important than strike 2.
July 8th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
I don't think the bowling analogy works in this case. The most important throw in bowling is a "strike", when you knock down all ten pins. Then next most important throw is a spare whether you knock down 9 pins or 1 pin.
You're correct in saying that strike 3 doesn't happen that often but when it happens it's the most impactful pitch a pitcher can throw in a at-bat. A lot of times a batter never even gets to 0-1 or 1-0 because he swings at the first pitch. 5714 plate appearance in the majors this year took place on the First Pitch.
My main point was that the adage in baseball is First pitch strike one is the most important pitch a pitcher can throw is wrong. Strike Two on a 1-1 count is much more pivotal than strike One. A pitcher can recover from ball one and a batter can recover from strike one. A pitcher can even recover from ball 2, it's ball 3 that a pitcher has to stay away from. A batter can rarely recover from strike two.
The difference between hitting with a 1-0 count as opposed to hitting with a 0-1 count isn't that great:
0-1: .318/.325/.477, .801
1-0: .333/.334/.551, .884
The difference between hitting with a 2-1 count as opposed to hitting with a 2-1 count is drastic:
2-1: .325/.327/.516, .834
1-2: .166/.172/.248, .420
July 8th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
John, I still disagree. I just don't think you're looking at the right numbers. JT had it right, plain and simple.
July 8th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Agreed with Andy and JT on this. The after numbers are what you should be using.
Look at the splits for your numbers. Any count that does not have 3 balls already, shows *0* BB. That's because it is only considering what happens for PAs that end on *that pitch*, not the rest of the PA after that pitch. Look at the splits for 1-0 and 2-0, they show almost no difference between BA and OBP, and no walks. Do you seriously believe that batters on average get hardly any walks starting from a 2-0 count, but *tons* of walks from a 3-0 count?
So basically, there isn't much difference between 1-0 and 0-1 in the "next pitch ends the PA" numbers, because with only one strike, the batter still normally chooses to take a pitch that he doesn't like, and hits pitches he is confident about. There's a small difference in what a batter will let go, because he doesn't like getting to 2 strikes, but it's a *lot* smaller than the difference in what they will let go at 1-2 (called strike is an out) vs. 2-1 (called ball results in very high OBP).
If you look at the after numbers, that tells you what happens for all plate appearances that reached that count. The numbers you are quoting, are just the PAs which reached that count *and* ended on the next pitch.
IOW, JT's numbers are correct if you want determine the value of a strike versus a ball on the first pitch. If you use those numbers, it appears the first pitch is worth almost as much situationally as a 1-1 pitch.
July 8th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Help me out here guys. I've been going over lots of numbers, but Rick Reuschel has perhaps the hardest numbers to comprehend. He has a WAR in the holy grail area of 66.3, but a WPA of 14.91.!? He has very solid numbers of 214 wins, an ERA of 3.37, an ERA+ of 114, but his WHIP is fair at 1.275 and his WPA is only 14.91 (a bit of a Phil Niekro thing going on here?). Yes, he was good at keeping the ball in the park and he had good control, but a WAR of 66.3? He was certainly not a HOFer as evidenced by his paltry Hall of Fame stats. A good pitcher for sure, and a great study of a sabermetric anomaly. His WAR shouts of a no-brainer HoFer, but he's not. Wouldn't this WAR put him somewhere around the 25-30th best starting pitcher of all-time?
July 8th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Easy enough to comprehend to me. You can accumulate a lot of WAR by being above average for a lot of innings, without ever being spectacular. An average starter probably runs at around 2 WAR in any given year (meaning 2 wins better than a AAA/waivers replacement). Be average for 20 years, and you get 30 WAR.
That said, 114 ERA+ over a long career is nothing to sneeze at. It's noticeably better than Jack Morris, for one, and I've heard there are some people who think Morris belongs in the hall.
WPA will normally be less than WAR. A replacement player is below average, while WPA is based on expected probabilities -- i.e. what would happen given average players and average luck vs. what actually happened. So WPA is more like WAA than WAR. Pitchers with short brilliant careers will have higher WPA, then guys with above average long careers but similar WAR.
Also, WPA is not leverage independent. key relievers (esp. closers) and guys who pitched more than their share of tight games will have magnified WPA (higher if they are above average, bigger negative if they are below average, but below average pitchers rarely have long careers or high leverage).
So I don't think Reuschel is a sabermetric anomaly at all. He's a legit candidate who misses the cut (IMO) but not by a great deal. He was a better pitcher than some currently in the hall, but not anybody who's been inducted in the last 30 years except maybe catfish hunter.
The fact that RR got dropped on the first ballot while Morris hangs on, gets a poll here, and might even make it in, is a classic example of the way that playing on good teams your whole career helps you with the voters. Give Reuschel Morris's run support, and he probably wins 270+ and gets put in the hall.
July 8th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Reuschel apparently pitched in front of terrible defenses. I'm a bit too young for his prime but if you look at the teams he pitched for that doesn't seem a shocking revelation. So WAR, which attempts to credit Reuschel for the damage his defense did to his pitching, likes him a lot more than conventional stats would indicate. What would Reuschel's numbers look like if he had pitched for the Orioles instead of the Cubs? Maybe defense has a much bigger impact on pitching stats than most people realize, or accept. Or maybe not. It's all estimates.
July 9th, 2010 at 3:54 am
Reuschel was just one of the most unlucky pitchers of the last 40-50 years. He got stuck on a lot of bad defensive teams who weren't very good offensively and he pitched in a pitcher's park for the first 10 years of his career.
He was on all those terrible Cubs teams in the 70's who played in a great hitter's park and posted some of the worst defenses of the last 40 years. And really apart from guys like Madlock, Monday, Buckner Kingman and Thorton the teams were pretty terrible offensively. And to make matters worse, Madlock, Monday and Kingman were terrible defensive players and Buckner and Thorton were below average.
They posted horrible defensive outfields with Jerry Morales, Jose Cardinal, Jerry Martin, Dave Kingman and Rick Monday in Center. Bobby Murcer was shot by the mid 70's so he made matters worse. Madlock and Ontiveras were horrible at third. Kessinger was shot by 1973. Ivan Dejesus was kind of shot by 1979.
Then he didn't play much between '82-84. I can't remember if he was hurt or what happened to him.
Then Reuschel was on some terrible mid 80's Pirate teams. He won 14 games for the '85 Pirates who only won 57 games.
Then there was a little bit of a back-lash against him because he was a fat guy.
If he came up with 10-12 other teams during the same time period, Orioles, Dodgers, A's, Reds, Royals, Phillies, Pirates, Yankees, Red Sox, Padres, or Astros, he'd probably be in the HOF.
In many ways he's the Anti-Jack Morris.
July 9th, 2010 at 8:38 am
Thanks guys --I remember Rick Reuschel quite well and the Cub, Pirate, and Giant teams he played on. While he was certainly on some bad teams with bad defenses, seems to me, as JT alludes to above, that there's perhaps some over-adjustment for the bad defenses he played on thus leading to the high WAR.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Anyone know what Kaat's WPA is? Maybe I've missed it multiple times, but I don't see it listed. Thanks in advance.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Matt, those numbers are on each player's advanced stats pages. Kaat's was 4.0.
July 9th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Sorry, I don't see his career WPA listed? I see the 4.0 listed, but when I go to career there's no total WPA?
July 9th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Oh, I got it, 4.0 is it --didn't realize it was that bad. I thought that had to be his best year or something. That's abysmal.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Correct regarding Ricky R. Same as I mentioned with Niekro - WPA does not account for defense behind the pitcher or park. So Rueschel is getting pounded by WPA for his terrible defenses and for pitching in Wrigley. WAR sees Rueschel as being hurt to the tune of about 70 runs by his defenses -one of the worst career marks in baseball history. That would equal about 50% of the runs he prevented compared to an average pitcher. Add in those 70 runs and watch WPA skyrocket.
And lets not underestimate for a second the impact defense has on a pitcher's numbers. Guys have been known to have 30 points of ERA+ added by incredible defenses in given seasons. Horrid defenses cost Rueschel about 6 points off of his career ERA+ and outstanding defenses helped Jim Palmer gain about 7-8 ERA+ points. And there are many others too: Niekro on the negative side and Whitey Ford on the positive side for example. We cannot ignore these factors when comparing/ranking/evaluating pitchers - it impacts too many guys too largely to ignore it.
July 12th, 2010 at 10:59 am
I haven't read all of these posts (there are just too dang many). But the one thing I am noticing is a plethora of posts reliant on the stats (many of which weren't even invented or paid attention to by real baseball people -- not stats geeks like us -- during Mt. Morris's career).
Here's the bottom line. Morris deserves to get in. (Who else from those great mid '80s Tigers teams should? Parrish? Puhleeze! Gibby? Great in the clutch, but v. inconsistent. Tram or Sweet Lou? Perhaps the best keystone combo since Tinkers and Evers, but they've likely missed their chances, particularly with the loads of power-hitting middle-infielders who've come down the pike since their heydays!) Even if you look at his teammates in Minny or Toronto, there are only a very few who even deserve candidacy. Morris deserves it because when you needed a win, he'd get you a win. And trust me, folks, the W is the >ONLY< stat that really matters. All the rest is gravy, useful for analysis but useless in the standings.
Now, here's the facts, Jack. Morris the Cat will not get in (at least unless the vets' committee eventually chooses him. That's the case because he had such abyssmal rapport with the press. He wasn't dubbed Mt. Morris for nothing; he was usually good for one or more public eruptions per season, and that is extremely off-putting to the media (they'd even prefer being given the silent treatment -- at least they can write/say what they want without fear of retribution).
So -- long story short -- Jack Morris will get into the HOF if and only if the veterans' committee sees him as deserving, long after his real eligibility has expired (hopefully, not after he has). He was a very savvy and bulldog strong pitcher who pitched to the game situation, his team's place in the standings (or the post-season) and need for a win. If you ever have a chance to watch/listen to a game when he's the analyst, pay attention. He knows the game way, way better than any of us, and it shows. His situation demonstrates that Durocher may have been right: nice guys do finish near the bottom (not last, he never actually said that; what he actually said was, "The nice guys are all over there, in seventh place, not in this dugout"). But nasty guys don't get the writers' votes for the HOF!
July 13th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
"RobertL Says:
July 12th, 2010 at 10:59 am
I haven't read all of these posts (there are just too dang many). But the one thing I am noticing is a plethora of posts reliant on the stats (many of which weren't even invented or paid attention to by real baseball people -- not stats geeks like us -- during Mt. Morris's career). "
Huh, what do you mean? "Not invented yet or paid attention to by real baseball people during Morris' career"??? Biggest knock on him is his high ERA. Some mentioned ERA+ (which just attempts to neutralize to conditions) and other stats, but his high ERA (basically just runs he allowed) is the main knock on him and ERA is nothing new. I suppose the second most cited stat was WHIP. WHIP sounds new but isn't. Walks aren't new. Hits aren't new. Innings Pitched isn't a new stat. All WHIP showed us is that Morris allowed too many Walks and Hits for the number of innings he pitched for him to be considered a great pitcher.
This has nothing to do with the media being spiteful over past mistreatment by Morris. He is getting far more HoF consideration than other similarly qualified pitchers.
July 14th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
1. #153: Leo Durocher's autobiography was titled, "Nice Guys Finish Last" so he kinda-sorta did say it.
2. I don't think now you can discount the 1991 WS classic. The bloody sock game quite possibly pushes Schilling over the top in his candidacy. I'm not saying you should weight the '91 game with any significance, but I don't think you can argue that the Schilling-Sock game will not be weighted with significance when he is eligible and therefore discounting Morris' is dangerous.
3. Jack Morris pitched the bulk of his career in one of, if not the most, difficult periods to define in baseball: the 1980s.
4. Jack Morris was not a nice guy during his playing days. I don't believe he was ever at risk of being considered the Sean Casey of the '80s.
5. He WAS the winningest pitcher of the 1980s. If the Hall of Fame were defined by only the 1980s he would be in, no questions asked. He would be the first pitcher chosen.
6. His ERA/ERA+ makes it difficult to say he's a Hall of Famer, but it also makes it extremely difficult to discount his wins.
7. His teams' records when he started a game was 302-224 (.574). A replacement pitcher (for those teams he was on) would have compiled a record of 289-237 (.549). I realize this is the now frowned upon 'wins over team', but the difference between .549 and .574 is a significant difference in a 1980s AL East finish.
8. In the 1980s, he lost a handful of wins because of the 1981 strike, played for a wretched 1989 Tigers team and still managed to average 16.2 wins per season. When he pitched, the Tigers won 190 games and lost 141 (.574). A replacement Tiger pitcher (and there were a lot of serviceable ones on those teams) would've won 174 and lost 157 (.526).
9. This is hazy I realize, but if you were attempting to create a dynasty with the full knowledge of a player's future longevity and statistics, and that league were to start in 1980, what starting pitcher in either league would you take before Jack Morris?
10. Is Jack Morris a Hall of Famer? I won't lose sleep over him not being in, but what I find interesting is that there is a huge focus on individual statistics/metrics (and thus the argument against Morris entails: wins don't mean anything, he was average, etc.). If you take that argument (and that's fine with me) then one of his teammates during that time has to be in: Lou Whitaker. You can't have both.
11. Lou Whitaker is 83rd all time in WAR (better than many great HOFers, but better than Morris and Trammell for sure); played in the hard to define 1980s and consistently gets lost in these "Does he deserve it?" debates.
12. So, finally, if you discount Morris' wins and the fact that his teams did play better when he started (it's a fact) and say he's not a Hall of Famer for that reason, then I believe you have no choice but to say Whitaker is a Hall of Famer. If Whitaker's not a Hall of Famer (because WAR and other stats don't adequately portray his 'true' performance, then Morris has to be a Hall of Famer.
13. Right?
July 16th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Well put. To me the crime is some here don't even want to acknowledge him as a borderliner but will say Brown should go in. Perhaps that's a small minority, but it exists. It's almost like some want to look just at the numbers in some sort of vacuum without context. YEs, his one game can be overblown, but Morris was more than one big game! I don't believe Jack pitched to the score necessarily, but he was a bulldog, workhorse, a great gamer and he had "it", evidenced by when needed, he was also an ace. Yes the stats, specifically his high ERA and WAR, should hurt him, but to say the guy isn't even a borderliner is nothing short than ridiculous. I suspect those that think he isn't a boderliner never had the chance to see him pitch throughout the 80's, when as you say, he was known as one of the best starters in the game. Trammell should already be in and Whitaker should be getting lots of play but has already been dropped. The big stats of today's middle infielders is certainly hurting these guys.