Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Jack Morris Elected to Hall of Fame

  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#81 Don Walcott

Don Walcott

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 526 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe, NM

Posted 12 December 2017 - 04:30 PM

 

No. And that is really rude. It is about who is good enough to be in the hall. Not about ego or other things you imply. Nice ad hominen attack, though.

I apologize if my comment was offensive. I did not intend to be rude. I have a lot of respect for the opinions that you express on this site.

 

I have been involved in this debate on other sites, including Posnanski's, where instead of debating the merits of the HOF case, I've been condescended to as if I knew nothing about advanced statistics. And I have found that it makes no difference what team you root for, the debate is not about that. So my opinion about the motivations behind the debate was formed many years ago.

  • Mike Sixel likes this

#82 Don Walcott

Don Walcott

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 526 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe, NM

Posted 12 December 2017 - 04:35 PM

 

ERA+is old school, not new. K/9, BB/9, K/BB ratio and the fact he never even finished 2nd in CY,much less won a CY. All old school. Old school or new school, both give compelling arguments against.

ERA+ is one of the primary rating systems that is used in the case against Morris, in my experience. I agree that it is a terrible rating system. And the flaws in ERA+ are compounded by bWAR.

 

K/9 is also a terrible statistic.People should use K% instead.For example, if one pitcher gives up three baserunners and strikes out one in one inning, his k/9 is 9.Another pitcher gives up no baserunners and strikes out one in one inning, his k/9 is 9.However, the latter's K% is twice as good as the former's, and he's simply better at striking people out.


#83 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,169 posts

Posted 12 December 2017 - 04:52 PM

ERA+ is one of the primary rating systems that is used in the case against Morris, in my experience. I agree that it is a terrible rating system. And the flaws in ERA+ are compounded by bWAR.

K/9 is also a terrible statistic. People should use K% instead. For example, if one pitcher gives up three baserunners and strikes out one in one inning, his k/9 is 9. Another pitcher gives up no baserunners and strikes out one in one inning, his k/9 is 9. However, the latter's K% is twice as good as the former's, and he's simply better at striking people out.

ERA+ is just ERA compared to other pitchers when they pitched (with a possible adjustmebt for ballparks). So really, its mostly just ERA and yeah, it is flawed. As is ERA (which is also a knock on him, BTW)

As yes, K/9 has issues too (most stats do)

Both in these cases, you are preaching to the choir and it doesnt change my point, which is that there are plenty of reasons,on both the old school and new school sides of thinking, that make a compelling argument against him getting in.

Btw, as far as new stats, I personally dont use bWAR at all.

P.S.his FIP is nothing to write home about either ;-)

Edited by jimmer, 12 December 2017 - 04:56 PM.

  • Don Walcott likes this

#84 Don Walcott

Don Walcott

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 526 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe, NM

Posted 12 December 2017 - 06:13 PM

But his fWAR is significantly better than bWAR, which is why you never hear about fWAR in these debates.


#85 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,169 posts

Posted 12 December 2017 - 06:18 PM

 

But his fWAR is significantly better than bWAR, which is why you never hear about fWAR in these debates.

His fWAR is nothing to brag about either:55.8.

 

Mussina, who may not make it, is 82.2. Schilling is 79.8.

 

I've read plenty who quote his fWAR when saying he doesn't deserve it (for example, some writers at Fangraphs).

 

But, still, it's not old school versus new school when it comes to Morris.Plenty of reasons on both sides to say, 'Yeah no.He didn't deserve it.'So this idea that people put out there that's it's only because of new school thinking (especially quoting WAR) that he couldn't get in before is false.There are arguments and both sides as to why he shouldn't have AND WAR didn't even exist the first few years he was on the ballot, much less taken seriously.

 

But he's in, and good for him.

 

 

Edited by jimmer, 12 December 2017 - 06:25 PM.


#86 Don Walcott

Don Walcott

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 526 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe, NM

Posted 12 December 2017 - 06:23 PM

IMO, the main problem with any WAR calculation for starting pitchers is that pitchers only continue to pitch by getting outs. Once they can't get outs, or tire, or hit a pitch count, they get pulled. A replacement level pitcher can't pitch 293 innings like Jack did in 1983. A replacement level pitcher can't pitch 250 innings, like Jack averaged for his healthy full 13 seasons. To truly understand the replacement level for a great starting pitcher, you need a replacement level pitcher and one or two relievers, and then you would need to quantify the burden on the bullpen of having to pitch innings 7-9 20-30 more times each season. Finally, FIP and ERA+ don't account for the high leverage situations a starting pitcher like Morris took on by pitching the 7-9 innings.

 

Ultimately, the concept of replacement level players, which may work for other players, does not work well for starting pitchers. The Morris debate has highlighted this fact, as he's an extreme example of a guy who pitched a lot of 7-9 innings compared to his peers.

  • Bill Brown69 likes this

#87 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,169 posts

Posted 12 December 2017 - 06:26 PM

 

IMO, the main problem with any WAR calculation for starting pitchers is that pitchers only continue to pitch by getting outs. Once they can't get outs, or tire, or hit a pitch count, they get pulled. A replacement level pitcher can't pitch 293 innings like Jack did in 1983. A replacement level pitcher can't pitch 250 innings, like Jack averaged for his healthy full 13 seasons. To truly understand the replacement level for a great starting pitcher, you need a replacement level pitcher and one or two relievers, and then you would need to quantify the burden on the bullpen of having to pitch innings 7-9 20-30 more times each season. Finally, FIP and ERA+ don't account for the high leverage situations a starting pitcher like Morris took on by pitching the 7-9 innings.

 

Ultimately, the concept of replacement level players, which may work for other players, does not work well for starting pitchers. The Morris debate has highlighted this fact, as he's an extreme example of a guy who pitched a lot of 7-9 innings compared to his peers.

And innings are taken into account, right? Since WAR is a cumulative stat.

 

And his ERA in innings 7-9 is lower than in innings 1-3 and 4-6 so those 7-9 innings helped his ERA, not hurt it.

Edited by jimmer, 12 December 2017 - 06:27 PM.


#88 Don Walcott

Don Walcott

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 526 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe, NM

Posted 12 December 2017 - 06:51 PM

 

And innings are taken into account, right? Since WAR is a cumulative stat.

 

And his ERA in innings 7-9 is lower than in innings 1-3 and 4-6 so those 7-9 innings helped his ERA, not hurt it.

Not exactly. With FIP, it hurts if he didn't try to strike every batter out. If he was told he was only going 7 innings, he'd probably have had more strikeouts. This is evidenced by the fact that he had a higher strikeout percentage in the 9th inning than in any other inning. His 8th inning was his worst inning in a lot of ways. So it would appear that he was saving something to close out games. If he had gone full out, knowing he was not expected to go deep into games, he would have had better FIP and a better ERA.

 

If WAR were a truly cumulative stat, you'd take into account all of the things I listed above because no replacement pitcher could, say, throw 7 consecutive complete games or three consecutive shutouts, or even approach the results Jack achieved in the late innings.There'd at least be a leverage component to the calculations, which there are for relief pitchers, but not for starting pitchers. But it definitely would be a difficult calculation, and would likely involve even more questionable assumptions than are already inherent in the calculations through things like ballpark effect and defense.

 

That Jack was so dominant in the 9th inning, brings up his 7-9 stats relatively. So you have to unpack that analysis a bit. Moreover, one of the reasons pitchers are taken out of games is to preserve them for the next game, and for the course of the season. Despite his freakish stamina, I have to believe that some of the runs he gave up in early innings were a result of having been overworked in previous games. Of course, there's no way of knowing for sure, but common sense and experience would say that's the case.

 

One problem with ERA is we assume that it means a pitcher averages a certain number of runs per nine innings pitched. That's true in a way, but not the 9 innings of any particular game. A more accurate statistic would show how many innings a pitcher averaged per start, and how many runs that pitcher averaged giving up per start. Then, if you want to get really into it, determine what innings the pitcher did not pitch, and how many runs an average bullpen from that league in that year would have given up in those games in those innings. I think Jack would come out looking really good if that's how we quantified run prevention.

 

Even though I think he could have had better "advanced" statistics if he had been used differently, I don't think it would have helped his teams win championships. The 1984 Tigers, 1991 Twins and 1992 Blue Jays relied on him to win games, but also pitch deep into games to that the bullpen could be used to assist weaker pitchers. That formula worked for the rotation, the bullpen and the teams he played on. And after all, his contributions to his teams is the main factor in whether he's a HOFer.


#89 Don Walcott

Don Walcott

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 526 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe, NM

Posted 12 December 2017 - 06:56 PM

As for Wins, one of the reasons the statistic is flawed, is that 5-inning wins are the same as 9-inning wins. Fun fact in this discussion that I've never heard from anyone else is that if you counted only wins where the pitcher went 7 innings, Jack had 1 more win that Glavine in about 155 less starts over his career. Jack earned his wins more than anyone in his era and ever since, going 7 innings in 86% of his wins, and going 9 innings in 43%. He has very few cheap wins.

  • USAFChief and Bill Brown69 like this

#90 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,169 posts

Posted 12 December 2017 - 07:08 PM

 

Not exactly. With FIP, it hurts if he didn't try to strike every batter out. If he was told he was only going 7 innings, he'd probably have had more strikeouts. This is evidenced by the fact that he had a higher strikeout percentage in the 9th inning than in any other inning. His 8th inning was his worst inning in a lot of ways. So it would appear that he was saving something to close out games. If he had gone full out, knowing he was not expected to go deep into games, he would have had better FIP and a better ERA.

 

If WAR were a truly cumulative stat, you'd take into account all of the things I listed above because no replacement pitcher could, say, throw 7 consecutive complete games or three consecutive shutouts, or even approach the results Jack achieved in the late innings.There'd at least be a leverage component to the calculations, which there are for relief pitchers, but not for starting pitchers. But it definitely would be a difficult calculation, and would likely involve even more questionable assumptions than are already inherent in the calculations through things like ballpark effect and defense.

 

That Jack was so dominant in the 9th inning, brings up his 7-9 stats relatively. So you have to unpack that analysis a bit. Moreover, one of the reasons pitchers are taken out of games is to preserve them for the next game, and for the course of the season. Despite his freakish stamina, I have to believe that some of the runs he gave up in early innings were a result of having been overworked in previous games. Of course, there's no way of knowing for sure, but common sense and experience would say that's the case.

 

One problem with ERA is we assume that it means a pitcher averages a certain number of runs per nine innings pitched. That's true in a way, but not the 9 innings of any particular game. A more accurate statistic would show how many innings a pitcher averaged per start, and how many runs that pitcher averaged giving up per start. Then, if you want to get really into it, determine what innings the pitcher did not pitch, and how many runs an average bullpen from that league in that year would have given up in those games in those innings. I think Jack would come out looking really good if that's how we quantified run prevention.

 

Even though I think he could have had better "advanced" statistics if he had been used differently, I don't think it would have helped his teams win championships. The 1984 Tigers, 1991 Twins and 1992 Blue Jays relied on him to win games, but also pitch deep into games to that the bullpen could be used to assist weaker pitchers. That formula worked for the rotation, the bullpen and the teams he played on. And after all, his contributions to his teams is the main factor in whether he's a HOFer.

I'm sorry, but the arguments used for Morris, by Morris fans, get all twisted around until only certain numbers or narratives(all the positive ones) count and the rest are discarded as misleading or whatever else.Like going out of their way to stretch things or look at things at a certain angle or reach for straws to say he's deserving.For examples:

 

1. Pitch to score (and the idea his ERA would be lower if he didn't go as far while also saying he deserves to go to the Hall cause of the complete game). Both used as an excuse his ERA is so high (for a HOFer)

2. Most wins in the 80s

- As if wins aren't a product of team effort

- As if it's something special as opposed to any 10 year stretch.

- Failing to mention losses during that decade too (cause only the wins count?)

3. World Series titles when it takes a whole team to get to the playoffs, get through the playoffs (one round in his case) and win a W Series 

 

When people have to do that for a HOF candidate it's telling.And he's the only pitcher I know where that happens.

 

In any event, like I keep saying, my original point which got this discussion started was that people need to stop with the narrative that's it's only new school thinking that argues against him being deserving.It's not.

 

It's been a good discussion (very fun and respectful) and I thank you. I've had these kind of debates at length with many, but in the end for me it's about the numbers and there are too many old school and new school numbers that over-ride the rest, no matter how interesting to read.

Edited by jimmer, 12 December 2017 - 07:13 PM.


#91 Don Walcott

Don Walcott

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 526 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe, NM

Posted 12 December 2017 - 07:11 PM

I’ve never argued pitch to the score in favor of Jack, though I have opinions on the so-called studies about that. And I’ve never argued about most wins in the 80s. Not once.
  • jimmer likes this

#92 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,169 posts

Posted 12 December 2017 - 07:33 PM

 

I’ve never argued pitch to the score in favor of Jack, though I have opinions on the so-called studies about that. And I’ve never argued about most wins in the 80s. Not once.

Well, I said for examples. It wasn't meant to be all inclusive.And I never said anyone used all of them ;-)

 

Again, thanks for the respectful debate.

Edited by jimmer, 12 December 2017 - 07:35 PM.


#93 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Minnesota Twins

  • Members
  • 2,525 posts

Posted 12 December 2017 - 07:35 PM

One thing that all your sabremetrics don’t take into account is 3 rings. That’s why he’s in. His regular season stats don’t stand out in any way. He may well be in because of one game. That game was the best postseason pitching performance in the last 60 years - basically in the memory of the overwhelming majority of everyone alive.

That was the voter’s choice. People vote. Not computers. Because people play the game.

#94 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,169 posts

Posted 12 December 2017 - 07:40 PM

One thing that all your sabremetrics don’t take into account is 3 rings. That’s why he’s in. His regular season stats don’t stand out in any way. He may well be in because of one game. That game was the best postseason pitching performance in the last 60 years - basically in the memory of the overwhelming majority of everyone alive.

That was the voter’s choice. People vote. Not computers. Because people play the game.

Yeah, I wasn't just using Sabremetrics only. In fact, that was the point.

His playoffs numbers a whole aren't that great. As good as some of his playoffs were, people ignore the bad ones. Those count too, no? In '87, he was horrible in ALCS and in '92 he was again horrible in ALCS. In the '92 ALCS, one of the games Toronto lost was his start (where he got the loss) and in his second start, he didn't get out of the 4th inning and he have up 5 ER (the team got saved by the bullpen and offense). His W Series that year, also terrible. His two W Series starts were the only two losses Toronto had in that W Series (and he got both losses).

And yep, people vote...like they did for 15 straight years when they said he didn't deserve to be in the HOF. But this one voting body proves your point :-)

Like I said earlier. He's in and I congratulate him for it.

Edited by ChiTownTwinsFan, 12 December 2017 - 10:28 PM.


#95 h2oface

h2oface

    Lifelong since '61

  • Members
  • 2,754 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 12 December 2017 - 09:21 PM

In the future...... voters may only have pitchers to select from with only around 200 wins at most...... The game is definitely changing. Yup. I think Morris belongs in the Hall of Fame. 


#96 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 13,326 posts

Posted 13 December 2017 - 08:33 AM

Good for Jack.


#97 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,151 posts

Posted 13 December 2017 - 05:28 PM

 

Good for Jack.

Levi, you old walrus, long time no post. I can't even disagree with you for old times sake.