Wins Above Jack Morris

[jacksonianmarch]

Wins above Jack Morris, lol. I like that. You can always play the "what if" game, but it wasn't until King Felix won the CY with a losing record that voters started looking beyond wins and losses. In the history of the game, that is a very short window of time.

The other thing I want to see managed for post career accolades is the compilers vs the truly elite. The great comparison is Andy Pettitte vs Roy Halladay. PEDs aside, they had very similar WARs (Pettitte 68, Doc's 65). Pettitte in 18 seasons, Doc in 16. But Halladay had a 6 yr run where he put up 38.6WAR and had 200+IP in that time. Pettitte had consecutive 4WAR seasons once (96 and 97). Halladay did it 3 yrs in a row, had two good years of 2.8 and 3.8WAR then ran 6 straight amazing years together. Doc's final 2 seasons totaled 1.8WAR. Pettitte had his final 4 WAR season in 2007, but from 08-13 (he sat out one season) he totaled 13.5WAR. The thing Pettitte did was be consistently good from day 1. Halladay had 3 partial seasons to start his career that essentially amounted to nothing and a final season that was a negative. In his 16 seasons in the majors, 12 were good to elite and 4 were entire duds. Pettitte was below 2 WAR twice in his career and both were injury shortened seasons (where his production was up to his standard). He was the steady Eddy while Halladay was the shooting star that faded. I don't know what the answers are. Are you a HOFer if you were never lights out but consistently good for nearly 2 decades? Are you a HOFer only if you were the top of your game for a shorter period of time? Not sure. I also think the stink of the PEDs is going to fade. As the writers who hid their eyes from the reality then came down with a hammer afterwards start to die out and the writers who grew up in the steroid era start to take a stronger place in the community, I think more people will vote for the guys who used

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

I think they'll all get in eventually. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but hopefully in theirs.

The case for Pettitte is strong; quick research shows that every pitcher who led his decade in victories made the Hall of Fame (I only looked back as far as 1950, when integration made such accomplishments more legit). As for the just-concluded Teens, the top three in Ws will be first-ballot guys: Scherzer, Verlander, Kershaw.

Pettitte paced the 00s with the lowest leading total in seven decades -- 148 wins (nine more than Halladay, who was fourth)... but Andy is also the career postseason leader in wins, games started and innings pitched. Sure he pitched for great teams, but if pitching is 70% of the game, and your ace has five rings, I'd say he deserves a plaque.

[notin]

Kinda hijacking my own thread, but since this topic was supposed to be about modern metrics: on MLB TV today there was a discussion about top shortstops, and it was reported that Bogaerts was last in DSR. Also interesting: in one of the articles projecting a Betts to LA trade, a writer suggested Gavin Lux as the Red Sox new shortstop, because the writer assumed Bogie would soon have to be moved to another position anyway.

One more question about WAR: if WAR supposedly "measures a player's value in all facets of the game", then why are there also separate categories for Offensive WAR and Defensive WAR?

They’re components of WAR...

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

They’re components of WAR...

I get that, but they don't add up. All these brilliant statisticians, and not one could devise a cumulative formula... that any fan with an elementary school education could grasp? Like 2.5 OWAR + 2.0 DWAR + 1.0 Baserunning WAR = 5.5 Total WAR (I'm not even going to ask how they figure the components).

Most of us kids avoided long division, but we all knew how to calculate batting averages by middle school (at least by using calculators).

[Bellhorn04]

I get that, but they don't add up. All these brilliant statisticians, and not one could devise a cumulative formula... that any fan with an elementary school education could grasp? Like 2.5 OWAR + 2.0 DWAR + 1.0 Baserunning WAR = 5.5 Total WAR (I'm not even going to ask how they figure the components).

Most of us kids avoided long division, but we all knew how to calculate batting averages by middle school (at least by using calculators).

The WAR component additions and subtractions on Baseball-Reference (B-R) are actually pretty easy to decipher.

There is a 'positional' adjustment you have to watch for.

[Bellhorn04]

I honestly don't think Jack Morris should be in the Hall, and yes, my starting point for that statement is his career WAR.

Morris's career bWAR is 43.5.

Schilling's is 80.5.

Hello?

[notin]

I honestly don't think Jack Morris should be in the Hall, and yes, my starting point for that statement is his career WAR.

Morris's career bWAR is 43.5.

Schilling's is 80.5.

Hello?

Heck, Jamie Moyer’s is 49.9...

[Bellhorn04]

Jack Morris is a perfect example of what people mean when they say it's not supposed to be the Hall of the Very Good.

[notin]

Jack Morris is a perfect example of what people mean when they say it's not supposed to be the Hall of the Very Good.

Morris is a bizarre example very good pitcher whose entire career was suddenly cast into greatness because of one game in the limelight...

[moonslav59]

I honestly don't think Jack Morris should be in the Hall, and yes, my starting point for that statement is his career WAR.

Morris's career bWAR is 43.5.

Schilling's is 80.5.

Hello?

I agree. I also think Schilling is borderline.

[S5Dewey]

This age of sabermetrics and WAR had made membership in the HOF a joke. Members are there because they were voted on by people with biases rather than using what we now realize is a more equitable way of determining worth - the computer.

The solution to this is relatively simple. First determine a minimum WAR necessary to be eligible for the Hall. Then determine the WAR of every player who played the game. Next sort every player from Step 2 by WAR. Those who fit the minimum criteria for membership can stay. Throw the rest of the bums out.

In the future there's no need to have balloting by those biased people. Simply use that minimum WAR value to be worthy of membership. This will provide a fair and equitable way for players to be enshrined in the Hall and should end all of this debate about who should be in and who shouldn't. It will also be about as much fun as doing your taxes.

[Bellhorn04]

I agree. I also think Schilling is borderline.

Schilling should be a slam dunk IMO.

If 80.5 WAR and an awesome postseason resume doesn't get you in, that's f***ed up.

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

The WAR comparisons make a good case for Schill, Bell -- I think WAR is what some writers think makes Grienke a HOFer; he's already at 71.7. Although I can't recall ever watching him and hearing any discussion about immortality (I know, it's the new Harold Baines argument -- he of the 38.7 WAR).

As for Morris, like I said, he's a guy where stats can't possibly tell the whole story because he never cared about anything but winning -- as in, three rings as the Game One starter for three teams. Beat writers who watched him and voted on hardware gave him Cy Young votes in seven years, MVP votes in five years, plus the WS MVP in '91. In comparison, Schilling also won three rings as a top of the rotation starter, but only had four years where he got Cy/MVP votes, with two postseason MVPs. They're both borderline, but I'd say both deserving as aces who were counted upon to come up clutch.

On the latter criteria, it's also why I'd take a guy like Bumgarner over Grienke as a future Hall of Famer, even at almost half the WAR (so far).

[moonslav59]

There are players in the HOF that don't deserve it. If we use Baines as the comp the Hall would be tripled in numbers.

[notin]

This age of sabermetrics and WAR had made membership in the HOF a joke. Members are there because they were voted on by people with biases rather than using what we now realize is a more equitable way of determining worth - the computer.

The solution to this is relatively simple. First determine a minimum WAR necessary to be eligible for the Hall. Then determine the WAR of every player who played the game. Next sort every player from Step 2 by WAR. Those who fit the minimum criteria for membership can stay. Throw the rest of the bums out.

In the future there's no need to have balloting by those biased people. Simply use that minimum WAR value to be worthy of membership. This will provide a fair and equitable way for players to be enshrined in the Hall and should end all of this debate about who should be in and who shouldn't. It will also be about as much fun as doing your taxes.

Right because the voting method was so perfect. The same method that said “Tony Perez? In. Steve Garvey and Don’t Mattingly? Out. Dave Bancroft? In. Larry Walker? No. Don Sutton? Makes sense. Jim Kaat? No it doesn’t.” Yeah let’s defend that method.

The fact that Bert Blyleven took 15 years to get into Cooperstown shows what a joke voting is. The guy was fifth all time in strikeouts - the most exciting pitching category. If you’re top five all time in any cumulative category, you should be in the Hall...