SB Nation User Blog: Zubin

Whitey narrowly misses Hall of Fame

Zubin — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:40:38 -0000

I have been out for a couple of days, so I appologize if this is old news, but Whitey Herzog just missed being elected to the Hall of Fame via committee. On a brighter note, Billy Southworth made it. Here is the link to the press release. Complete results are as follows:

Managers/Umpires:
*Billy Southworth (81.3%)
*Dick Williams (81.3%)
Doug Harvey (68.8%)
Whitey Herzog (68.8%)
Danny Murtaugh (37.5%)
Hank O'Day (25%)
Davey Johnson, Billy Martin, Gene Mauch and Cy Rigler (<3 votes)

Executives/Pioneers:
*Barney Dreyfuss (83%)
*Bowie Kuhn (83%)
*Walter O'Malley (75%)
Ewing Kauffman (41.7%)
John Fetzer (33.3%)
Bob Howsam (25%)
Marvin Miller (25%)
Buzzie Bavasi, John McHale and Gabe Paul (<3 votes)

Just curious what everybody thinks of the White Rat. Will he be elected? Should he?

Poll

Should Whitey be in the HoF? Will he make it?

Yes. Yes (Whitey belongs in the hall and will get there eventually.)

13 votes

Yes. No. (Whitey belongs in the hall but won't make it there.)

2 votes

No. Yes. (Whitey does not belong in the hall but will get there eventually anyway.)

6 votes

No. No. (Whitey does not belong in the hall and won't get there.)

1 votes

22 votes | Poll has closed

Ways to Make the Rest of the Season Interesting.

Zubin — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:05:04 -0000

I was just thinking of ways the Cardinals could make the last few games fun. I thought that it might be cool for Aaron Miles to become the first Cardinal since Jose Oquendo to play every position. Since he has already pitched this year, he'd need to play center, right, first and catch. That arm would be painful to watch in the outfield or at catcher and he'd make a pretty small target at first, but at least we'd be saved from watching him throw a ball to first.

Then I got to thinking about who else might be able to match Oquendo's feat, when it occurred to me that a Cardinal could "break Oquendo's record" by playing 10 positions. Scott Spezio this year has played: P, 1B, 2B, 3B, LF, RF and DH. If Tony would let him play short, catcher and center for an inning, he'll play "all 10" positions this year.

Some other ideas:
Use Reyes as a closer, just to "teach him situational pitching."
Let Kip Wells (.327BA) play a game in left or right field.

Anyone have any thoughts or any more ideas on how the Cardinals could spice things up for a few games in Pitsburgh?

(Graphic courtesy of Hardcore Legend)

Best Year Ever by a Cardinal

Zubin — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:37:31 -0000

LB's all-time Cardinal tourney got me thinking about the best season any player has had in Cardinals history. The organization has its share of great seasons, but which season was the best in the Teams history? Anyway, I thought it would be fun to discuss which the best is. I compiled a list of some of the best seasons I knew of using the following criteria:

I searched through all seasons franchise history, including those posted in the American Association (1883-1891). I even found one other St Louis seasons worth mention.
No more than one season is listed for any one player. This isn't a problem on most any player except Hornsby. Any of three seasons could be considered his best and it didn't make sense to take so many voting slots with one player.
I paid attention to players that are remembered primarily for their years in a St. Louis uniform and had their best years in St. Louis. Again this is a matter of practicality to narrow the field.
I thought of MVPs and Cy Young as automatic nominees, but there are simply too many to properly list. Besides, is it even debatable whether any of Frank Frisch`s season are comparable to any of Rogers Hornsby three best years?

On to the nominees:

Bob Caruthers "Parisian" Bob is mostly remembered as one of the finest pitchers of the 1880s, baseball's first transatlantic holdout and one of the most deserving nineteenth century players not in the HoF. 1886 wasn't his finest pitching season for the Browns as he won more games, pitched 100 more innings and posted an ERA a quarter-run better for the 1885 pennant winners. In fact, in 1886 he may not have even been the best pitcher in the AA. However was the league's best hitter posting a .975 OPS and 200 OPS+ in addition to his 30 wins and a 2.32 ERA (2nd in the league). He also went 2-1 on the mound to help St Louis win its first World Championship.

Bob Caruthers- 1886, P-RF
30-14/ 387ip/ 2.32era/ 148era+/ 1.056whip
87g/ 317ab/ .334avg/ .448obp .527slg 200ops+

Tip O'Neill. Really, surprising little has been written about Tip O'Neill. He is perhaps most famous for his namesakes: many Irish-American born in the late 1800's were named after James Edward "Tip" O'Neill, including former speaker of the house, Tip O'Neill. St. Louis' first big star was also the most feared hitter of his day and famous for his ability to endlessly foul tip pitches until he got one to his liking or was walked (which he didn't like to do). In fact he was so feared as a batter that by some accounts he was the first (and second) recipient of an intentional walk in baseball history during the 1886 World Series. Even so, Tip O'Neill's 1887 season stands out as perhaps the most amazing season by a batter ever. That year O'Neill led the league in EVERY offensive category except stolen bases and walks. You name it he led it: avg: .435, obp: .492, slg: .691, hits: 225, doubles: 52, triples: 19, homeruns: 14, rbis: 123, runs: 167. Unfortunately for O'Neill and the Browns, he didn't hit too well in the 1887 World Series but he did manage to break up what would have been a no-hitter in game six with a ninth inning two-out single.

Tip O'Neill-1887, LF
124g/ 527ab/ .435avg/ .490obp/ .691slg / 211ops+

It would be a long time until another player had a truly remarkable season for St Louis. The owner of the Browns, Chris Von der Ahe, started selling his players, mostly to Brooklyn, after 1887. After winning the pennant again in 1888 and losing the World Series to the Giants, St. Louis would have to wait nearly 40 years for another championship and another star. During the 1890s several future HoFers passed though St Louis and the team was pretty good in 1899, the year after we merged with the Cleveland Spiders, but for the most part our best players were past their prime or remembered better for their work on other teams. In particular Jesse Burkett had an awesome seasons for St. Louis (181ops+ in 1901), but his heyday really came several years before in Cleveland. The story was the same during the early part of the 20th century. Several future HoFers played for the Cardinals, but they are more remembered for other roles. Then in 1915 a couple of promising rookies came to town...

George Sisler. Okay, this one doesn't count since he played for the American League Browns, but he posted some awesome seasons from 1920-1922. Everyone knows Rogers Hornsby hit .400 over five years, but how many people realize Sisler did it over 3 years (.3997 from 1920-1922)? Anyway, 1920 was his finest year in my opinion, even though it wasn't his MVP season. He hit .407 with 19 homeruns (a career high) and racked up 257 hits in 154 games, a record that stood for 84 years until Ichiro Suzuki bested it with 262 in 2004. Also of note to quantify Sisler's greatness: in 1922, he hit .420, the second highest batting average ever posted in the AL (and the highest in the AL under modern rules).

George Sisler-1920, 1st base (Browns, American League)
154g/ 631ab/ 257h/ .407avg/ .449obp/ .632slg/ 181ops+

Rogers Hornsby. The hardest part of this selection is to know which year to pick. From 1921 to 1925 not only did the Rajah bat over .400, but he also posted an ops+ of 203 over that period. His power and productivity topped out in 1922 with 450 bases and 42 homeruns. His average and ops+ reached a peak of .424 and 222 in 1924. However, he reached his slugging peak in 1925 (.756), winning his 2nd Triple Crown and first MVP. Ironically, Hornsby didn't achieve post season glory until a year later when he had an off-year, posting only a .316 average and a 124 ops+. But he managed St. Louis to our first World Championship in 40 years, tagging Babe Ruth out at second to seal the deal in the ninth inning of game seven..

Rogers Hornsby-1925, 2nd base
138g/ 504ab/ .403avg/ .489obp/ .756slg/ 210ops+

Dizzy Dean. Dean's career wasn't long, but he had an awesome peak. 1934 was his MVP season when he became the last man in the NL to win 30 games. That year he and his brother Paul went 4-1 in the World Series in a seven game win against the Tigers.

Dizzy Dean-1934, P
30-11/ 311ip/ 2.66era / 159era+/ 1.165whip

Joe Medwick. The Cardinals 3rd and last Triple Crown winner was also the last Triple Crown winner in the NL. Like most triple-crown winners his achievement was serendipitous. He achieved his career high in homeruns, 31, at the same time the NL's power output dipped. Had he played in the AL, he would have been 7th. And as good as he was, there was another Cardinal nearly as good, Johnny Mize. I assume Mize and his 172ops+ was hitting behind Ducky and thus helped impel Medwick to amazing season. Pepper Martin hit pretty well that year to posting a 125ops+. So how did we finish 4th that year? Look no further than the pitching which was 6th in the NL.

Joe Medwick-1937, LF
156g/ 633ab/ .374avg/ .414obp/ .671slg/ 180ops+

Mort Cooper. Despite selling Medwick and Mize the previous couple of years, the Cardinals reached their pinnacle in wins in 1942. Musial had a typical season in his sophomore year (151ops+) and Enos Slaughter had perhaps his best season (156ops+), but it was Mort Cooper that won the MVP with his 22-7 record, 279ip and 1.78 era. And by the way, Mort's brother, Walker Cooper, had a pretty decent season as backstop with a 115ops+.

Mort Cooper-1942, P
22-7/ 279ip/ 1.78era/ 192era+/ .987whip

Stan Musial. Musial had a number of great seasons and won the MVP 3 times, but there is no doubt as to his greatest season. In 1948 Musial nearly equaled Tip O'Neill's feat of leading the league in everything possible; he only missed it (and the Triple Crown) by one rained out home run. To be exact, Musial led the league avg (.376), obp (.450), slg (.702), runs (135), hits (230), doubles (46), triples (18), rbi (131). Despite this however, the Cardinals finished second to the Dodgers, led by Jackie Robinson. We wouldn't integrate until 1959.

Stan Musial-1948, LF
155g/ 611ab/ .376avg/ .450obp/ .702slg/ 200ops+

Bob GibsonTwenty Years after Musial posted one of the most amazing seasons ever, Gibson would do the same except instead of creating runs, he prevented them. Gibson's era of 1.12 was the lowest posted since Mordecai Brown's 1.04 in 1906 and the lowest ever in a season with 300+ innings pitched. I guess everybody know what happened in the World Series that year: Despite Gibson's heroics, the Cardinals lost in seven. I am not old enough to have watched it there but recall reading something about a center fielder and slick grass. Then again, that sounds familiar...

Bob Gibson-1968, P
22-9/ 305ip/ 1.12era/ 258era+/ .853whip

Mark McGwire. Really I was hoping to avoid this selection, but there is no getting around it. The year McGwire hit 70 homeruns he was by most any measure monstrously productive. His ops+ of 217 stands only behind Hornsby's 222 in 1924 for the all-time leader. His 70 home runs easily top the leader boards as do his 162 walks.

Mark McGwire-1998, 1st base
159g/ 509ab/ .299avg/ .470obp/ .752slg/ 217ops+

Albert Pujols. This might be the hardest selection to make for a number of reasons. First I'd like to think that Pujols best years are still ahead of him. Second, if we compare him at first base, he may not look so hot compared to McGwire. Lastly, even more so than Hornsby, his seasons have all been so great that it is hard to single one out. But since I have to, I'll go with 2003. It is a bit of an odd selection, since it is the one year he didn't make the post-season, but it was his batting title year and he posted a high for ops+.

Albert Pujols-2003, 1st base
157g/ 591ab/ .359avg/ .439obp/ .667slg/ 189ops+

Jim Edmonds This is another tough call for me, just because I am not sure when its all said and done how Edmonds career will look when view in the light of the slugfest that was the 1990s and early 2000s. But in any case, if you are Cardinals fan, gold glove center fielders with an ops+ seventy-five percent better than the league don't come around- well, ever until Edmonds. 2004, easily Edmonds' best season, was such an amazing year not only for him, but for the whole team. We had guys in the middle on the line-up posting ops+ of 145 (Walker), 175 (Pujols), 173 (Edmonds), 160 (Rolen). Makes me wonder how we lost to Boston.

Jim Edmonds-2004, CF
153g/ 498ab/ .301avg / .418obp/ .643slg/ 173ops+

Well there you have it... that is my list. Apologies to the great seasons and players I didn't elaborate on, including, but not limited to:

Silver King-1888,.. P, 45-21/ 586ip/ 1.64era/ 199era+/ .896whip
John Tudor-1985,... P, 21-8 / 275ip/ 1.93era/ 183era+/ .938whip

Jim Bottomley-1928, 1st base, 149g/ 576ab/ .325avg/ .402obp/ .628obp/ 163ops+
Frank Frisch-1930,. 2nd base, 133g/ 540ab/ .346avg/ .407obp/ .520slg/ 119ops+
Johnny Mize-1939,.. 1st base, 153g/ 564ab/ .349avg/ .444obp/ .626slg/ 176ops+
Ken Boyer-1961,.... 3rd base, 153g/ 589ab/ .329avg/ .397obp/ .533slg/ 135ops+
Joe Torre-1971,.... 3rd base, 161g/ 631ab/ .363avg/ .421obp/ .555slg/ 171ops+
Willie McGee-1985,. CF,...... 152g/ 612ab/ .353avg/ .384obp/ .503slg/ 148ops+
Jack Clark-1987,... 1st base, 131g/ 419ab/ .286avg/ .459obp/ .597slg/ 176ops+
Scott Rolen-2004,.. 3rd base, 142g/ 500ab/ .314avg/ .409obp/ .598slg/ 160ops+

So, what do you think?
So, what do you think?

Poll

What is the best season ever by a Cardinal?

Bob Caruthers-1886

0 votes

Bob Gibson-1968

22 votes

Tip O'Neill-1887

1 votes

Mark McGwire-1998

4 votes

Rogers Hornsby-1925

14 votes

Albert Pujols-2003

5 votes

Joe Medwick-1937

0 votes

Jim Edmonds-2004

2 votes

Stan Musial-1948

8 votes

Other (Write it in the comments.)

1 votes

57 votes | Poll has closed

HoF Veteran's Commitee Ballot- Jim Kaat

Zubin — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:52:07 -0000

This is the first in a series of diaries about Hall of Fame Veteran's Committee Candidates. In this diary I'd like to get everyone's opinion on art four in a hall of fame diary series that examines the hall-worthiness of some of the candidates for 2007. You can follow these links to get to the other diaries:
Bert Blyleven

Jack Morris

Andre Dawson, Dave Parker and Jim Rice.

For reference, entire ballot can be seen here. Results of the ballot will be announced February 27th. If there is time and interest, I'd like to post diaries on the nominees that have a St Louis connection: Ken Boyer, August Busch Jr, Curt Flood, Whitey Herzog, Jim Kaat, Marty Marion, and Joe Torre.

Today I'd like to open up discussion on Jim Kaat. His association with St Louis was not exactly critical to his career, but he did win his only ring with the Cardinals in 1982.

His 283 wins are 30th of the all time list Among non-HOFers he is surpassed only by Bobby Mathews at 23rd with 297 wins, Tommy John (#25, 288), Bert Blyleven (#26, 287) and Tony Mullane (#28, 284). Among the 51 HoF starting pitchers that played primarily in the MLs after 1893 (the year the pitching mound was moved back from 50' to the current 60.5' away from the plate), he would be 18th.

Of course Kaat's career losses also rank near the top of list. The only non-HoFers above him are Jack Powell (#8, 254) and Bobby Matthews (#11, 248). Among the aforementioned HoFers he'd be 12th. Unsurprisingly his win percentage would be near the bottom of the HoF list, 44th of 52. Some of the arguably weaker HoFers would be behind him: Eppa Rixey (#51, .515), Ted Lyons (#50, .531), and Rube Maquard (#49, .532).

Kaat's career ERA of 3.45 is nowhere near the career leader boards nor is his ERA+ of 107. His ERA would be 45th of the 51 20th century starting pitchers in the hall; his ERA+ would rank him 47th. Only Herb Pennock, Early Winn, Catfish Hunter and Rube Marquard.

Kaat's 2461 strikeouts rank 33rd all-time and would place him 16th among 20th century HoFers.

As for dominance, Kaat had one season when he was the best pitcher in his league: in 1966 he 25-16 with a 2.75 ERA. He won 20 or more 2 other times: in 1974 and 1975 with the White Sox. And he did win 17 or more three other times.

Perhaps the best argument for Kaat is that most his comparables at baseball reference are in the HoF or very likely to make the hall in the future (Glavine and Blyleven). Of course if Kaat goes in, Tommy John probably goes in too. That would mean that 17 HoF pitchers were active from the late `60s, 70% more than the average across all years. And that becomes perhaps the best argument against Kaat: that he was probably the 11th or 12th best pitcher of his generation and by that standard, he isn't very hall-worthy.

I have to admit, actually going through the numbers has changed my mind about Kaat. I used to believe he should be a HoFer, but going through the numbers makes me believe he is perhaps the best pitcher in nearly 100 years not to be deserving make of the HoF. But at the same time, if he was elected, I wouldn't call it a mistake. He is better than probably at least 10% of the previous inductees.

Poll

Would you vot for Jim Kaat for the HoF?

Yes

2 votes

No

13 votes

15 votes | Poll has closed

Comentary on Walt Jocketty at Yahoo

Zubin — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:07:26 -0000

Jeff Passan ay Yahoo has an interesting commentary on Walt Jocketty:

"The candidates for the final four spots of the reigning world champion's pitching rotation include a 32-year-old who hasn't started a game since he pitched in Class A 10 years ago, a free-agent acquisition who once tested positive for steroids, a prospect who spent all of last season in the bullpen, a long reliever with a face suited for Gerber jars, a fashion plate for those who prefer their hats flat-billed and a guy named Kip...

...Such confidence is borne of more than 20 years spent consulting one another. La Russa, Duncan and Jocketty built a championship team with the Oakland Athletics in 1989. And after 100-plus-victory seasons in 2004 and '05, now they have one in St. Louis, too. Following that with another World Series will depend on Looper, Franklin, Wainwright, Thompson, Reyes or Wells. Gosh? Maybe somewhere else. This is St. Louis. They're used to making their own luck."

Is he sacrastic about how "lucky" the Walt and the Birds have been, or is he saying that the Cardinals '06 sucess wasn't the residue of design?

Hall of Fame Discussion (Part 4), Goose Gossage and Lee Smith

Zubin — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:25:08 -0000

This is part four in a hall of fame diary series that examines the hall-worthiness of some of the candidates for 2007. You can follow these links to get to the other diaries:
Bert Blyleven
Jack Morris
Andre Dawson, Dave Parker and Jim Rice.

For reference, entire ballot can be seen here. Voting for the regular ballot will be announced on Tuesday, January 9th. The Veteran's Committee ballot will be announced February 27th. Over the next month I'll post diaries on the nominees that have a St Louis connection: Ken Boyer, August Busch Jr, Curt Flood, Whitey Herzog, Jim Kaat, Marty Marion, and Joe Torre.

Today I'd like to open up discussion on the two relievers on this year's ballot likely to get any kind of support for the hall of fame: Rich "Goose" Gossage and Lee Smith. But before we get to them, I thought we could start things off with Quiz. Below is a chart showing the stats of two relievers from the same era (their careers overlap by ten seasons); one of them is in the hall of fame, the other received almost no support and was off the ballot after his first year of eligibility. Before scrolling down, try to figure out who they are.

I imagine most will know who the guy on the right is, but here is a hint about the guy on the left... The capital Q in "Quiz" is not a typo.

The answers are Dan Quisenberry (left) and Bruce Sutter (right). The similarities of these two aren't entirely superficial. Both were relatively marginal prospects until they learned a new pitching technique: with Sutter, of course, it was the split fingered fastball and with Quisenberry it was the submarine delivery and a sinking fastball. And both subsequently went on to short, but dominating careers as closers.

There are of course some big differences between the two. Sutter had a good nine years as an effective closer while Quisenberry only had about seven years. But during those seven years, Quisenberry was routinely logging about 130 innings as a reliever, compared to Sutter's 80 to 100 innings. For reference on how many innings 130 is for a pitcher, Pedro Martinez and A.J. Burnett had about that many in 23 and 21 starts, respectively, last year. Pouring over these stats gave me new respect for Quiz! However, the difference most relevant to today's discussion is, despite similar careers Quisenberry and Sutter received vastly different support for the HoF. Quisenberry got only 4% in his only year on the ballot. Sutter got 24% in his first year and went up somewhat steadily from there to his induction last year.

Of course neither is on the ballot next year, but the point of this that I don't think it is a valid argument to say that if Sutter is in the hall, Goose Gossage and Lee Smith should be there too. Let's face it, a big part of why Bruce Sutter was elected is because he is to the splitter what Candy Cummings is to the curve.

Enough about that! Today's discussion is about two relief aces: Rich "Goose" Gossage and Lee Smith.

Gossage's line is:
124-107, 1002 Games, 310 Saves, 1809 IP, 1502 SO, 3.21 ERA, 126 ERA+, 1.23 WHIP
Cy Young finishes: 3,5,5,5,6
MVP finishes: 3,9,13,13,17
9 All-stars
2006 HoF vote: 65%

Smith's line is:
71-92, 1022 Games, 478 Saves 1289 IP, 1251 SO, 3.03 ERA, 1.32 ERA+, 1.27 WHIP
Cy young finishes: 2,4,5,9
MVP finishes: 8,14,18,21
7 All-stars
2006 HoF vote: 45%

There are only three HoFers worth comparing to these two. Their lines are below:

Rollie Fingers, inducted in 1992:
114-118, 944 games, 341 saves, 1701 IP, 1299 SO, 2.90 ERA, 119 ERA+, 1.19 WHIP
Cy young finishes: 1,3,8,8
MVP finishes: 1,4,14,14,16,16,19
7 All-Stars

Dennis Eckersley, inducted in 2004:
197-171, 1071 Games, 390 Saves, 3286 IP, 2401 SO, 3.50 ERA, 116 ERA+, 1.16 WHIP
Cy young finishes: 1,2,4,5,6
MVP finishes: 1,5,5,6,31
7 All-stars

Bruce Sutter, inducted in 2006
68-71, 661 games, 300 saves, 1042 IP, 861 SO, 2.83 ERA, 136 ERA+, 1.14 WHIP
Cy young finishes: 1,3,3,5,6
MVP finishes: 5,6,7,7,8
6 All-stars

A few things stand out to me. Obviously Smith has far fewer innings per game than anybody else, though if one looks strictly at Eckersley's last 695 games, he only pitched 790 innings or about 1.14 innings per game which is less than less than Smith's average of 1.26. Surprisingly (to me at least) is that Smith struck out far more batter's per inning than any of these guys. In fact Lee Smith is #11 on the all-time list of strikeouts per 9-innings pitched at 8.7. Gossage is at #40 with 7.5; Sutter is #45 with 7.4; Fingers is #85 with 6.9. The other thing that stands out is that the three HoFers all have won a Cy Young and two of them won an MVP. All of them were widely considered dominant at their peak: Eckersley from 1987-1992, Sutter from 1976-1979, and Fingers more broadly from 1973-1978 and 1981-1982. Smith, at least, doesn't have that kind of peak.

MVP and Cy Young vote smack of subjectivity, so I decided to do a bit more inventive analysis. I wanted to see how many runs these pitchers saved when compared to a league average pitcher, so I simply took the difference between each pitcher's ERA and the LgERA and multiplied it by innings pitched for each season. I summed the results to get a career number for each pitcher. This didn't completely make sense to me, since it seems reasonable that a "run saved" in relief is generally more valuable than one saved in the beginning of a game; so I weighted relief runs saved by 1.6. (I believe 2.0 is commonly used for this kind of analysis, but my SWAG resulted in a smaller ratio, 1.67.) I added in Bert Blyleven, Jack Morris and John Smoltz for reference. Here are the results:

Pitcher, Runs saved, Weighted Runs Saved
Gossage, 155, 270
Quisenberry, 148, 247
Smith, 138, 229
Eckersley, 204, 201
Sutter, 118, 197
Fingers, 107, 177
Blyleven, 397, 400
Smoltz, 300, 332
Morris, 78, 76

A few things become clear, over the course of a career Gossage was clearly the best at preventing runs from scoring by this analysis. Quisenberry was better than I even expected and considering his brief career and relative dominance, he really should have gotten some support for the hall. Smith comes out better than I'd expect and perhaps Eckersley, Sutter and Fingers weren't quite as good as their reputation. Finally, it is a bit of a digression, but Morris doesn't look very great by this analysis; even if the years he posted an ERA below the league are removed, his totals would be about 155.

Clearly over the course of their careers, Gossage and even Smith were as good as the relievers already in Cooperstown. However, Fingers, Eckersley and Sutter are enshrined largely on the strength of well-remembered, though brief, dominance. Gossage might be remembered similarly, but Smith certainly isn't. Given voting history I doubt either one has a serious chance at getting in, but do you think they should be in the hall?

Poll

Should Goose Gossage or Lee Smith be in the Hall of Fame?

Yes to Smith only.

1 votes

Neither one of these guys.

3 votes

Yes to both.

6 votes

Yes to Gossage only.

2 votes

12 votes | Poll has closed

Hall of Fame Class of 2007 Discussion (Part 3)

Zubin — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:42:07 -0000

This is part three in my hall of fame diary series. I have already posted some diaries on:
Bert Blyleven
And Jack Morris

I still like to have some discussion, or at least opinions, on who might join Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn in the class of 2007. The top vote getters from last year were:

Jim Rice,
Rich "Goose" Gossage,
Andre Dawson,
Lee Smith,
Jack Morris
Tommy John

And in case you'd like the reference, the rest of the ballot is here: Harold Baines, Albert Belle, Dante Bichette, Bobby Bonilla, Scott Brosius, Jay Buhner, Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco., Dave Concepcion, Eric Davis, Tony Fernandez, Steve Garvey, Orel Hershiser, Wally Joyner, Don Mattingly, Mark McGwire, Dale Murphy, Paul O'Neill, Dave Parker, Bret Saberhagen, Alan Trammell, Devon White and Bobby Witt.

After the January 9th, I'd like to discuss some of the Veteran's Committee nominees that have a St Louis connection: Ken Boyer, August Busch Jr, Curt Flood, Whitey Herzog, Jim Kaat, Marty Marion, and Joe Torre. Voting results will be announced February 27th.

Today I thought it would be interesting to do something a bit different... Below is a table that compares two potential HoFers. They played similar positions over about the same years. Three questions...

1)Based on these stats go you believe one is significantly more hall-worthy than the other?
2)If you'd need more information, what information would decide it for you?
3)Do you know who they are?
Scroll down to find out who they and to read more.

By the way, the image of Quetzalcoatl is supposed to be a bit of a hint.

If you have not figured it out yet, the player on the chart's left is Cobra- Dave Parker, The player on the chart's left is Hawk- Andre Dawson. Quetzalcoatl, literally meaning Bird-Snake, is in the middle- get it?

[Awkward pause]

Okay, maybe that was lame.

Anyway, the whole point of this is that in doing this bit of research I was really surprised on how similar these two guys were statistically and how that wasn't reflected in last year's voting when Dawson got 61% and Parker got 14%. Don't get me wrong, I know there are some big differences. Dawson was an eight time gold-glover who played center for seven years before his knees gave out and he moved to right. Dawson also stole 314 bases and hit 438 home runs. He had a rare combination of power and speed.

However, Parker, at least early on, was no slouch in the field as he did win gold gloves three times. Also, while he hit "only" 334 home runs, he posted a higher OBP and he walked nearly 100 times more than Dawson. Parker also started three years earlier and finished five years earlier, making him less part of the steroid era. It really makes me wonder how strongly Dave Parker's drug problems in the early 1980s have affected his chances. Could you imagine his career with three more good seasons at his peak? I'm sure Parker would have been a first ballot HoFer much like Dave Winfeild. But then its not just about the lost productivity of those seasons. After signing a "big" $5M/5year in 1979, Parker's average and power fell off; he was obviously overweight and constantly injured. He then reacted to complaints about his performance by criticizing the fans. My old copy of Total Baseball called him "the most unpopular player to ever to wear a Pirates uniform." I don't know if his vote totals are a bit of retribution for his behavior, but I wouldn't doubt it. And I think such a precedent may not bode well for Albert Belle.

Now let's look at these two as well as another perennial HoF candidate.

Jim Rice's career line is:
2089 games, 2452 hits, 382 home runs, 670 walks, 1541 RBI, .298BA, .352OBP, .502SLG.
He was an eight time all-star, two time silver slugger and finished 1,3,3,4,4,5,13,19 for the MVP.
His best seasons (1977-1979) were:
.315/.370/.600
.320/.376/.593
.321/.385/.596

I know that is a bit better than either Dawson or Parker, but lets face it, he did benefit a lot from playing in Fenway. According to this column at ESPN, he performed 17% better at home than on the road while a typical split is about 5%. His career home/road splits were .374/.330 OBP, .546/.459 SLG, and .920/.789 OBP. If you aren't convinced that these three players are that similar, take a look at BR's Dave Parker page. #5 for similarity is Dawson; #7 is Rice. But honestly, that's largely an excuse. Given that their career stats are relatively close, it just makes the analysis easier.

The Career Leader Boards:
Obviously these guys are not anywhere close to the career leader boards for batting average or on base percentage, but Rice is number 89 for slugging at .502. That doesn't sound so hot today, but when he retired, a .500 slugging average, along with 2000 hits, was a pretty sure ticket to Cooperstown. In fact, there was only one eligible non-HoFer that met that criteria: Indian Bob Johnson at .506/ 2051. Also consider that back then Rice was sandwiched between Tris Speaker and Joe Medwick at number 43 all-time. Now, if you didn't believe the 1990-2005 was the greatest hitters' era ever, consider this: 46 of the 89 top sluggers in MLB history have played almost entirely after Rice's retirement! In fact outside of the steroids era players, the only eligible non-HoFers with higher than a .500 slugging average are either on the Veteran's ballot: Dick Allen(.534) or are perennial Veterans' Committee nominees: Brownie great, Ken Williams (.531); Hal Trosky(.522), Wally Berger(.522), and Jeff Heath(.509) and Indian Bob.

As for Dawson's and Parker's slugging averages, I don't know exactly where they ranked when they retired.-- I only know Rice's because I have a few baseball reference books from the time.-- However, I can guess that not counting more contemporary players, Dawson was, at retirement, around #85, right next to Yogi Berra. It's still solid territory, but populated mostly by great-but-not-HoF players like: George Foster and Jack Fournier. Parker's slugging wouldn't have made the top 100 even discounting steroid era players.

Parker and Dawson both appear on the career leader boards for doubles. Parker is 31st with 536 and Dawson is 42nd with 503. Wow! That is getting in to solid HoF territory for Parker. Above him is Frank Robinson and below him is Ted Williams. In fact, the only non-HoFers (or sure bets for the HoF) are Barry Bonds (#14, 587), Rafael Palmeiro (#15, 585), and Luis Gonzales (#21, 547). Dawson is sandwiched between two guys that are future HoF 2nd basemen: Roberto Alomar (#41, 504) and Jeff Kent (#43, 501). He is surrounded mostly by HoFers, but some good-not-great guys like Edgar Martinez (#36, 514), Mark Grace (#37, 511), John Olerud (#45, 500) and Rusty Staub (#46, 499). On a side note, the biggest surprise of this leader board was Craig Biggio at #9 with 637 and he should finish his career at #5.

Before I looked at the home run leader boards I almost forgot how significant 400 home runs was. Outside of the steroid era, everybody with over 400 home runs was in the hall, except for Dawson who is #35 on that list with 338, Dave Kingman (#34, 442) and Darrell Evans (#40, 414). Jim Rice is in solid but unremarkable by today's standards #52 with 382. Although when he retired he was #26. The only non-HoFers with more home runs were Evans and Kingman. Parker's 339 home runs puts him in good, not great territory, right behind a former Cardinal, Jack Clark (#70, 340) and with another former Cardinal, Tino Martinez (#71,339).

The games leaders surprised me. Dawson is at #32 with 2627 and Parker is at #55 with 2466. The only non-HoFers above Dawson are: Staub (#11, 2951), Bonds (#13, 2660), Palmeiro (#16, 2831), Baines (#17, #2830), Biggio (#25, 2709), Gregg Nettles (#27, 2700) and Evans (#28, 2687). Parker is in solid territory here. He in just behind Rod Carew (#53, 2469) and just ahead of near-HoFer Ted Simmons (#57, 2456). By the way, would anyone have guessed Parker played more games than Tony Gwynn (#61, 2440)? Jim Rice's 2089 games aren't near the top 100 anymore, but they would have put him close at retirement.

Dawson's 1591 RBIs are the most by any eligible non-HoFer, save Cal Ripken (#20, 1695) and Baines (#23, 1628); Dawson is #29 on that list. Parker is #47 with 1493 and Rice is #52 with 1451. If you go down as far as 60, the only other HoF-eligible player not inducted is Staub (#45, 1255).

Dawson's 314 stolen bases place him just outside the top 100 career leaders. Rice's OPS+ was 128; Parker's was 121, Dawson's was 119; none make the top 100.

The Bill James' Keltner Test
I mentioned this test before, to describe Bert Blyleven's lack of dominance, and again so you can go through the mechanics yourself, the test is here. Basically Dawson, Parker and Rice were dominant. All were considered the best players on their team, in the league, if not in the game, for at least one year and probably for up to three or more years. Of these three, Rice was probably the most dominant, but this was in part an effect of the park in which he played. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the entire "park effect" should be discounted, but it should be considered. Still I believe he was the most dominant of the three at his peak. Parker probably had the most potential... to bad he wasted it. Given his defense, and ability to play center, Dawson was probably the best all-around player. However, all of them, more than any other outfielders other than perhaps Winfield or Gwynn, were considered consistently the most dominant in their leagues from 1975-1990

Rice and Parker had the biggest roles in their Team's championships, 1975 Red Sox and 1979 Pirates respectively, but neither had their best season (or MVP) in a championship year. Dawson had a relatively mediocre season for the 1989 Cubs and his MVP was for the last place 1987 Cubs

All of them were very good, but not great past their prime. Obviously Dawson and Parker had more longevity than Rice, and this is reflected in their stats: games played and hits more noticeably, but also in Rice's higher slugging average. Two of them, Dawson and Rice, were considered to be good teammates and good for the game. As mentioned before, Parker's antics in the early 80s hurt his HoF chances.

Conclusions
Clearly all three's career totals in when considered with their rate stats puts them near if not within the Hall of Fame range. However as I went through this exercise, I was surprised to learn not only how similar these three guys were, but also how the offensive boom of the 1990s and 2000 has affected the decision on all of them. It's very difficult, especially with Dawson, to judge their performance, when they are compared to hitters over the past 15 years. (Again, for reference, nearly half of the top 100 sluggers and half of the top 50 home run hitters are from the most recent of eras.) I think because of that so many voters have chosen to err on the side of caution.

In the end, I have to wonder if not these guys, which other outfielders should represent the late 70s and 80s? Winfield and Gwynn are in but I don't think those two enough representation for the era.

So what is everyone's opinion? Would you vote for Andre Dawson, Dave Parker or Jim Rice?

Poll

Who belongs in the hall of fame?

Jim Rice, now

4 votes

Andre Dawson, now

6 votes

Jim Rice, but later

1 votes

Andre Dawson, but later

1 votes

None of these guys!

8 votes

Dave Parker, now

1 votes

Dave Parker, but later

0 votes

21 votes | Poll has closed

Hall of Fame Discussion- Jack Morris

Zubin — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:16:39 -0000

I wrote a few days ago I thought it would be fun to open a discussion on the Hall of fame candidates. Originally I anticipated discussing around 12 of them. I doubt there will be the time or interest now, so I'll stick to the guys most likely to get in- other than Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn, since both are sure bets. Like I said before, Mark McGwire has been discussed and Jose Canseco seems destined to be blackballed for steroids, so that leaves the top vote getters last year:

Jim Rice
Rich "Goose" Gossage,
Andre Dawson,
Bert Blyleven ... who is discussed here
Lee Smith,
Jack Morris
and Tommy John.

And in case you'd like the reference, the rest of the ballot is here: Harold Baines, Albert Belle, Dante Bichette, Bobby Bonilla, Scott Brosius, Jay Buhner, Dave Concepcion, Eric Davis, Tony Fernandez, Steve Garvey, Orel Hershiser, Wally Joyner, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Paul O'Neill, Dave Parker, Bret Saberhagen, Alan Trammell, Devon White and Bobby Witt.

I know some of you mentioned Albert Belle as a worthy candidate, but given his low vote totals from last year, I think that discussion deserves to be tabled behind at least Rice, Dawson and Goosage.

After January 9th, I'd like to shift focus to some of the Veteran's Committee nominees that have a St Louis connection: Ken Boyer, August Busch Jr, Curt Flood, Whitey Herzog, Jim Kaat, Marty Marion, and Joe Torre. Voting results will be announced February 27th.

This diary, I'd like to focus on Jack Morris. This is his 8th year on the ballot. He pitched for 18 seasons, mostly with the Tigers, from 1977-1994.

Why Jack Morris? Well he is kind of the anti-Blyleven. While Blyleven was better than his stats (at least wins) suggest, Morris probably wasn't as good. Blyleven didn't get a lot of recognition for his pitching, while Morris did.

It's also kind of interesting that Blyleven beat Morris when they went head-to-head in the postseason. But a few years after Blyleven left Minnesota, Morris arrived as a free agent and he won perhaps the biggest game in the Twins' franchise history as recounted here.

The case for Jack Morris:
The case for him centers on his relative dominance in the 1980s and early 1990s
He led all pitchers in the 1980s with 332 starts, 162 wins, 133 complete games and 2,443 innings.
He had three 20-win seasons (1983, 1986, 1992).
He had 11 seasons with 200-plus innings and three 200-strikeouts.
He received Cy Young Award votes seven times finishing 3rd twice (1981 & 1983), 4th (1991), 5th (1986 & 1992), 7th (1984), 9th (1987),
He made 14 Opening Day starts, tied with Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young for second-most ever, two behind Tom Seaver (16)
A five time all-star, he started in 1981, 1985 and 1991. He had a 2.53 ERA with eight strikeouts in 10 2/3 ASG innings
1991 World Series MVP with a 2-0 record, 1.17 ERA, including a 10-inning 1-0 victory in Game Seven
Member of three World Series Champions: 1984 Tigers, 1991 Twins and 1992 Blue Jays.

His 254 wins are 40th on the all-time list. Relatively few non-HoFers are above him: Tommy John (25), Bert Blyleven (26), Jim Kaat (30), Bobby Mathews (23), Tony Mullane (28), Jim McCormick (37) and Gus Weyhing (38). If you scan down that list as far as #50, you will only find two more non-HoFs: Jack Quinn and Jack Powell. Mathews, Mullane and Powell are interesting themselves and they have been mentioned before. I'll post something on McCormick, Weyhing and Quinn, who is one of the more amazing players in baseball history, in the discussion.

His 2478 strikeouts are 31st all-time. That is more than Sandy Koufax (#38, 2396), Robin Roberts (#40, 2357), Jim Palmer (#48, 2212), or Pete Alexander (#49, 2198).

His 3824 innings are 48th all time. That is more than Jim Bunning (#53 3760) or Waite Hoyt (#52, 3762).

He had his share of recognition with the writers. As the table below shows, he awards overall compare favorably to Don Sutton and Phil Neikro. He even had more all star appearances than Fergie Jenkins or Gaylord Perry.

The case against Jack Morris:
Like I said, the biggest knock against him is that he wasn't as good as his wins indicate. The composite record of his teams is 1515-1297; that's a very good .539 winning percentage or 87 wins a season for a team. The only truly bad team he ever played for was the 1989 Tigers (59-103) and he was 6-14 with a 4.86 ERA for them. His overall era was 3.90 compared to a league average of 4.08. His Career ERA+ of 105 is good, but not even within sniffing distance of the top 100.

While his 2478 strikeouts are pretty good, he has some less than hall-worthy company: Mark Langston is right behind him on the all time list with 2464. Good, not great pitching contemporaries like Jerry Koosman (#27, 2556), Chuck Finley (#22, 2610) and David Cone (#21, 2686) and Frank Tanana (#20, 2773) and are all ahead of him. The same can be said for his 3824 innings. Charlie Hough (#49, 3801) is right behind him; ahead of him are: Jerry Koosman (#46, 3839), Dennis Martinez (#39, 4000) and Frank Tanana (#34, 4188). His career stats are good overall, but not close to automatic pass. If Bert Blyleven, Tommy John or Jim Kaat couldn't get in on the strength of their overall career numbers, I'm not sure for how much Morris' count.

Conclusions:
After running through the numbers I have to admit Morris has a much more compelling case than I previously thought. He was pretty dominant in the 80s and early 90s and his career numbers, while not good for an automatic pass are within hall of fame range. By reputation (which counts a lot for the HoF), he was as good of a starter as any in the 1980s. In any case, I can't imagine him getting the vote this year. Last year he only got 41%. Given the recent history of the vote, he will have to inch up year by year.

So what does everybody think? I don't think there is a chance he is inducted this year, but should Jack Morris be a hall of famer in 2007? Should he ever be a hall of famer?

Poll

Should Jack Morris be in the hall of fame?

Yes, he deserves it now.

11 votes

Yes, but not now. Maybe a few more years or even the Veteran's Committee.

7 votes

No, he was good, but not a hall of famer.

12 votes

30 votes | Poll has closed

Jeff Weaver's Post Season Sucess and L/R splits

Zubin — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:27:13 -0000

Ever since comparing Marquis and Weaver in azruavatar's Jason Marquis Diary I have been thinking about Jeff's L/R splits (posted above). What strikes me about his splits isn't just how much worse he is against lefties, but also the number of left-handed plate appearances that were recorded over the past year or three years. If You will notice, lefties have logged more plate appearances than righties against Weaver.

Now, even considering 100 point (or 10%) OBP gap, I don't THINK the number of plate appearances jive with the number of lefties and righties in a typical line-up. I don't know for sure, but I imagine the difference is due to opposing managers giving righties a rest against Jeff and playing a lefty back-up.

Anyway, it strikes me that in the post-season, at least in the WS, that Jeff may not have faced his typical mix of lefty and righties. If so, could this be a large part of his sucess? Does anyone know where I might find left/right postseason splits for Weaver?

Fungoes: Need for Left Feilder...

Zubin — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 01:43:41 -0000

There is a great analysis over at Fungoes I think everone here should read.

Pip breaks down win shares above bench by position as shown below. The two tables below show win shares by position (left) and win shares above bench (right) by position. His analysis is enlightened. I quote him below.

"So the platoon of left fielders was the team's best investment in 2006. The unheralded bunch led by Chris Duncan, Scott Spiezio and John Rodriguez produced the third-most WSAB of any position (behind 1B and 3B, naturally) but cost less than $4 million. That amounted to a better buy than the team's first basemen, which essentially was the best player in the game, who isn't exactly overpaid.

In this light, it's indeed strange that the cacophony of voices in the blogosphere and online media have zeroed in on the Cardinals' perceived need of a leftfielder and/or dealing Chris Duncan, who, bad leather and all, stands to provide the bulk of value again in 2007. In addition, given what we know from Bill James:

*The chance of getting a good player with a high draft pick is substantial enough that it is clearly a disastrous strategy to give up a first round draft choice to sign a mediocre free agent.

*True shortage of talent almost never occurs at the left end of the defensive spectrum (read: LF).

... signing an A-class free-agent leftfielder -- including Bonds, Catalanotto, Dellucci, Floyd, Luis Gonzalez, Carlos Lee and Soriano -- would be an unwise move for this Cardinal team this winter. Duncan and Rodriguez can get the job done well enough, and at a cost that makes an FA alternative not worthwhile."