Good Idea/Bad Idea: The Great Closer Debate

Yep, two in a day.  I'm on fire!  And if I were, I'd have to call a Fireman.  And in baseball, the term "Fireman" refers to a closer, or a shut down reliever.  Are there any on the ballot for this year?  You betcha! Let's take a look at the controversial idea of Lee Arthur Smith being in the Hall of Fame.

Most of the decision about Lee Arthur has centered around what most people consider to be how to judge relief pitchers.  Currently in the Hall of Fame, there are  5.  Hoyt Wilhelm, Bruce Sutter, Rollie Fingers, Dennis Eckersley and Goose Gossage.  All of them probably deserve to be inducted.  The question people have is does Lee Arthur belong in that group?  A lot of it also comes down to how we plan to use the save stat.  As I've opined on here before, it is a terrible stat.  And Lee Smith led the world in saves until Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera came along and blew his number out of the water.  So how does the argument shake out for and against Lee Arthur?

Good Idea: The fact is that saves are a bad stat and it is very easy to accumulate them over the course of a long career.  But Lee Arthur was a great reliever.  He has a higher K/9 than any other reliever in Cooperstown and the best HR/9 as well.  It's tough to do a full comp on him with other relievers in the hall because there are only the five of them and the RP position has evolved greatly in recent times.  While saves may not be a great stat, he did gain almost 500 which was the most for a long time.  He was a great reliever that shut down offenses.

Bad Idea: He struck out a lot of batters, true, but he also had the fewest innings when compared to the HoF relievers except for Sutter, fewer strikeouts too.  He also walked a lot of guys and had a mediocre WHIP, almost 1.3.  In fact, he never had a season where his WHIP was below 1.1, which means that teams had a lot of opportunities to score against him.  It's a testament that he was able to even get all those saves with the baserunners he was allowing, but the fact remains that he was allowing them at a fairly high clip.  Good reliever, worthy to be part of a good team's pen, but not Hall of Fame worthy.

Verdict: It's hard to do a calculation for relievers because there aren't that many in the Hall of Fame.  But, for what it's worth, his score came to 126, which was 2nd best for a reliever to Eckersley.  I don't know what has kept him out, if it's just that stuff I was talking about at the top about closers and relievers and how effective they are, etc.  I would put him in, especially since it tells the story of how relievers have evolved over the years.  Think about it, the best reliever of the pre-closer era was Wilhelm, and then we had guys like Fingers and Sutter and Gossage give way to guys like Eck and Smith, which led to guys like Billy Wagner, Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera to be great closers.  And it isn't like he is an indefensible choice, like some people currently in the Hall are.  He's a good choice and should be inducted.

Good Idea/Bad Idea: Riding a Trammell

Next up on our tour of the 2013 Hall of Fame ballot is Detroit's own Alan Trammell.  Trammell is one of those that always seems to fall in between the cracks for the most part.  A lot of people forget he's on the ballot.  The ones that don't, mostly don't think that he belongs.  Most of them probably think that since Lou Whitaker, Trammell's double play partner, isn't in the Hall, then Trammell shouldn't be either, and you really can't think of one without the other.  He only had about 36% last year, so I doubt he'll ever make it (this is his 13th ballot), so there must be no case for him, right?

Well, lets look a little closer:

Good Idea: Trammell was a great defensive SS, with a +76 rating for his career from FG.  He played his whole career with the Detroit Tigers which means he spent it in a big park (Tigers Stadium was huge).  For a SS, he had a 352 career OBP, which is fairly good.  He had a wRC+ of 111, which is good for a SS.  He seems to fit the profile of a HoF SS, and was seen as the team leader of a good decade for the Tigers.

Bad Idea: Remember when I said Rock's stats looked just OK?  Well, the same thing applies here for Trammell.  While his stats are very good, there isn't anything that really jumps out of the page at me.  He was a league average hitter or slightly above for most of his career, which I suppose is good for a SS, but not for a HoF bat.  If he were to make the HoF with his offensive numbers, he'd have to be an Ozzie Smith level defender, and he isn't quite there.  I love Alan Trammell, he was one of my grandfather's favorites, but a HoF player he is not.

Verdict: Not really.  Trammell doesn't look that great against other SS that actually belong in the HoF, and that is a small and exclusive class.  I can see why people would vote for him, a lot of his rate stats look like Yount's, and Dave Cameron makes a compelling case for him at FG using Yount as a comp, but Yount's career is much better on the whole because he had more power.  Yount played 600 more games and switched positions to help his team, but he still was at least a decent MLB player.  His worst years (based on WAR) were .9 (18 years old), .3 (19), 1.1 (35) WAR each. Not great numbers, but decent given his age at each season.  Trammell's were -0.6 (19), -1.1 (38) and 0 (36) respectively.  Yount at his worst (early on in his career mind you) was a replacement level player but never really cost his team with his play.  Trammell at his worst cost his team 2 or 3 wins in his career.  So, their peaks are similar, but Yount was able to maintain better than Trammell, which makes Yount a HoF player, and Trammell not a HoF player.

Good Idea/Bad Idea:It Was a Big Rock

Welcome to a Christmas Edition of my Hall of Fame Good Idea/Bad Idea series.  The player I want to look at today is none other than a man named for a certain type of white powder.  No, his nickname wasn't snow, it was Rock.  That's right, we're looking at Rock Raines.

Before we get started, let me say that Raines was probably undervalued during his time because he wasn't very flashy.  I have a feeling like if he played today he would be looked at differently.  And I'm not just talking about the cocaine thing.

Good Idea: Rock stole a lot of bases, but did so at an extremely high rate.  He stole over 800 bases at an almost 85% rate, which is nearly unheard of.  He also got on base at a 385 clip and has the best rate for any player that has more than 15 years in the bigs.  He had a 126 wRC+ and a 361 wOBA, which are pretty good numbers, especially for a guy that didn't hit for a ton of power.  Certainly a better choice than Andre Dawson IMO.  His biggest comp, obviously, is going to be to Rickey Henderson.  Lets look at them really quick:

Raines- 85% success rate at steals, 126 wRC+, 361 wOBA, 385 OBP
Rickey- 81% success rate at steals, 132 wRC+, 372 wOBA, 401 OBP

Rickey had a little higher in most stats, but it was pretty close.  Rickey was more powerful, no doubt, but otherwise were fairly equal hitters.  If Rickey's in, Rock should be in.

Bad Idea: All of Rock Raines' stats seem to be...ok.  If he were to be elected, he would be in a class with left fielders.  He would be included in a class with Ted Williams, Ralph Kiner and Carl Yastrzemski.  He doesn't quite belong with those guys.  He might be better than Brock and a couple of others, but that doesn't mean he belongs.  He had a lot of PA, but still didn't get 3000 hits, or 1000 RBI.  I know he was a leadoff hitter, but you'd think he'd have more RBI just due to the fact he played over 20 years.  Want a better stat?  Fine.  After 20+ years, he was only worth about 70 WAR.  Which is around 3.5 a year.  It's good, but not that great.  Sorry, no dice.

Verdict: No.  He gets a -39 on my scale, absolutely the lowest for a LF.  Sorry Rock, you were an exciting player, but not an all time great.

Does Schilling's Bloody Sock make him a HoFer?

My father and I discuss baseball frequently.  There are quite a few times that I agree with him.  This is one issue that we strongly disagree over.

Curt Schilling is probably the last big name starting pitcher that I wanted to look at for this upcoming ballot.  What Jack Morris and Andre Dawson represent to the traditionalists, Bert Blyleven and Curt Schilling represent for the SABR crowd.  Here are the viewpoints as I see them:

Good Idea: Curt Schilling was a very underrated pitcher in his career.  He struck out a ton of batters and didn't walk many which gives him the best K/BB in history.  He had a better WHIP than Clemens, and struck batters out at a faster rate than the Rocket.  Rocket may have been more valuable (due to the innings difference, and granted there's a big gap) but Schill was just as good, if not better, in the innings he threw.  His win total isn't high, but that can be attributed to a lot of things, teams with poor run support (esp after the WS run with the Phillies in 93), bad bullpen (Wild Thing Williams was a terrible closer), or just random bad luck.  He's a great choice, and shouldn't have much trouble making it in.

Bad Idea: He didn't throw a ton of innings, only won 216 games and was never really the best pitcher in the league.  His ERA is a tad too high, and was really prone to the long ball.  The innings thing is huge I think.  He was a closer for a bit early on, and again after that injury in the 04 playoffs, but it does hurt his overall value.  One of the big things a starter needs to be able to do is throw a good amount of innings.  A bunch of 5 inning starters hurts a rotation and a team because that increases wear and tear on the bullpen pitchers.  He was a very good pitcher, especially in the post season, but he isn't quite good enough.  Not an all time great.  Sorry.

Verdict: Schilling gets in my Hall of Fame easily, with a score believe it or not nearly equal to Nolan Ryan's.  Now, before everyone jumps on me and thinks I'm saying that Schill was as great as Ryan, take a step back and lets look at them:

Ryan struck out a large amount of batters, but also walked about half as many.  Which gives a slight advantage to Schilling I would think.  Ryan has a better raw ERA, but when you correct it for the home park (remember all the years that Ryan pitched in the big ol Astrodome?) Schilling comes out ahead, but not by much.  Ryan has more wins, but pitched 27 years and averaged 14 a year.  Schilling averaged 13 a year.  Ryan also has more losses a year than Schilling, 13 to 9.  Ryan beats him handily in innings, but the quality is roughly equal to Schillings when you factor everything in.  Schilling doesn't have the no-hitters that Ryan has, but other than that Schilling is Ryan's equal in almost everything but innings (which helps a lot of the non rate stats like K's).  He belongs in without a question.

Good Idea/Bad Idea- Does Morris Make It?

Ya know, in recent years the HoF has taken quite a hit to its credibility due to a couple of the writers' newer picks.  Jim Rice and Andre Dawson are probably the poster children for that lack of respect, with the latter being moreso.  I have a couple of theories as to why this may be:

1) Some of the older writers are trying to revolt against SABR stats, which clearly indicate that some of these guys are not that great, again Dawson especially.

2) More writers are going against looking at numbers and going by how much they remember a player.  Hence why Rock Raines doesn't get much respect (always second fiddle to Rickey), and why Morris is still on the ballot after all this time (That one game man.)

I believe it's a combination of both.  So, lets talk about a pick that will probably happen because the writers are getting dumber every year.....Jack Morris.

I can't believe part of me is going to defend putting him in the HoF...I'm gonna have to take a long hot shower after this post...

Good Idea: Morris definitely was considered a top pitcher of his era (pre SABR era).  He's a 2 time 20 game winner, was on a few WS winning teams, threw almost 4000 innings in his career.  He's a big game pitcher, going 7-4 with a 3.8 ERA in the playoffs.  And hey, that one game against Smoltz, instant classic bro!  His career stats may be a bit depressed because he hung on for a while, but he should be at least considered.

Bad Idea:  Yeah, definitely feel like crap after posting that.  Wins for pitchers are stupid, but I'm of the belief that for a whole career they are slightly less stupid.  Not much, but still slightly less so.  However, Morris' career ERA is 3.90.  That is incredibly high.  One or two years don't inflate a career ERA that much.  In fact, in the last 7 years of his career he ONCE had an ERA under 3.50, and one other time had an ERA under 4.00!  That is crappy to a whole extra level.  His career WHIP is 1.30.  Do you realize that league average is usually around 1.30?  57 pitchers last year had a better WHIP than he did!  That's the highest for any pitcher that would be in the HoF from his era.  Morris' ERA would also be the highest ever, from any era, inducted.  There are zillions of reasons to not vote for Morris.

Verdict: Absolutely not!  He is NOT a great pitcher, and I don't care who you compare him to!  He doesn't belong, and I don't blame people for losing respect for the BBWAA if they vote him in.  The Hall is the institution, and cannot do anything about a player being inducted other than what the committee says.

Good Idea Bad Idea-Sammy Sosa Edition

Well, with one half of the HR Derby of 98 looked at, lets look at Smiling Sammy.

Most of you (like the one person who read my McGwire post) probably think that I hate Sosa, because he battled Mac for the HR record.  Well, while I'm not the biggest fan of his, I certainly don't hate him.  I'm more indifferent towards him.  I thought he was a good player, and certainly would be good in a lineup with Mac.  I did think his whole smiling act seemed phony, but thought it was good for the game.  He definitely should NOT have been the MVP of the league in 98, but the writers are dumb when it comes to MVP voting sometimes (Morneau, Mo Vaughn, Anytime a closer has been voted, Maury Wills, etc).  Anyway, here is my schizophrenic view of whether Sosa should or should not be inducted into the HoF.

Good Idea: Sammy, of course, is one of 7 now to have over 600 HR in his career.  He was also one of the most dominant HR hitters of all time from 98-02.  I don't think people realize that he was still pretty good in years before 98, where he was usually a 30-40 HR hitter, and in his younger years was a really good fielder. He carried a 370 career wOBA and a career 123 wRC+, both really good numbers that might indicate how offensive the environment was during the 90s.  And, for a power hitter, he carried a good number of total hits (2400+, Mac wasn't even close to that).  He was a premier player during his era and should be recognized as such.

Bad Idea: Disregarding steroids, Sosa was an OK ball player.  People think Mac was a free swinger, yet his OBP was 50 points higher than Sosa's, and his wOBA was 45 points higher.  That's a huge difference, and those that want to compare the two, you can't.  Sosa struck out more often (23% of the time) than Mac, which I know doesn't mean much, but also walked much much less frequently than Mac did (17% for Mac, 9% for Sosa).  What does that mean?  It means that Sosa was much more of a free swinger than Mac was.  So I don't see the comparison between the two.

Looking at it from a not Big Mac perspective, his 123 wRC+ is good, but for the best HoF RF. it's well below their average of 141.  His wOBA is good, but a typical HoF RF will have one of 399.  His career OPS is 878, which is like Ryan Ludwick's last year, and that's close to the OPS for a HOF RF, but it's inflated due to his high slugging and terrible OBP.  Are you starting to see what I'm getting at here?  He was a good player that played for a long time, and did one thing really well (Hit flat footed HR in Wrigley), but not good enough.  Sorry, he's out.

Verdict: I am kinda shocked at how well he scored, but I guess he does comp well with the guy he tied.  He scored as high as Reggie Jackson, who is someone I think is Sosa's best comparison. Both were free swingers, both really only hit HR and didn't provide much else on offense.  Sosa had a bit more power, Reggie could work counts better.  So, if you disregard steroids with Sammy, and see my point on steroids with Mac in my previous article, and you think Reggie is a HoF hitter, then you'd have to agree with Sosa.

Good Idea Bad Idea: a Hall-Mac Card

You can always count on me to drum up an awful pun.

I'm a McGwire fan.  No amount of steroids or self righteous angst from the writers can make me forget the joy that he brought me in 98 when he hit 70 HR, nor should it.  But, I'm not here to debate whether or not steroids should preclude someone from induction.  I'm here to determine if someone is statistically viable for the HoF.

Good Idea: The man almost single handedly brought people back to baseball and the sport to prominence.  Ripken's streak started it, but I believe that brought back long time fans.  Mac brought people that were new fans to baseball.  The sight of his swing resulting in HR after HR and hitting over 500 ft is incredible to me.
Statistically, people point to his low batting average.  While it's true that he only hit about 260, most of his career that was above league average.  More importantly, since batting average is a terrible stat, he OBP'd 394 for his career, and had an OPS+ of 163.  Think about that for a minute.  For his entire 15 year career, he was roughly better than 63% of the league according to this one decent but crude calculation.  He also had a wOBA of 415 and a wRC+ of 157.  That wRC+ is 11th all time, and 4th best for a right handed hitter, behind Hornsby, Pujols, and Foxx.  He's probably the best pure power right handed hitter of all time, as evidenced by his 325 ISO which trails only Babe Ruth on the all time list.  Put him in.

Bad Idea: We all know that Mac used steroids.  We know that his numbers may be slightly tainted.  I do question how much effect roids have on a player's stats, but also recognize that they may help you play through minor injuries more than you would have been able to without juicing.  It's a tough call and if the writers say they aren't equipped enough to answer those questions then I don't have much of a problem with him not being in the Hall.  Statistically, he was a poor defender at the easiest spot on the diamond, and was never a good baserunner.  Also, the low BA does suggest that he was almost an all or nothing hitter, as his BABIP in his career was 255 (well below league average).  He struck out 20% of the time and only had about 7600 PA.  His career wasn't that long due to injuries (which possibly could be tied to steroids), and there are just too many questions surrounding his numbers to put him in.

Verdict: I'm too biased, so I'm going to let my friend Foment come up with a verdict.  However, I will say that he scores at roughly the same level as a Johnny Mize type player on my list, who was inducted by the VC and should have been in by the writers.  I believe that without roids he'd be in, and I honestly believe he had the talent and smarts to play well.

Good Idea, Bad Idea-Biggio And The Hall of Fame

Wow, it’s been a while.  There’s practically dust on here it’s been so long since I’ve done a post.  But, enough of that, let’s get to what I know really well, the Hall of Fame.

Since we last spoke, I revamped my study and took many things into account when looking at each and every player in the HoF.  Not to toot my own horn, but I feel as if I am an expert in the field compared to others, mostly because I have studied the numbers a lot and dove very hard into the analysis of every player.

This ballot coming up is an exciting one.  Here are the first time eligible players on the 2013 HoF Ballot:

 Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Craig Biggio, Curt Schilling, Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza, Kenny Lofton, David Wells, Julio Franco, Shawn Green, Steve Finley, Roberto Hernandez, Jeff Cirillo, Jose Valentin, Reggie Sanders, Jeff Conine, Jose Mesa, Royce Clayton, Bob Wickman, Ryan Klesko, Aaron Sele, Woody Williams, Rondell White, Mike Lieberthal, Tony Batista, Mike Stanton, Sandy Alomar Jr., Damian Miller, Todd Walker

Boy, are there some big names on that list.  And that is just the new guys.  Obviously, it’s an exercise in futility to go through each name to determine hall worthiness.  I plan on going over the first 7 guys on this ballot, along with some returning guys, before inductions are announced.

And, given the fact that there is currently an article on MLB.com about him discussing his chances for the Hall, let’s start with Craig Biggio.

Go here to find his stats, both standard and advanced.

Good Idea: I’ll just get the big one out of the way, he had 3000 hits.  3060 hits to be exact.  He also had a good average, played multiple challenging positions (most famously catcher and second base).  As a second baseman, he had really good secondary abilities (good OBP and really really good SLG) so he was a top offensive second baseman in his time.  I’d probably say that, outside of Ryne Sandberg, I don’t think there was necessarily a better offensive second baseman.  Maybe Kent, and I’d probably give you that one, but he should have been playing first base most of his career.  It’s probably because of guys like Biggio and Sandberg and Kent that we have guys like Cano and Utley as big time hitters at second base.  He created a lot of runs, and did so at a pretty high frequency for a guy at secondbase and catcher.

Bad Idea: Why does everyone bring up the 3000 hits?  It’s a nice round number, but it took him 12000+ PAs to get there!  That’s a long time to get there, and it was pretty obvious his last few years that he was just trying to get to that number.  His OBP was good, but also 10 points below that of a HoF second baseman.  His career WAR compares nicely to 2B (despite being 4 fewer than typical), but he only had a few GREAT seasons (years with 5+ WAR), and one outstanding year (had a 9+ season once).  He was a really good player for a long period of time, but not a great player.

Verdict: In my new system of grading for the HoF, he would get a B against all second basemen, ranking just slightly ahead of Jackie Robinson.  When it comes down to it, Biggio created a lot of runs, played tough positions, and played a long time.  While I’m not fond of that last attribute, the other two are more important to me.  I’d gladly let Biggio into the Hall, from either a SABR or a traditional standpoint.  I just wouldn’t use “3000 hits!” as my opening line.

More to come soon folks.  This felt great.

Good Idea/Bad Idea Yankees Style

Who else remembers the Animaniacs? Well, it may be time to introduce a new type of article here. We’re going to play a game of “Good idea, Bad idea”. Today’s article will focus around the Yankees most recent roster moves.

Good Idea: Moved David Phelps to the rotation in the wake of CC Sabathia's injury. In all honesty Phelps has pitched well enough both as a starter and as a reliever to warrant a longer look in the rotation. It’s not the perfect scenario to take over for the big lefty, but if Phelps can put together a few solid starts everyone will be happy, and he might just get a chance to compete for a starting spot next spring. I can’t fault Cashman, or anyone else involved for making this call. The guys over at River Ave Blues have been calling for Phelps to get another shot in the rotation for a while now. His splits are pretty positive, he hasn’t been giving up an overwhelming number of line drives, he’s striking batters out frequently, and has managed to avoid the long ball reasonably well. The biggest gripe I could make about this one is that he hasn’t been stretched out for starting, and at least this first start could be a short one, I’m thinking 80 pitches, maybe 5 innings if he’s economical? I could be wrong, he’s only pitched once this week in a game, and twice in the last 14 days. Maybe the Yanks have been quietly stretching him out in anticipation of a move to the rotation.

Bad Idea: Signing Derek Lowe. I get the premise, he’s going to be the low man in the ‘pen, he will be there to take the 4 inning hit when a starter gets lit up, he’ll be there to slowly allow the opposing team back into a blowout, but most importantly, he’ll be there to protect actually valuable arms from taking the same punishment. That said, I don’t like it. I don’t like signing a pitcher because of his “pennant race experience” or his “postseason success”. His pedigree would hold up if it weren’t currently so covered in the mess of his recent failures. Yes he has had success earlier this season, yes he’s pitched out of the bullpen before, and yes he’s almost free. Knowing all of that, he still sucks, and I’m still leary of his ability to be productive. Everyone will throw it around like it’s reason to justify the signing, Lowe still gets ground balls with great frequency; but he also doesn’t strike anyone out. I’m not saying a pitcher needs to throw 100 mph or strike out more than 1 per inning to succeed, I still root for Chien-Ming Wang to return to form, I like seeing the defense involved in a lot of plays, and I like seeing pitchers go deep into games, but he’s walking batters at a higher than average (3.4/9) rate and striking out almost exactly 3 per 9. That is not now, nor has it ever been a recipe for success. I said he’d come back down to earth, and he came back down so hard that the Indians are willing to pay him to pitch somewhere else.

This is one of those moments where it’d be great if I were wrong, but I just don’t see it. I don’t see how I can be wrong about Lowe here. Maybe he throws a little harder out of the ‘pen, maybe Russell Martin can keep him from tipping pitches, but to count on either of those things would just be foolish.