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: Piazza Delivery?

There's no point in doing a summary on whether Bonds or Clemens belong in the HoF without looking at steroids.  It's a waste of time because the answer is yes.  So, lets look at a guy that I've heard some debate about in Mike Piazza.

I was kinda shocked that there was debate about him.  I know he was mentioned in Radomski's book, but I don't really trust him.

Good Idea: When thinking of Mike Piazza, the term "Best Offensive Catcher in History" is usually right behind.  As it should be.  His 141 wRC+ blows away any other catcher's number, including Bench and Fisk.  He also trumps all other HoF catchers in: Slugging, OPS, HR, ISO, and wRAA.  And a lot of the other stats (OBP, wOBA, AVG, etc) he may not be at the top, but he's pretty close to it.  I don't see a reason why Piazza should NOT be in the Hall of Fame.

Bad Idea:  Anyone else remember Piazza trying to play defense behind the plate?  It was a comedy of errors.  In fact, his TZ rating is the worst for any HoF catcher, as is his Fld+Pos score (which takes into account the difficulty of the position in that era).  He was a great offensive catcher, but was not a defensive one and that is probably more important for his position.  If he were a LF, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  He doesn't belong.

Verdict: Mikey gets the highest score ever for a catcher.  Better than Bench, better than Berra.  His offense was that good.  Best offensive catcher in history.  That's all the writers need to think of when it comes to voting for Piazza.  Best.  Offensive.  Catcher.  In.  History.  Put him in.

The only question should be: Dodgers cap or Mets Cap.  I pick Mets cap, mostly because of this one moment:

Probably his biggest HR of his career.  It was a glorious moment and I was glad I got to watch it happen.

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.

Hall of Rage

OK, the new player in the Hall of Fame is Deacon White.

Do I agree with this pick?  In a word, no.  I don't think any of the players on the ballot were that worthy this year, and I think we've got enough of the pre 1800 guys in already, although I think we probably shouldn't have as many of them as we do, maybe in a separate part where we honor the initial greats that gave way to the Ty Cobbs and Babe Ruths and Hank Aarons of the world.

Deacon White was a catcher and third baseman (which he was more of) in the very early years of baseball.  He wasn't too bad, an OPS+ of 127, but had an OBP of 346 and a SLG of 392.  He averaged roughly a HR a year, which was probably average back then.  In fact, I'd imagine that all of his stats are fairly typical for a decent hitter in his time.  His 127 OPS+ is like 200th all time (no joke).

That's the thing, when I look at his numbers, he looks mostly like a typical guy from his time and nothing really stands out for me.  Where is the dominance?  Where is the greatness?  He was a fine player in his day, but so were guys like Harold Baines and Fred Lynn.  Is anyone arguing for them to be inducted?  I hope not.

This guy cannot be an all time great.  This is why I've been slaving over the data for half a year looking at every Hall of Fame Player.  We've got to strive to be better than that.

I've read plenty of articles that say he was a superstar of the 1870s.  The venerable Bill James even thinks he should be inducted.  But, lets be real here for a moment.  The 1870s were a long time ago.  I agree that the Hall has a duty to honor the past.  But is he one of the greatest of all time?  I don't think he is.  He definitely has his place as an important person in the history of baseball, but not as a legendary player.  If you do, good, I just think there are better players that aren't in the Hall yet.

Edit: If the HoF puts him in as a Pioneer or something along those lines, then I fully agree with that decision.

Do You Ever Feel Like a Plastic BAGS?

With one career Astro down, lets look at the other one in Jeff Bagwell.  I know it’s going to sound strange to hear, but I had the utmost respect for Bags when he was playing.  Despite the fact that it seemed like he carried a bat designed specifically to torture the Cardinals pitching, he was a classy player.

So lets take a look at Mr. Bagwell:

Good Idea: Bagwell was the premiere first baseman in the NL in the 90s (until Mac showed up at least).  Despite playing a long time in the power suppressing Astrodome, he managed to rack up 449 career HR in 7797 AB for an average of 1 HR every 17.4 AB.  For reference, that’s better than Mel Ott, Joe DiMaggio and Ernie Banks, as well as lots of other HoF bats.  We’re talking great power numbers here.   He was a solid baserunner (6.5 BsR from Fangraphs-not huge, but good for a big guy like him), great defender (59.1 Tzr) and of course was a great hitter (405 wOBA and 149 wRC+ and 297 AVG for those who care about those things).  He played 15 years, and only once did he have a full season that is less than 4 WAR, which was his second to last year.  That means he only once had a mediocre full season, and played nearly every day for those 15 years.  There is no statistical reason for which he shouldn’t be inducted.

Bad Idea: Bags did play in the steroid era, so all of his numbers and especially the power numbers are suspect.  His rate stats are beautiful, but his raw totals are small due to playing only 15 years, and him being hurt for the last few of his career.  So it’s hard to endorse a power hitting first baseman that only had 449 HR, when some other guys like Gehrig, Foxx and Musial are first basemen in the HoF and all had many more HR than Bags did.  Part of it is the Astrodome robbing him of some, but he’s also 37^th in SLG, below guys like Carlos Delgado and Lance Berkman who were both contemporaries of his.  He’s good, but maybe not quite good enough for induction.

Verdict: I don’t care about supposed steroid users.  Either they used (Mac, Palmeiro, Clemens, Bonds, Sosa) or they didn’t.  Yes, we don’t know and will never know for sure.  However, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to induct roid users.  The Hall is a place that remembers its history.  Do we really want to forget how much fun we had in the Summer of 98?  I sure don’t.  I had loads of fun, roids or not, and most of you did too.  If we aren’t going to induct the best of the best from that era (with mentioning the era on their plaques), then we induct no one.

Beyond that, Bags has a score of 183 on my calculator, which is no doubt automatic induction.  By my mark, that would make him the 4^th best 1B in the Hall.  The only reason why he isn’t in is due to bullshit steroid speculation, which as you may be able to tell, I’m tired of.

Here’s what I propose for steroid users: If it’s known, put it on their plaque so future generations can judge them accordingly.  If there is no proof and only speculation, vote normally.  If a player is revealed as a steroid user after induction, set up a committee to vote on whether or not he should remain inducted.  If the consensus is No, then ceremoniously remove his plaque.  Otherwise, just vote like normal.  Please.  It’ll be less stressful on all of us.

And, it looks like there's a new player in the Hall.  I'll look closely at this guy next couple of days and get a report on him.

David Wright, the Golden Boy in Blue and Orange.

There have been rumors of the Mets tossing out contract offers to David Wright trying to extend their 29 year old 3rd baseman. He had a great year offensively as most would expect. His power wasn’t exactly overwhelming, but he did have 21 knocks with a .306 batting average and a .391 OBP. The question I’m posing is, in Wright’s shoes, why/why not accept a solid offer from the Mets? The comparables are obvious with Ryan Zimmerman and Evan Longoria having both signed six year 100 million dollar extensions in recent memory. Both were however multiple years from free agency, and on winning franchises.

Wright is for better or worse, the face of the New York Mets for at least one more season. He does control how much longer he is part of that dumpster fire however, and could opt to take his show on the road after the season, possibly parking himself in a city where a .500 record isn’t a monumental achievement, but is instead a disappointment of the highest order. Hell, he’s already in a city that follows that mantra he just happens to be in the wrong borough. Wright has been almost as rock solid as a player can be, having only missed significant time once in his career. He also plays well above average defense at 3rd, which isn’t exactly amazing, but when coupled with his above average bat, and his solid pop makes Wright an incredible threat. Wright could very easily decline to talk contracts with the Mets until they show dedication to making the team competitive, or the season is over.

The debate for Wright will hinge squarely on how much he values the stability of the new contract vs the potential for a bigger contract with a contending team. Obviously the Yankees, Nationals, Tigers, and Rays are locked into long term 3rd base commitments, however the Dodgers, Phillies, Red Sox, Orioles, Angels, and White Sox could all be potential suitors for the impending free agent. Wright has stated his intention to play his entire career with the Mets, and that in and of itself is commendable, however he will be sacrificing money, and potentially his chance at winning a world series to play for the city’s junior team. Wright may also be somewhat burned by the fact that so much has been written about what he has stated as his preference to be private negotiations between him and the team. Some if not all of that may be the team jockeying to get the contract negotiations handled quickly, it may also be Wright’s agent trying to find a way to gain leverage with the team, this has only served to ruffle Wright’s feathers however, and may not positively impact the negotiations regardless of who has made the information public.

Ultimately I think Wright will resign with the Mets, though I question whether or not he would be willing to take less money over the life of the contract, or take significant deferrals to keep the annual spending limit more reasonable for the team and see them spend at another position of need. Wright would find himself a very lucrative contract on the open market, there’s no doubt there, but how much is enough from the team that he’s played with his whole career? Will Wright be more concerned with his pay check, or his team’s long term flexibility is yet to be seen, however Wright may be saying all the right things publically but is secretly preparing himself for the free agent market next season. the 7 year extension he’s reportedly seeking is certainly possible given his history of durability and reliable play but whether or not he’ll price himself out for his current team is ultimately a very real possibility. The Mets are not contenders right now and signing a few players long term may not be the correct path to take for a rebuilding team. If Wright takes a contract from the Mets I’d expect it to run longer than the 6 years his comparables have received given his proximity to free agency but I doubt that the Mets front office is smart enough to frontload the contract and may hamstring themselves down the road with an aging third baseman on a big money contract. 7 years, 120MM is certainly possible but that doesn’t leave the team with as much payroll flexibility as they need to compete.