With the exception of Tommy John, my picks are exactly the same as Sully's. Once Gossage gets into Cooperstown, I might consider Lee Smith.

Very annoying to read most of those quotes. And we wonder why people in this country don't exactly trust news "journalists," let alone "sports" ones? Basically the standard of these fools is, "I saw X play a couple of times and he didn't do anything before my eyes that really shocked me, so I can't bring myself to voting for him" or "those players from the 50s and 60s were my heroes and then I grew up and the players from the 70s and 80s were my peers and didn't bow to my 'journalism' credentials, so I can't possibly vote for them." At some point someone's going to start wondering why all these dudes from 1905 are in the HOF and only a handful from the 1970s forward.

IN: Blyleven and Raines and Gossage without question. The others merit debate, but I'd put Trammell in

I was glad at the end to read you would enshrine Gossage. I do not think ERA or ERA+ even is a legitimate argument for considering relievers. In any case, Gossage's ERA includes the year he started 29 games (244 innings) for Chicago and during which he ended with a 3.94 ERA (91 ERA+). If you eliminate his stats for that year, his overall ERA drops from 3.01 to 2.88. Even his K rate goes up to 7.76 if that year is eliminated.

I struggled with some of my counter points on Gossage but the message I was hoping to convey is that these writers should take the time to build up a case. Mere assertions can be easily countered, as I have above.

Now, you counter my assertion effectively and it is why I would enshrine Goose. But one throwaway line can easily be refuted by one throw-away stat.

Morris is the favorite whipping boy of the stats crowd because acknowledging his greatness would require acknowledging that statistical averages aren't the final answer. I am not sure Morris belongs in the HOF and I think Blyleven probably does. But the central case for Morris is that he got a lot of batters out - i.e. he pitched a lot of innings. He continued to get batters even late in games.

For him, that meant he was often pitching tired when other pitchers were in the shower. That can't have been helpful to all those averages people throw around.

What that meant for the teams he played for was that the bullpen was very unlikely to be out there in the 6th or 7th inning when Morris started. As a result they could be used the day before with some confidence they would get a rest the next day. And they could be used the day after one of Morris's complete games.

I don't know that makes Morris a HOF player. I think the argument for him being special has more to do with his post season performances. But his regular season ERA+ certainly isn't a reason to keep him out.

My problem with Morris is that I have a hard time distinguishing between Morris and Dave Stieb and Dennis Martinez and Bob Welch and Charlie Hough.

And so then if you are going to induct based on memorable post-season performances then why not consider Mark Lemke and Troy O'Leary and Johnny Podres?

If you want to argue that Morris saved the bullpen (legitimate point) at the expense of his ERA, where does that leave Bert "Workhorse" Blyleven? He hated being taken out of a game.

I saw X play a couple of times

Actually, no. If you are talking about the guys with the votes, they saw many of these players 8-12 games every year along with a lot of other players for comparison. Their job is to watch baseball games.

TT, that is just not true. Some did see the players that often, many did not.

Re Morris and working late into games, the facts don't support the case that he got tired and his "averages" suffered accordingly.

               PA     AVG   OBP   SLG   OPS  OPS+
Innings 1-3   6631   .249  .321  .385  .706  104
Innings 4-6   5982   .250  .312  .380  .692  100
Innings 7-9   3451   .237  .300  .367  .667   92

Morris actually pitched *better* as the game wore on (with his opponent AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, and OPS+ all showing improvement over innings 1-3 and 4-6).

Perhaps more than anything else, looking up and disproving unsubstantiated claims is the best thing about Retrosheet (and Baseball-Reference.com's use of Retrosheet).

The anti-stats crowd would prefer winging it rather than paying attention to the numbers because it is easier and, in the past, has been difficult to challenge. Thanks to the stats crowd, we can now look these things up and judge for ourselves.

My point is that these "watchers" watched a relatively small number of games and seem to base their judgements on what they "felt" from those games. Today it is much easier to watch games, but there are still too many for anyone to watch: a Giants fan may watch the Giants every day and then parts of say two or three other games. In the 70s and 80s, I don't think that there's any way most of these "watchers" watched as much as they think that they did.

Mr. Heyman, what you just wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Heyman picks Concepcion but not Trammell? I have PLENTY of words for him, but women and children might read this forum, so I'll hold back.

I met Concepcion (and several Reds, Tony Perez, Tom Hall, Clay Carroll, Sparky Anderson) at a charity exhibition game with the Tigers back when I was a kid. The Reds were my favorite non-home team (which is why I went to that game). Concepcion was my favorite player on the Big Red Machine. But HoF over Trammell? Heyman's press pass needs to be revoked. Maybe his driver's license too. He might hurt somebody.

As for Jack Morris, I'm not necessarily saying he should get in, but one big thing in his favor is that, all stats aside, he was the WINNINGEST pitcher for an entire decade (not just a big year or two, but sustained excellence). If the HoF is for players who were the best of their eras, that carries a LOT of weight.

He was a money pitcher. His post season exploits for Detroit and Minny are well known. He didn't fare as well for Toronto in the post-season, but he went like 10-2 down the stretch to get them there.

How can NO Tigers from that dominant '84 team (which also had some other good years) get into the Hall? Or even close?

I think Gossage is worthy, but what scares me is that in 10-15 years every journeyman closer is going to have similar relief stats and be making a case to get in.

Many beat writers covered one league for many years, and as a result saw players from the other league no more than the average fan who watched the Sunday Game of the Week back in the 70s and 80s. While they may have seen more baseball than the average fan, it's incorrect to make blanket assertions about how often many of them saw specific players.

I hate the stat that someone had more wins or hits or whatever during a particular decade. It just doesn't measure anything all that relevant. We may break up eras into those decades (the 80's, the 90's, etc.) for convenience and discussion purposes, and sometimes they manage to fit around a player or a team or a career, but that's coincidence. A player should not be rewarded for having the best years of their career fitting into that numeric space, nor should they be penalized for having it cross halfway.

Jack Morris was a great pitcher, but he's a borderline HoFer, IMHO. He had some big years. he was a workhorse. And he came through with great performances on the biggest stages. But there are others with better numbers. I think Morris is a tough call for a lot of people. they want to reward a guy who was a #1 guy for a long time, a real ace, the pitcher the remember winning the World Series (especially that Game 7). But a lot of his number mean either he doesn't belong with the all-time ultimate elite, or that a bunch more guys should be in.

Heyman's article was idiotic (especially about Blyleven), but it's what we've come to expect.

Some of the voters have become so anti-stat that you almost have to look for compelling anecdotal evidence to convince them, rather than trying to get them to look at the numbers, because they won't do it. They can't admit that the "stat-heads" might be right about a guy they've been dissing, because then they might have to actually start crunching numbers in other aspects of their work. I think that's the biggest fear, the incursion upon their writing that they can't stand. (Foolish, but no different than those who struggled/refused to deal with the onset of computers)

[i]My problem with Morris is that I have a hard time distinguishing between Morris and Dave Stieb and Dennis Martinez and Bob Welch and Charlie Hough.[/i]

It's not hard to distinguish Morris from Stieb. Stieb was a clearly superior pitcher to Morris before injuries ended his career.

From 1979 to 1990, a period of 12 seasons when both pitchers were healthy and in their respective primes, Morris had a better ERA+ in two seasons, and matched Stieb in one other season. That leaves nine other seasons where Stieb was the better pitcher (usually markedly so). One of the seasons in which Morris bettered Stieb in ERA+ was 1979, when Stieb was a 21 year old rookie and started only 18 games.

Jack's best ERA+ in those 11 seasons (and in his entire career, in fact) was a mark of 133 in 1979. Stieb bested that number 5 times, including four consecutive seasons, from 1982 to 1985, culminating with a 172 ERA+ in 1985 (over 265 innings, his lowest total over the 4 year stretch).

To be fair, Morris did add on a couple of decent seasons after Stieb was basically finished. And Morris did pitch many more innings over the course of his career than Stieb did. But when they were both healthy, Dave Stieb was simply a much better pitcher than Jack Morris.

That said, neither one is any sort of Hall of Famer. Stieb would have had a good shot without the injuries, while Morris simply wasn't good enough.

Morris actually pitched *better* as the game wore on

Is that true? How do you come to that conclusion from the information you provided? Those numbers show that Morris pitched better when he was still pitching late in the game than he did on average. But that tells us nothing about how well he pitched earlier in those games.

In fact, it is likely that Morris was allowed to pitch later into games where he was pitching well isn't it? I think the numbers for most pitchers show a remarkable "improvement" during the later innings, primarily because pitchers are not pitching in the late innings of games where they are struggling. If they are still pitching in the 8th inning, they have probably been dealing pretty well the whole game.

My point is that these "watchers" watched a relatively small number of games and seem to base their judgements on what they "felt" from those games. Today it is much easier to watch games,

The problem is that too many baseball fans are under the illusion that they can evaluate players by watching them on TV. Sure, some writers have only seen some players a few times. Are they the ones relying on their impressions from those few games? I doubt it. At least not very often. To the contrary, its likely the players they see a lot that they develop strong opinions about. Opinions that are hard to change with misleading statistics.

>

Sure it does. It shows that they had sustained excellence during their era. That certainly should not be the only factor considered, but it is a factor that should be considered.

Obviously one stat often makes a significant difference to many voters. If Blyleven had a better W-L record, Rich Lederer would have to get a real job because Blyleven would've walked right in the front doors of Cooperstown long ago. Likewise, if Morris' ERA was 2.90, he'd be a much better bet to get in.

The difference is, how heavily do voters weigh particular factors? How heavily *should* they be weighed? Morris' high ERA absolutely *should* matter, but so should his sustained excellence. Bert's W-L record *should* be a factor, but so should all his positive stats.

Also, as we switch to a new era in the game, the 300 win factor is no longer the benchmark it once was. But as we've moved from 4-man, workhorse rotations, to 5 & 6 man, 6 inning starters, it's difficult to gauge where a guy with 240 or 260 wins fits right now. That will become more evident in 10 or 12 years.

I posted my picks on the M-Live Tiger forum last week as:

Alan Trammell,

Andre Dawson,

Rich Gossage,

Tim Raines,

and ...

Bert Blyleven.

Tommy John and Lee Smith might make my cut, but if I had to pick right now, I'd go with those five. Notice I didn't pick Jack Morris, but I wouldn't think it was a horrible thing if he made it, nor would I think it was a travesty if a few of my choices didn't. Lot of borderline guys on the ballot. Great players, all stars, but maybe not HoFers.

I don't think that the stats used here and in many places are misleading. To the contrary, the W/L fixation is often times (glaringly obvious to me at least) misleading. Just one example: Nolan Ryan in the year with Houston where he was like--yeah, I know I could look it up--8-16 with a great ERA, ERA+, K rate, etc.

Stats can certainly be deceptive, but it seems to me that the more "progressive" baseball minds (with respect to analysis) is actually more open to questioning what "we've been told" about a certain player and exploring player value relative to a player's era and to other eras.

I'm well aware of the people's illusions and that was what I was referencing. I do reject that baseball beat writers and general writers have a more profound ability to value a player than most of the readers here. Is that arrogant? No, not at all. I'm serious, those guys only have greater access, they don't have greater intelligence or a greater ability to evaluate players of this era or any other.

The HOF? Ridiculous really and the whole Buck O'Neil "thing" is just a recent cherry on top of their crap pie. My opinion (just that) is that so many of these writers are bitter (and aging) know-it-alls who've had their kingdom breached by places like this site or BP or dozens of others. They view "us" with contempt; they fight against Blyleven's (or Raines') induction because they don't "feel" that he's deserving...they fight against Blyleven's (or Raines') induction because they don't want "us" showing them the errors of their ways...they seem to want to spite "us" as much as anything. Reevaluating any one player is seen as a sign of weakness and a sign that us barbarians may just be right.

Just for fun:
Morris made 527 starts. He pitched in the 9th 190 times (36.1%). He completed 175 games (33.2% of his starts) and threw 28 shutouts (5.3%).
Blyleven made 685 starts. He pitched in the 9th 259 times (37.8%). He completed 242 games (35.3%) and threw 60 shutouts (8.8%). Morris might have been a workhorse and might have worked deep into games, but Blyleven was better than him at doing it, both counting-wise and rate-wise (while producing better ERAs).

Fun fact: did you know that Blyleven posted a 3.90 career ERA in no decisions (1.60 in wins and 5.40 in losses)? Morris of course had 3.90 over his whole career. He had 2.29 in wins, 4.74 in ND and 6.18 in losses. If he pitched to the score, I guess he should have been better in no decisions. Blyleven really had to earn his wins. With reverse run support there wouldn't even be a question about the better pitcher here.

I wouldn't have Morris on my ballot, but I can perhaps understand those who do. I just cannot understand those who have him and not Blyleven. Bert has better rate and counting stats and was also more dominant. Morris had better teammates and played well in the World Series. Come on...
Of course Blyleven has better LCS (2.59 vs. 4.87), WS (2.35 vs. 2.96) and overall post-season ERA's (2.47 vs. 3.80). And we shouldn't forget how clutch Morris was in the 1992 playoffs and World Series. Why do only good performances count in judging clutchness? And why should we base our HoF vote upon 5-6 good performances anyway, when there's a whole career to judge?

Aside from Blyleven, my ballot would have Raines, Trammell, Gossage and Lee Smith. I wouldn't have put those last two in, but it seems like we're redefining the role of relievers, and Goose was truly dominant, plus you can't overlook Smith's career and longevity. After all, he has been the saves leader for a generation and even though I don't like saves (or wins) as a stat, I think he's ultimately deserving (but I wouldn't have voted him in before Sutter and before we started reconsidering relievers).
I would truly love to vote for Jim Ed and Murphy, but they really flamed out too quickly. No question they had the peak, but that's not enough.

If your going to vote in Morris though, why should Tommy John be excluded?

With that said, I wouldn't hate seeing Morris getting in, just that it wouldn't be as good of a pick as some of the others on the list (And i agree entirely with your list)

It's tough though, i mean Morris and others like Rice / Mattingly / Conception / John / Smith etc getting in wouldn't be an abomination, but every year there are almost surely more qualified guys out there.

It is called the Hall of FAME. And in a hundred years only avid fans will remember who Blyleven or Morris was. Roger Clemens might be more infamous than famous. But Hall of Fame or no, they'll remember Cy Young and Tommy John because every year there will be 2 pitchers that receive each. If you're going to throw away the stats and go by "intangibles", that seems as significant as anything else. And yes, John didn't invent the surgery, but Buzz Armstrong never designed any spacecraft either, all he did was go along for the ride, and he's still a national hero.

I suspect that Heyman saw Morris pitch Game 7 of the 1991 Series and did not attend the '79 Series, in which Blyleven:

-- Started Game 2, gave up 2 runs in 6 innings, was lifted for a pinch-hitter in a tie game with two runners on base, which must have been a brutal decision for the manager. Pirates won, although Blyleven got a no-decision.

-- Relieved in Game 5 with his team in an elimination game, trailing 3-1 in games and 1-0 in the Series. He pitched 4 shutout innings to get the win and the Pirates went on to win the Series.

Blyleven also helped the Twins win the '87 Series.

What I think basically is happening with Blyleven is that the Hall of Fame voters are unwilling to admit they overlooked him when he was great. Also, Blyleven had a few mediocre years in the middle of his many fantastic ones, rather than thoughtfully placing them at the end of his career the way Jon Heyman believes Hall of Famers should.

The same applies in reverse to Morris. His supporters thought he was great then and so need to enshrine him now to make themselves right. In truth, he just had better teammates than Blyleven did.

I made an error: The Pirates were down 3 games to 1 in the Series and trailing 1-0 in Game 5 when Blyleven relieved.

That claim about Morris -- that he saved the bullpen for other games -- has anyone studied that? Could you look at the games before and after a particular pitcher's starts and determine whether there was an effect there? I think the effect would be undetectable, but I've been wrong before.

Could you look at the games before and after a particular pitcher's starts and determine whether there was an effect there?

No, you couldn't. Which doesn't mean someone won't look and declare a conclusion.

I don't think that the stats used here and in many places are misleading.

If you knew they were misleading, well then they wouldn't be would they? At least not to you.

Nolan Ryan in the year with Houston where he was like--yeah, I know I could look it up--8-16 with a great ERA, ERA+, K rate, etc.

What makes his W/L misleading? He was outpitched by the other team's pitchers in at least 16 games. You can say it was his teammates fault, but Mike Scott had those same teammates and a 16-13 record and Jim Deshaies had an 11-6 record with those same teammates.

If you compare his numbers to the other team's pitchers in those game, his w/l record shows he was not as effective. So was it Ryan's teammates who are at fault? Or was Ryan pitching in games where umpires had tight strike zones that worked well for both teams' pitchers?

We don't know the answer to that. But the idea that W/L is the meaningless stat is more a matter of faith than any objective reality.

TT:

I don't think that we see baseball games with the same mindset(s). Differences of opinion are what makes life (and baseball) fantastic. I disagree with your arguments, but I see where you're going.

Happy New Year folks. May it be safe and fun.

Could you look at the games before and after a particular pitcher's starts and determine whether there was an effect there?

No, you couldn't. Which doesn't mean someone won't look and declare a conclusion.

Yes you could. You could go parse Retrosheet. If someone is making a claim, then he should prove it. Since we have ways to do that, even though it's a huge burden, then it should be done or else the claim shouldn't be considered. It's easy to just make up random statements, but then it's unreasonable to expect people to accept them. I showed that Blyleven pitched more times than Morris into the ninth (it was easy, of course and not necessarily all that meaningful), but likewise, if anybody claims that Morris was better at doing something, it should be shown. Mind you, not quantified, but at least shown. Or else I could just claim that Blyleven made everybody else a better human being by virtue of his "Dutchness", and stuff like that.

What makes his W/L misleading? He was outpitched by the other team's pitchers in at least 16 games. You can say it was his teammates fault, but Mike Scott had those same teammates and a 16-13 record and Jim Deshaies had an 11-6 record with those same teammates.

Except that those same teammates didn't play as well with him on the mound. Deshaies had 4.73 run support, Scott had 3.73 and Ryan had 3.28. So you could make an argument that he was outpitched, sure, but certainly not about his teammates, because they played much better when he wasn't on the mound. It has been shown repeatedly that run support varies randomly from year to year. Exactly, what more could you want? You'd want him to "pitch to the score" and shut out his opponent when his team only scored one run? If anybody ever demonstrably pitched to the score over his career (thereby proving that it could be done) maybe an argument could be built. But how can we hold Ryan guilty of receiving a poor run support? When people say that W/L is not indicative of performance, they talk about receiving neutral run support, and Ryan didn't have it that year, just like Blyleven didn't have it for most of his career, while others they're compared with (like Deshaies or Scott, in Ryan's case) received a way different support, sometimes from the same offense, just by virtue of total randomness which we shouldn't weigh when rating a pitcher.

Yes you could. You could go parse Retrosheet.

And what would that tell you? Nothing.

Except that those same teammates didn't play as well with him on the mound.

How do you know that? They didn't get as good offensive results, but then neither did the opposing team's players. They may have played as well as ever. Do you suppose there is a common cause for both teams offense to be down at the same time? Or is this coincidence?

It has been shown repeatedly that run support varies randomly from year to year.

It has? How? It varies, where is the evidence it is "random"? Does anyone seriously believe whether a team scores runs is random?

But how can we hold Ryan guilty of receiving a poor run support?

The same way we hold the opposing team's pitcher "guilty of receiving poor run support". Its just a coincidence that they happened at the same time? Apparently since you give Ryan credit and his teammates the blame.

When people say that W/L is not indicative of performance, they talk about receiving neutral run support

The fact is W/L records are not random. The argument that Ryan just had terrible luck with his teammates is doubtful at best. Its far more likely that his own numbers are inflated by the same factors that inflated the opposing pitchers and deflated Ryan's teammates offensive numbers.

I don't know what "pitch to the score" means. But every pitcher adjust his approach depending on game situations, including the score. You can pretend those changes make no difference in the results, but they do make them.

As I said, the problem for Morris is that he is the whipping boy of the stats crowd. To accept him as a HOF you end up rejecting some of their fondest belief systems about the random nature of baseball statistics.

If someone is making a claim, then he should prove it.

So prove Morris doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. The only stat that matters there is the votes of the sports writers.

My research indicates that when someone says "The fact is X" that X is not true 81.2 percent of the time.

Win-loss records don't correlate well to pitcher performance. Win-loss is not meaningless, but it's not the first place to look when evaluating pitcher performance. Or the second. Or the third. It's possible to pitch two very similar seasons and go 18-13 one year and 13-18 the next. Look at Jack Morris in 1985, 1986 and 1987. 16-11, 21-8, 18-11, but basically the same pitcher all three seasons. Randy Johnson won 17 games for the Yankees a couple of years ago primarily because the Yankees scored often. He gave up the lead 18 times, and the Yankees bailed him out over and over again.

It's obviously impossible to prove that Morris doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, but Morris wasn't as good as Blyleven. By age 22, Blyleven had pitched 720 very good MLB innings, Morris none. At age 38, Morris was hopeless, and Blyleven was still great. Blyleven has 2 World Series rings, Morris has 3 (maybe 4, if the '93 Jays gave him one) -- a difference I regard as insignificant. Morris made 14 Opening Day starts, Blyleven 12 -- also not a significant difference.

Here's what's left over if you take Blyleven's stats and subtract Morris's: 158 starts, 67 complete games, 32 shutouts, 1,146 IP, 1,065 hits, 214 runs (173 ER, or a 1.35 ERA), 1,223 strikeouts, negative-68 walks (Morris walked more guys in far fewer innings). That's basically 5 seasons of performance that would pay $20 million a year, and that's on top of someone who has serious Hall of Fame support.

My research indicates that when someone says "The fact is X" that X is not true 81.2 percent of the time.

So, if your research is correct, there is an 81.2 percent chance that statement isn't true?

Morris wasn't as good as Blyleven.

By statistical averages that is clearly true. The question is whether that is the only measure. I think the case for Morris is that he turned his game up a notch in high pressure situations. That game seven WS performance is a symbol of that, but only a symbol.

TT: that game 7 is a symbol, but then again there are other performances (in the playoffs too) that can be used to claim just the opposite. Unless an ability is consistently shown (such as stepping it up in ALL high pressure situations), then it should be discarded. Or else it makes no sense. Why should we hold his 1991 World Series to his credit, but we shouldn't penalize him for his atrocious 1992 playoffs?
I think the case for Morris is to throw away objective evidence and stats and go by anecdotal recollection of how good he looked and felt to observers. For Blyleven it's just the opposite, and that's a reason for which I fear that Morris might have a better chance overall.

TT, by the way, can you just be consistent with your signature? When you sign as Ross Williams it may get confusing. Anyway, we truly see baseball as a different sport.

Joe Carter won the World Series with a homer and had a fine career -- let's put him in. Actually, Carter is pretty much the offensive equivalent of Jack Morris.

Morris is a good Hall of Fame candidate with some memorable moments that help him. Blyleven's a better one with a fine postseason record of his own.

Back to Gossage. Your use of rate stats over full careers is misleading, as it penalizes longevity. In his 10-year peak (1975-1985, minus 1976, when he was a starter), Goose posted an ERA of 2.06 and a K/9 of 8.52.

Has any reliever other Fingers or Rivera been as dominant over 10 years?

The other argument for Gossage is that he pitched a lot of innings during his peak seasons. His dominance shows up better in counting stats (such as RSAA) that give him credit for the number of outs he recorded.

Wilhelm is the only reliever that had better rate and counting stats than Gossage.

Rivera is the best ever in terms of rate stats. Eckersley had a pretty good run from 1987-1997, including five consecutive years ('88-'92) that were among the best performances ever by a reliever.

The main problem is that it seems that players are being given too much credit for being surrounded by better players. Jack Morris' HOF case is mostly being built on playing for great teams -- of course he was part of the teams being good but he wasn't the only reason. But Blyleven mainly played for crappy teams so he wasn't as good for some people. It just shows have much more work there needs to be done in "sabrmetrics" as people still don't seem to understand context at all.

The main problem is that it seems that players are being given too much credit for being surrounded by better players.

Why is that a problem? Its the "Hall of Fame", not an award for best statistical performance. Players have had something to say about where they choose to play for over 30 years, why shouldn't they be judged based on that? Isn't playing on winning teams supposed to be the objective?

Unless an ability is consistently shown (such as stepping it up in ALL high pressure situations), then it should be discarded.

Do you really mean this? Unless someone hits a home run every time they come to the plate we should discard the times that they do?

Its clear that every performance is effected by things beyond a players control. Many of those things are not random.

For instance, Tom Kelly's decision to leave Morris in that game would likely not have happened with a different pitcher. He based that on his subjective judgment of Morris, not some statistical analysis of his performances in extra innings in the World Series. I am sure there are some statistically minded fans who would still say that was a bad judgment, but Morris made him look good.

On the other hand, same manager four years earlier went to his bullpen with a one run lead after only six innings with Bert Blyleven on the mound. In fact I think Morris is the only pitcher in any playoff series where Kelly left him in for a complete game. This was not a manager simply following his normal pattern.

In essence, Kelly made the right judgment based on his experience. There is nothing wrong with sports writers making their HOF votes on that same basis. Does that mean they should ignore statistical results entirely? No. And I doubt there is a single voter who does. But it does mean that they shouldn't be slaves to statistics.

Do you really mean this? Unless someone hits a home run every time they come to the plate we should discard the times that they do?

No, of course. But over the long term they should show a consistent ability to do so. For example Brady Anderson did have one amazing season HR-wise, but it was an aberration. At the same time, if somebody doesn't consistently show an ability (in anything), but only occasionally (or, like in Anderson's case, once in a lifetime), then it should be considered as a casual aberration.

On the other hand, same manager four years earlier went to his bullpen with a one run lead after only six innings with Bert Blyleven on the mound.

Actually, the Twins were down 3-0 in the top of the 7th at the time, playing Game 5 (the series was tied 2-2) in the NL park, and Kelly pinch-hit for Blyleven with two outs and a runner on first. The Cardinals had scored 3, 1 unearned, off Blyleven in the bottom of the 6th. A pretty obvious call, I think. The game wound up being Blyleven's only postseason loss.

In fact I think Morris is the only pitcher in any playoff series where Kelly left him in for a complete game. This was not a manager simply following his normal pattern.

True, and it worked perfectly, although Kelly never had to decide whether to pinch-hit for Morris, or consider saving Morris for a future game. I'd say he made the right call in both cases. I wouldn't say it makes Morris a Hall of Famer and Blyleven not a Hall of Famer.

I wouldn't say it makes Morris a Hall of Famer and Blyleven not a Hall of Famer.

Just to be clear. Who here has argued Blyleven isn't a HOF? My point was not to compare the two, only to make the point that Morris has a number of things going for him which don't show up clearly in statistical averages.

playing Game 5

I think I was actually looking at the ALCS, not the World Series. But I agree, there are differences. My point was about Kelly - he was not inclined to leave starters out there. He didn't leave Frank Viola out there either.

For example Brady Anderson did have one amazing season HR-wise, but it was an aberration.

You can call it that if you want to ... I am not sure what that has to do with this issue.

At the same time, if somebody doesn't consistently show an ability

I think part of why Morris was out there for the Twins at the end of game seven was because he had shown that ability as a big game pitcher in the past. He had, in Kelly's subjective judgment, proved that he had the qualities that would give the Twins the best chance of winning. And it seems to me that represents the kinds of quality that fits in the HOF. Whether you can run a statistical analysis on it or not.

As a matter of fact, it is very rare that people really mean they do not like to use stats or stats alone to measure a player's worth. Rather it is that they want to use different stats or that they want to make stat-like statements with no statistical evidence to support them.

For examples, the so-called nonstat argument for Morris is that he was tough and durable and a winner. But the argument is based on the perception that he pitched deep into games, as for example in this statement: "But the central case for Morris is that he got a lot of batters out - i.e. he pitched a lot of innings. He continued to get batters even late in games.

For him, that meant he was often pitching tired when other pitchers were in the shower. That can't have been helpful to all those averages people throw around."

The concept is that he was tough but the argument is statistic based about innings pitched and the like. Similar is the argument that he was the winningest pitcher in the 1980s. That is a statistic based argument; the issue is not whether it is true but whether it is meaningful or a stand-alone stat.

People like Heyman who claim to ignore stats and instead rely on knowing what a great player is are simply untruthful. They consider Morris, Rice, Dawson, Murphy and the like because they hit a lot of home runs or won a lot of games-i.e. because of statistics. If Dawson had had Bo Jackson's stats, nobody would consider him HOF worthy. Baseball always begins with the stats. After that, it might be valid to consider "intangibles" like clubhouse presence to fill the picture, but not to replace the arguments.

Eliminate stats and consider spectacular play or flair, i.e. a sense from watching that the player was special, and we eliminate players like Whitey Ford, Charlie Gehringer, Billy Williams, Hank Aaron, Al Kaline and many others and replace them with Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders, Billy Martin or Paul Blair. And if the criteria is great post-season performance we would eliminate Ted Williams but add Dave Stewart, Mark Lemke, Moe Drabowsky and Brian Doyle.

Bob: I agree with you 100%. You articulated it well. Good job.

Definitely. The "bah! Stats!" crowd don't ignore stats. They ignore stats they don't like/trust/don't want to learn about. They like ones they grew up with. Wins, losses, batting average, RBI, etc. Hopefully thirty years from now I won't reject anything that isn't VORP, OPS/ERA+, WARP, etc.

The arguments made in the comments by TT regarding Nolan Ryan's 8-16 season are nearly word-for-word from the mouth of my best friend. I think it's because my friend was a pitcher, and had the mentality of "it's all up to me" even if that's not really (IMO) true. He also firmly believes that he had control over whether the batter hit a grounder to short, or through the hole between short and third. Groundballs with eyes were his fault (and line drives caught, I imagine, were by his design or something).

The central premise of TT's argument seems to be that in some way, a pitcher can control his teamates' ability (or lack thereof) to score runs off the opposing pitcher. Now, if you want to argue this about NL pitchers or pre-DH era AL pitchers, and back it up by showing that a pitcher was a particularly good/bad hitter, I would listen. But I haven't seen anyone make that argument.

Let's look at everyone's favorite 'roider today: Roger Clemens. Did this man have a magical ability to get his team to score runs for him? If all you saw of his career was his run with the Yankees, you might think so. But apparently you missed his time with the Astros. The difference was not in what Clemens was doing, but rather the quality of his team and his opposition (weaker league, better defense behind him, far worse offense supporting him).

Here's the other thing: let's say that Chien-Ming Wang starts a game for the Yanks and wins that game 3-2. He outpitched the other pitcher, right? My answer is not necessarily. What kind of offense did the other team have? Was Wang facing a top offensive team (comparable to the Yanks) or bad one (or a good one that was missing a key guy or two to injury)? If the latter, did he really out-pitch the other guy, or was the 1 less run he gave up due (at least in part) to the poorer quality of hitters he was facing? Or maybe Wang left the game with the bases loaded, but Joba Chamberlain bailed him out and none of those runners scored, whereas the opposing starter left with a runner on 1st and two outs but his 'pen failed him, leading to a loss instead of a ND.

There are plenty of scenarios which, if they occurred, would lead me to think that Wang (the winning pitcher), was in fact outpitched.

Definitely. The "bah! Stats!" crowd don't ignore stats.

Exactly correct. They don't ignore stats, they just put them in their proper perspective as one crude and imperfect tool for evaluating players.

The central premise of TT's argument seems to be that in some way, a pitcher can control his teamates' ability (

How is that the central premise of this argument:

"What makes his W/L misleading? He was outpitched by the other team's pitchers in at least 16 games. You can say it was his teammates fault, but Mike Scott had those same teammates and a 16-13 record and Jim Deshaies had an 11-6 record with those same teammates.

If you compare his numbers to the other team's pitchers in those game, his w/l record shows he was not as effective. So was it Ryan's teammates who are at fault? Or was Ryan pitching in games where umpires had tight strike zones that worked well for both teams' pitchers?"

Where is there an argument about a pitcher controlling his teammates performance.

He also firmly believes that he had control over whether the batter hit a grounder to short, or through the hole between short and third. Groundballs with eyes were his fault (and line drives caught, I imagine, were by his design or something).

Whether a ball goes through the hole between short and third depends, in part, on how hard it was hit. I think a lot of people think the pitcher has some control over how hard balls are hit.

Whether a ball was a line drive, fly ball or ground ball only tells you its trajectory, it tells you nothing about how hard it was hit or how fast it was moving.

Hopefully thirty years from now I won't reject anything that isn't VORP, OPS/ERA+, WARP, etc.

You don't have to wait thirty years, you are already there aren't you?