Monday, February 08, 2010

Hall of Fame pReview Part 7 - The Final Chapter

It's been two months since I started this project, and a month since the Hall of Fame vote made the "preview" aspect of this moot, but we've finally reached our last three candidates: the returning pitchers! There are three players in this group, all of whom have been riding the fence for some time now.

Bert Blyleven (1970-1992 with Minnesota, Cleveland and others): 287-250, .534 W/L%, 3.31 ERA, 118 ERA+, 1.20 WHIP.

Here he is, the hottest of the hot-button candidates in the battle between "traditional" voters and the newfangled "Sabermetric" voters. When studied objectively with the slightest bit of rigor, Blyleven's numbers reveal that he was a great pitcher for a very long time. He was among the league leaders in ERA for the first time when he was 20, and he was for the final time when he was 38. And he was among the league leaders in ERA 8 times in between. He was very durable and regularly finished among the league leaders in innings pitched (11 top 10 finishes), complete games (12) and shutouts (10). He also regularly hit the leaderboard in WHIP (11 times), strikeouts (15) and K/BB ratio (16!). He is 50th all time in K/BB ratio, 27th in wins with 287, 9th in shotouts (60) and 5th all time in strikeouts with 3,701. He played on two World Champions and had a 2.45 career postseason ERA. His 10 most similar career comps include 8 Hall of Famers (Sutton, Perry, Jenkins, Wynn, Roberts, Seaver, Niekro and Carlton) and two close-but-no-cigar guys (Tommy John and Jim Kaat).

The case against Blyleven revolves around the fact that he didn't get to 300 wins, and that his win/loss percentage is rather pedestrian. Both are the result of playing for some not-very-good teams, particularly the Twins early in his career. Another knock against Blyleven is that he gave up a lot of homers over two seasons while playing for the Twins late in his career - though he provided 540 innings of 4.00 ERA pitching in the process. But I think the biggest knock against Blyleven is that he doesn't "feel" like a Hall of Famer - he wasn't considered one of the best of his era, as evidenced by his modest support in Cy Young voting. Again, this can largely be traced to his playing for poor teams and the overemphasis placed by voters on win totals.

Ultimately for me, the argument comes down to actual performance rather than the buzz that might have surrounded a player during his career. I think Blyleven's performance makes him worthy of the Hall (and he's practically a shoe-in after falling just five votes short this year.) Then there is the anti-Blyleven:

Jack Morris (1977-1994, primarily with Detroit). 254-186, .577 W/L%, 3.90 ERA, 105 ERA+, 1.30 WHIP. Morris was a good pitcher. He had a high won/loss percentage. He won more games than any other AL pitcher during the 1980s. He was Dominant! Though, curiously, Morris has the exact same number of Cy Young awards as Bert Blyleven (0). As Blyleven's career record was a product of his teams, so was Morris, who was on some terrific Tigers teams during the 80's and finished up as a mercenary on some champion Twins and Blue Jays teams in the 90's. And of course he outdueled John Smoltz with a 10-inning shutout to lead the Twins to the 1991 World Series title. He was a postseason God.

But he was also a postseason chump. He got hammered in the 1992 postseason - 0-3 with a 7.00+ ERA, but that didn't stop him from earning a ring with the Blue Jays. His ERA is much higher than any other Hall of Fame pitcher, and his 105 ERA+ is barely above average. It's good, but certainly not immortal. What Morris did well was pitch a lot of innings, regularly appearing among the league leaders in starts, complete games and innings pitched. And because he was doing so for good teams, he racked up a lot of wins. For sure, Morris also has a lot of Hall of Famers among his career comps (Gibson, Ruffing, Rusie, Grimes, Feller and Bunning), but there is also a close-but-no guy (Tiant) and three players who nobody considers Hall of Famers: Dennis Martinez, Jamie Moyer and Chuck Finley.

For fun, go here and compare Jack Morris to Dennis Martinez. Then come back and try to argue that Morris is more deserving of the Hall. I don't think you can do it.

Lee Smith (1980-1997, primarily with the Cubs and Cardinals): 71-92, 3.03 ERA, 131 ERA+, 1.26 WHIP, 478 Saves. A top reliever whose career spanned from the "Fireman" days of the late 70's/early 80's to the "closer" days of the 1990's. Smith was a four-time league leader in saves and once held the all-time record in the category. (He's now 3rd.) Voters have had a hard time gauging how relievers are to fit in to the Hall of immortals. Some question how important closers really are, while others think they need to be compared with their peers. The problem is that the position of "closer" is so new that the save totals are constantly being pushed forward.

Smith was a fine pitcher who had a much longer life as a back-end guy than most. He finished among the league leaders in saves 14 times, and he made 7 all star games. The problem is that he wasn't always that good in racking up those saves, evidenced by his 3.88 ERA while compiling 46 saves in 1993. Does durability and longevity make a Hall of Famer? I'm not sure. His career comps include a couple of the guys already enshrined (Rollie Fingers and Bruce Sutter), and two guys who will definitely get in (Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera). But they also include John Franco, and as with the Morris/Martinez comparison above, I'll ask the you compare Lee Smith to John Franco. Either they are both in or they are both out, in my opinion, and I don't think John Franco is a Hall of Famer. Therefore, neither should be Lee Smith.




Thursday, February 04, 2010

Hall of Fame PReview, Part 6

Wow, time flies! We're already into February. Perhaps we'll get this done before Spring Training.

Today we'll look at four hitters who all deserve serious consideration, one of whom received same:

Andre Dawson – OF (1976-1996, primarily with the Expos and Cubs): 279/323/482-438-1,591, 119 OPS+, 314 SB. 1987 NL MVP and perennial candidate. 8 time All Star and 8 time Gold Glove winner. Many have decried Dawson's election, which was inevitable given Dawson's vote total and the election of Jim Rice to the Hall in 2009. I don't think Dawson is a strong Hall of Famer, but he was a much better player than Rice and others in the Hall. Before his knees started to betray him, Dawson was a true five-tool power who combined terrific power with terrific defense. His NL MVP in 1987 is considered a travesty by Sabermetrically-inclined analysts because it's the direct result of an overemphasis on RBI. While I agree that Jack Clark probably deserved the trophy, Dawson did have a good season, except for his low on-base percentage. And that's the primary knock on Dawson - that his career OBP is far below any other outfielder in the Hall. (This is widely but erroneously reported as Dawson's OBP being lower than any other player in the Hall, but there are catchers and middle infielders with lower OBPs than Dawson). Dawson does OK on the Gray Ink and HOF Monitor measures, and he's got a host of immortals on his top career comps (Billy Williams, Tony Perez, Al Kaline, Ernie Banks and Dave Winfield,)


So, despite the criticism, the voters could have done worse than to elect Andre Dawson to the Hall of Fame. But they could have done better, considering Dawson was not the best player from the 1980's Expos teams who was on the ballot.


Tim Raines – CF (1979-2002, primarily with Montreal): 294/384/425-170-980, 123 OPS+, 808 SB (5th all time). One of the greatest leadoff hitters in the history of Major League Baseball, and in my opinion the most deserving player among the returnees on the ballot, Raine's candidacy faces two roadblocks: 1) he was a direct contemporary of THE greatest leadoff hitter of all time (Rickey Henderson); and 2) Raines' extraordinarily long career resulted in his hitting the ballot a full 20 years after his last great season in 1987.


As noted above, Raines was one of the most prolific base stealers of all time, leading the NL four times in his career. He was also one of the most efficient, and his 85% success rate was one of the best all time. Raines also led the league in runs scored on two occasions and won a batting title. He also routinely was among the league leaders in drawing walks, a valuable skill that was underappreciated during his career. Raines had many good seasons over the last 15 years of his career, but he incurred many injuries and his seasonal totals were dampened by the lack of playing time. Still, his career totals measure up to the standards of others who have been enshrined, and he counts Hall of Famers Lou Brock, Max Carey, Fred Clarke and Enos Slaughter among his top career comparable players.


Mark McGwire – 1B (1986-2001, Oakland and St. Louis): 263/394/588-583-1,414, 162 OPS+. One of the most prolific home run hitters of all time. McGwire broke Roger Maris' single season record by hitting 70 in 1998. The arguments for his enshrinement are pretty solid: Rookie of the Year in 1987, 12-time All Star, former single-season record holder for home runs, four time HR champ, 8th on the all-time HR list, best HR/AB ratio of all time. Oh, and he won a gold glove once. The arguments against him: he was a one dimensional player, and he accomplished what he did due to steroids.


On the first count: well, McGwire did a little more than hit home runs. He drew a lot of walks and had a high OBP. He was OK in the field. And that one thing that he was real good at IS kind of the best thing a hitter can be good at.


On the second count: I haven't addressed it much in this blog, if at all, but I'm not really worked up about steroids. Without question McGwire wouldn't have had the kind of career that he had absent steroids. On the other hand, we're comparing him to his peers, and it's becoming more and more apparent that many (most) McGwire's peers also were taking steroids. It was the steroid era, and the best players under those circumstances should, in my opinion, be allowed into the Hall of Fame.


So far, it's not looking all that good for Big Mac, but he belongs. His career comps, none of whom match up all that well, are Harmon Killebrew and Willie McCovey. #1 and #2 on his list are notorious 'roiders Jose Canseco and Jason Giambi.


Alan Trammell – SS (1977-1996, Tigers): 285/352/415185-1,003, 110 OPS+. Trammell's an interesting case. He was a very good hitter for a shortstop, and he was a fine fielder who won four gold gloves. He was a six-time All Star and earned MVP votes seven times, finishing second in the 1987 vote. He also batted .450 in the 1984 World Series and was named MVP of that series. Working against Trammell is the fact that three contemporary shortstops (Ripken, Yount and Ozzie Smith) are already enshrined. Also working against him is the fact that he missed a lot of time in the latter part of his career, exceeding 130 games only once in his 30's.


I think Trammell is a borderline guy who, had he played in the 1950's, would have been elected by the Veteran's Committee, and I think his candidacy might be going in that direction. I'm not sure how I would vote on him if given the opportunity. But he'd not be the worst guy in the Hall. Career comps include Hall of Famers Pee Wee Reese and Ryne Sandberg, and the list is topped by probable inductee Barry Larkin.