150 replies to this topic

[mabrowndog]

This is just beyond ridiculous.

This was the 14th straight year that I did not vote for Blyleven, and as a "no'' voter, I feel compelled to explain my decision, which has been met with criticism from a small but stout and increasingly effective Internet campaign.

What better way to highlight one's one stupidity than by prefacing one's case with a Shaughnessy-esque shot at the analytical community?

Blyleven's most vocal Cooperstown supporters don't see him as borderline. They sometimes call his case "indisputable'' or "undeniable.'' I appreciate their enthusiasm, but the reality is that over 14 years of elections, he has received slightly less than half the votes. His supporters may think it is indisputable, but the voters seem to have been torn for 13 years.

Yeah, because votes cast for 14 years by an inbred institution based on outdated, biased measuring sticks and stubbornly-held traditional tenets are the most reliable barometer, right Jon?

One Blyleven Internet supporter is such a zealot that he has guessed as to the motives for the non-support, and even on occasion taken to outing non-supporters or ridiculing them, perhaps in an attempt at persuasion.

Gotta love how Heyman keeps attempting to poison readers' minds against any opposition to his viewpoints. He might as well refer to Blyleven supporters as Nazis.

If you put Blyleven's lifetime numbers through a computer, the computer would probably determine that he (and Abreu, for that matter) is a Hall of Famer. But the game is about human beings, not just numbers.

Translation: "You stat guys are confusing me with all your gizmos and fancy data!!!1!"

He never finished higher than third in the Cy Young balloting and only four times finished in the top 10, meaning he was never considered among the two best pitchers in his league during his time.

He only received MVP votes twice, finishing 26th in 1973 and 13th in 1989.

Once again, trying to perpetuate the sportswriters' bastion of entitlement and tenure -- postseason awards voting -- as a bellwether of who was best, while refusing outright to recognize that viewing performance through a new and improved lens just MIGHT provide some additional clarity. The self-fulfilling prophecy continues unabated, right Jon?

His supporters will maintain that sportswriters shafted Blyleven.

Uhhhh... They have. For 14 years.

His closest career comp over his last several years is Don Sutton who is in the Hall of Fame. Sutton, who was elected to Cooperstown in his fifth year on the ballot, wasn't all that dissimilar from Blyleven, but Sutton did win 37 more games. Blyleven's total of 287 wins is still impressive, but his career winning percentage of .536 isn't spectacular, and while he was hampered by often playing for non-contenders, the teams he pitched for were close to .500 overall, which isn't terrible.

Not a word about pitching in front of poor defenses. Nothing about run support. Not a single mention of leads blown by relievers, or games won by his team in the late innings following his exit. Nope, if you don't get a win as a pitcher, you're just no good.

Oh... Wait a minute... Perhaps some light at the end of the tunnel here???

Some of Blyleven's supporters will say that wins don't define a pitcher and aren't always a fair measure of a pitcher's worth, as they are dependent in large part on a pitcher's run support or lack thereof. I did promote Felix Hernandez for the Cy Young...

OK. I take it all back, Jon. Looks like you might be coming around...

...but I still see winning as the ultimate goal in each game, and Blyleven didn't win all that many more games than he lost.

The rest of his article is an equally laughable comparison to Jack Morris, which isn't even worth delving into:

Does Heyman even realize that Blyleven's greatest pitch was his curveball? Or that it was one of the greatest and most effective curves any pitcher has ever thrown? Does he even know that he threw a curve at all? For all his "it's not just about numbers, it's about human beings!" garbage, he offers shockingly little observational support for his position. Nope, his entire case is based on...

Numbers. Too bad they're the wrong ones.

[crawjo]

What a disgrace. The Hall of Merit over at Baseball Primer is a better judge of talent than these buffoons.

[BroodsSexton]

Serious question; was Blyleven an unlikeable guy? Is there personal animosity at work here? Or is it just stubborn ignorance?

[mabrowndog]

Oh, I'm sure that Blyleven's rants to reporters following the last few election cycles haven't gone over well with many of the old-school eligible voters from the media. They'll never say so publicly, of course. But some of these pricks are so protective of their eminent anointments as baseball royalty, that they'll make it their life's work to see that not even the Veterans Committee lets him in.

I doubt they'll succeed. Eventually, educated writers willing to embrace modern analysis methods and reporters will supplant the stodgy curmudgeons, and Blyleven will get his plaque. But he shouldn't have had to wait beyond his third year of eligibility.

[EvilEmpire]

What a joke. Love the "you had to be there" argument for Morris. Very profound. What bothers me the most about the Blyleven non-vote is how defiantly douchey he is about it.

edit: should have proofread before I posted

Edited by EvilEmpire, 20 December 2010 - 11:45 PM.

[Rough Carrigan]

Because Scott Boras said so.


The same reason he has for any decision in life more complex than wiping his ass.

[Pozo the Clown]

In Heyman's (myopic) eyes, it all comes down to this: Bert never wore pinstripes. Oh, but if he had, Heyman would be at the forefront of those screaming about how Bert's been shafted all these years. Heyman's a joke. He's the Andy Rooney of baseball reporters, sans the wit.

[Rough Carrigan]

What a joke. Love the profound "you had to be there" argument for Morris. Very profound. What bothers me the most about the Blyleven non-vote is how defiantly douchey he is about it.

Apparently you really had to be there for game 7 of the 1991 world series. Being there for the 1987 ALCS when the Twins kicked his ass? Not required. Being there for any part of the 1992 postseason when both the A's and then Atlanta left him bleeding with boot marks on his face at the side of the road? Not required.

Jack Morris had a 3.80 career postseason ERA, man, he was clutch incarnate!!

He had a career ERA+ of 105! I mean, Dan Petry's was only 102.

[Eric Van]

You forgot the classic "In filling out my ballot, I go more by impact than career numbers."

Translation, and this is not a sarcastic one, but exactly what he means by this:

I go more by the subjective impression he made on me than by the objective facts.

[BucketOBalls]

You forgot the classic "In filling out my ballot, I go more by impact than career numbers."

Translation, and this is not a sarcastic one, but exactly what he means by this:

I go more by the subjective impression he made on me than by the objective facts.

Translation:

He was a jerk to me.

I can actually understand not voting for Blyleven...but to then turn around and vote for Morris? And he voted for Felix for Cy?...I'm really leaning toward "I didn't like the guy."

[mabrowndog]

Damn, I knew I'd be drawn back in here.

Morris has a high lifetime ERA, 3.90. But some of that is due to the 6.19 and 5.60 marks he put up in his final two seasons.

Yet he makes no such allowances for two of Blyleven's final three seasons, when he went 10-17 with a 5.43 ERA in '88, and 8-7 with a 5.24 ERA in '90. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it's because in between Bert went 17-5 with a 2.73 ERA and a league-leading 5 shutouts in his penultimate season as a major leaguer.

I guess if you're good enough to produce like that at an advanced age, you don't get to lop off sub-par years from your career sample. Only players that sucked in their twilight and kept on sucking until the end can be treated that way. Never mind if Morris won a league-leading 21 games in '92 before crapping the bed. His final two years were clearly outliers and cannot be counted.

And part of it is due to him pitching to the scoreboard, which the very best pitchers could do.

That this single sentence isn't already fodder for every late night talk show host's monologue is stunning, because it's a fucking gold mine of comedy. I can't believe he typed this with a straight face.

Edited by mabrowndog, 21 December 2010 - 12:16 AM.

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

You guys have to give Heyman a break. Blyleven had a higher ERA over the course of his career than Morris...oh I mean ERA+. Oh and while Blyleven averaged almost one more K/9 than Morris it was because Morris was pitching to the scoreboard. Why work to get another strike-out when a fly-ball can have you back in the clubhouse enjoying a cold Strohs or Labatts in half the time? That's not just pitching, that's HOF caliber strategy there versus Mr-watch-me-dominate-this-hitter-with-my-unhittable-stuff.

Finally, Blyleven had a beard whereas Morris had an elegant mustache. Beards are often indicative of unsavory types - as if the wearer of such facial hair has something to hide. Mustaches, on the other hand, are old-timey, winning, jovial and just say "baseball player" versus a face full of sloppy hair.

I said this in the other thread but sadly, this is what SI readers pay for and its likely what they prefer. Posnanski is wasted on them and the sport whereas this idiot is probably considered a real baseball writer by everyone except a select few.

[BucketOBalls]

Actually, I think this explains it. Or at least explains the point of view.

Blyleven was never considered to be in the category of the game's best pitchers during his career

Blyleven had a weird career in that he had a bunch of very good to dominant years...but they were never near each other. 74-75 is probably the closest, but even that is only two years. As a result, I think he never stuck in sports writers minds as a good pitcher, as all his good years seemed like flukes. Just...there were like a bunch of them bc he pitched so long.


I think you re-arranged his career and stuck his good years together(or closer) he probably would have gotten in due to having an identifiable peak. {Probably made a few more all star games also, as there seems to be a carry over effect(i.e. people who are perceived as good get the benefit of the doubt...very noticeable with gold gloves).

He also got shafted pretty bad in73 Cy young voting. Led the league in ERA+,WAR, K/BB and shutouts, was second in ERA and WHIP and 4th in IP....and he finished 7th.

edit: The "pitching to the scoreboard" line is so bad it almost makes me think he's doing it on purpose. That's like FJM level.

Edited by BucketOBalls, 21 December 2010 - 12:50 AM.

[Was (Not Wasdin)]

nm

[Average Reds]

Blyleven had a weird career in that he had a bunch of very good to dominant years...but they were never near each other. 74-75 is probably the closest, but even that is only two years. As a result, I think he never stuck in sports writers minds as a good pitcher, as all his good years seemed like flukes. Just...there were like a bunch of them bc he pitched so long.

IMO, this is precisely right. Idiots like Heyman think of Blyleven in the context of the HOF and the first thought that comes to their mind is that they never perceived him as a great pitcher at the time he was pitching. Then they look at his career stats and realize that he was so much better than they ever gave him credit for, but to recognize this is also to admit that they were wrong all these years. And since they're not built for that sort of reflection, they fall back on the "what I saw with my own eyes" defense. And this inevitably leads to Jack Morris, because he had several dominant years plus one transcendent moment in the WS.

The human mind is fascinating in it's ability to ignore or re-shape information that it doesn't fit within preconceived notions. What's unusual in this case is that very few people are as proud of their willful ignorance as Heyman.

[Alternate34]

Guys, you clearly don't get it. You had to be there.

The pitching to the scoreboard comment was great. I was hoping he would go full blown into the argument that ERA isn't important because of all its flaws, like the subjective measurement of the error, that Blyleven's passed balls would not be counted against him, and that Blyleven's parks helped his ERA.

The best part about Heyman's disdain for better statistics is that the very teams he covers use them prolifically. It shows not only that he is a bad writer and terrible debated, he is also horrible at his job.

[Trlicek's Whip]

Because Scott Boras said so.

Blyleven should hire Boras, who would advocate so strongly and persuasively for his HoF case. I always think of Johnny Damon's thick and shiny Binder o' Stats cooked up when the NYY's signed him as a FA. In addition, hiring Boras neutralizes Heyman, and that reversal in print would be a delicious read.

I guess it's "uncouth" to slavishly and obviously campaign for the HoF - the ones that do come off as annoying or as assholes (Pete Rose, or "cranky" Burt), but it does make sense for guys on the bubble to hire PR to promote themselves, IMHO, in more than a populist/grassroots internet campaign.

Edited by Trlicek's Whip, 21 December 2010 - 09:46 AM.

[billy ashley]

Talking to people like Heyman about baseball is frighteningly similar to talking to most partisan voters*. Instead of having a conversation about the merits of an argument the debate turns into a bizarre mishmash of Heyman types refusing to acknowledge data that doesn’t completely jive with their accepted narrative, bizarre self victimization (“You stat-heads say mean things about me”), and finally oversimplifying how the other thinks (“Baseball ain’t played on computers).

It’s frustrating to me as a baseball fan and political junkie for two reasons. The first and most obvious is that when it comes to both baseball and public policy, it’s often difficult to determine what the correct answer is. There’s a lot of volatility in both, there are a lot of peripheral factors in both. Reagan’s morning in America coincided with the Federal Reserve ending its war on inflation; Larry Walker played a bunch of games in a stadium that probably helped his overall performance. The great economic boom under Clinton was in part caused by several unsustainable bubbles, a lot of Dwight Evan’s value came from defense, which is hard to quantify… it’s exactly these blurry issues that make me love both.

There are probably very few real wrong answers. Only flawed logic.

The second reason is that I believe our propensity to analyze everything from Heyman’s standpoint, politics, baseball, film, tv, other sports or whatever, is that I think it’s really hurting this country. Too often we see debates in public that turn to Heyman like thinking… and the folks in the public who argue this way know exactly what they’re doing.

John Heyman is helping destroy America.

*Liberals and conservatives, take no offense to the partisan comment. I myself am well far left of center, diversity of opinion is good… rejection of anything and everything that one doesn’t agree with, without proper consideration is bad.

Edited by billy ashley, 21 December 2010 - 11:04 AM.

[Joe D Reid]

Excellent thought experiment on Blyleven and the 1979 World Series over on Where Have You Gone, Andy Van Slyke?

[joe dokes]

Joe Sheehan on Jack Morris:
http://www.baseballp...?articleid=1815


Me on Jack Morris:
Jack Morris crapped the bed in many of his post season appearances. Blyleven never did. In fact, in '79, Blyleven, on two days rest (after pitching 8 innings of 1-run ball), pitched 4 innings of relief for the Pirates. And he outpitched Morris in Game 2 of the '87 ALCS. Oh, and that "Morris was the ace" thing? Some manager named "Sparky" Somethingorother decided to start Doyle Alexander over Morris in Game 5 with the Tigers' season on the line. The pitcher for the Twins in that deciding game? Bert Blyleven, on 3 days rest, who ended up beating both Morris and the Tigers' putative "ace" (Alexander) in that series.

Applying Heyman "logic," since Blyleven kicked Morris's ass in the 1987 ALCS, Blyleven was the better pitcher.

EDIT: should have read the article JDREid linked to first, as it described Blyleven's 79 Series.

Edited by joe dokes, 21 December 2010 - 01:50 PM.

[Hyde Park Factor]

Blyleven's greatest fame came not while he was pitching well for five teams over 22 seasons but instead through his extended candidacy and the controversy surrounding it after he had retired.

This is probably the closest that Heyman comes to getting something right in this article. Unfortunately, he stops his thought there, rather than mention that in the 20 years since Blyleven retired the landscape for evaluating players has changed dramatically, allowing the voters to look at Blyleven's career through a different lens...aw, hell. What am I thinking? He didn't win that many more than he lost, after all.

Blyleven: 287 - 250 .534

Ryan: 324 - 292 .526

Just sayin'

[Dehere]

The "pitching to the scoreboard" line is so bad it almost makes me think he's doing it on purpose. That's like FJM level.

Posnanski methodically dismantled this whole notion in this column last year: http://joeposnanski....g-to-the-score/

Worth a read if you have not seen it already.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

For a guy who puts so much stock in Game 7 of 1991, did Heyman bother to mention Morris' shitty 92 postseason campaign? 4 starts, 0-3 record, 19 runs allowed in 23 innings. I guess you had to be there to count that, however.

It's all about Game 7 of 1991 for the pro-Morris group. Never mind that Smoltz pretty much matched him inning for inning (10 IP, 0 R for Morris vs 9 IP, 0 R for Smoltz), or that Morris would have lost the game had Lonnie Smith not had an immense fuckup on the basepaths.

The idea that he "pitched to the score" is bullshit of the highest order. EDIT: thanks to Dehere for the link, was just about to go dig it up.

[Lollardfish]

Tilting at Windmills, by Professor Lollardfish, Age 37:

Lollardfish
@SI_JonHeyman Did you read this? Does it bother you? http://joeposnanski....g-to-the-score/

SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman
@Lollardfish no. differences of opinion are healthy. the numbers guys once thought there was no such thing as clutch hitting either.

Lollardfish @
@SI_JonHeyman But this isn't opinion. Morris did not pitch to the score. It didn't happen. You can still love Morris, but not for that.

SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman
@Lollardfish i would bet he pitched tothe score than blyleven. im sorry, maybe i missed it, did u provide blyleven's numbers there too? [sic]

@SI_JonHeyman Yes. It's so clearly laid out in that article that I, a history professor with a fear of math, can understand it.

SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman
@Lollardfish im sure it's a great point of you, and well written too. i fear a lot of things, believe me, but math isn't one of them.

SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman
@Lollardfish theres more to it than pitching to scoreboard, which cone/wells told me is absolutely the case. that was 1-2 lines of 2,500 wds
4 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Jon Heyman
SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman
@@Lollardfish im sure it's a great point of you, and well written too. i fear a lot of things, believe me, but math isn't one of them.

Lollardfish
@SI_JonHeyman I deeply appreciate you responding. Summary: Anything that might show morris pitched to score, Bert did too and better.

"Look, your worship,'' said Sancho. "What we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the vanes that turned by the wind make the millstone go."

"It is easy to see," replied Don Quixote, "that you are not used to this business of adventures. Those are giants, and if you are afraid, away with you out of here and betake yourself to prayer, while I engage them in fierce and unequal combat."

...

"God Bless me!," said Sancho, "did I not tell your worship to watch what you were doing, because they were only windmills? No one could have made any mistake about it unless he had something of the same kind in his head."

"Silence, friend Sancho," replied Don Quixote. "The fortunes of war more than any other are liable to frequent fluctuations. Moreover I think, and it is the truth, that the same sage Frestón who carried off my study and books, has turned these giants into mills in order to rob me of the glory of vanquishing them, such is the enmity he bears me. But in the end his wicked arts will avail but little against my good sword."

Edited by Lollardfish, 21 December 2010 - 04:21 PM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Morris has a high lifetime ERA, 3.90. But some of that is due to the 6.19 and 5.60 marks he put up in his final two seasons.

He had a 3.73 ERA before his final two season; 3.90 after.

Blyleven's ERA before his final two seasons was 3.22; 3.31 after.

So, Morris's lifetime ERA increased 4.5% based on his last two years; Blyleven's by 2.8%.

Not surprisingly, the last two seasons in a player's career tend to be worse than the rest of their career. Shocking, I know.

[rembrat]

the numbers guys once thought there was no such thing as clutch hitting either.

and.. this changed when?

[Lollardfish]

and.. this changed when?

I also liked the "theres more to it [pitching to the score] than pitching to scoreboard."

But hey, he engaged a critic, and that's more than most people are willing to do.

[natpastime162]

A lot of talk in this thread on Jack Morris, but less on Don Sutton. Sutton made the Hall of Fame rather easily and was mentioned in Heyman's article and the OP. It seems Heyman and other writers will consider, but not accept an argument that doesn't include wins. So I'm working with the hand I was dealt.

I am not savvy enough to create fancy tables.

Don Sutton played from 1966 - 1988 for the Dodgers, Astros, Brewers, A's, and Angels. He went 324-256 (.559 winning pct). The aggregate record of the clubs (while he was a member) was 1936-1681 (.535 winning pct).

Bert Blyleven played from 1970 - 1992 for the Twins, Rangers, Pirates, Indians, and Angels. He went 287-250 (.534 winning pct). The aggregate record of the clubs (while he was a member) was 1721-1725 (.499 winning pct).

Edited by natpastime162, 21 December 2010 - 04:52 PM.

[joe dokes]

Quote

the numbers guys once thought there was no such thing as clutch hitting either.

and.. this changed when?

..and if the "clutch hiting" thoughts did change, as Heyman suggests, it would be even more damning for *him*, because it serves as an admission that even here in mom's basement we are open to new ideas, while Heyman and many of the other high-waisters are sticking with "a pitcher who loses 1-0 games is simply pitching well enough to lose, and his job is to win."*





*I think that's an actual Joe Morgan quote.

[CoolPapaBellhorn]

Excellent thought experiment on Blyleven and the 1979 World Series over on Where Have You Gone, Andy Van Slyke?

I loved this quote especially, and it should be shown to everyone who thinks that playoff dominance, real or perceived, is the reason to vote for someone like Morris:

in discussing Blyleven's relief appearance in Game 5 Tanner says, "We were in a situation where we couldn't go anywhere but home. So we used Blyleven."

As for Heyman, he gets a lot of crap, and deservedly so, but I think he deserves a measure of credit for being open with his picks and with his reasoning. Last year he got blasted on Twitter for his ballot, but he responded to every argument thrown at him, and far more civilly than others on his side of the debate might have. Although I can't understand his reasoning most of the time, he does at least seem to be open-minded to discussion.

[rembrat]

It's great that he knows how to use a twitter but I'll give him credit once he starts listening to sound arguments against his non-fact based opinions and changes his mind about something. We do it here regularly. People in Baseball Operations do it every season. Writers should be able to do it as well. And I'm fully aware that won't happen with some guys like Heyman.

But I seriously can't wait to read the 20 page dissertation he'll write once Blyleven gets in though. That should be special.

[glennhoffmania]

He never finished higher than third in the Cy Young balloting and only four times finished in the top 10, meaning he was never considered among the two best pitchers in his league during his time.
Quote

He only received MVP votes twice, finishing 26th in 1973 and 13th in 1989.

Jeter has never finished higher than third in the MVP voting and only four times finished better than tenth, meaning he was never considered among the dominant players in his league during his time. Will Heyman vote for Jeter in his first year?

Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that Jeter doesn't belong in the HoF. I'm claiming that Heyman is a fucking moron.

[502 to Right]

If Blyleven's agent had been Scott Boras, Heyman would have been voting for him for the last 14 years. Heyman has his nose so far up Boras' rear end I can't take him seriously as a journalist.

[mabrowndog]

SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman
@@Lollardfish im sure it's a great point of you, and well written too. i fear a lot of things, believe me, but math isn't one of them.

I love that a fucking Sports Illustrated columnist and MLB Network "insider" thinks a point of view is actually a "point of you." What, is he using one of those speech-to-text converters?

As for Heyman, he gets a lot of crap, and deservedly so, but I think he deserves a measure of credit for being open with his picks and with his reasoning. Last year he got blasted on Twitter for his ballot, but he responded to every argument thrown at him, and far more civilly than others on his side of the debate might have. Although I can't understand his reasoning most of the time, he does at least seem to be open-minded to discussion.

I didn't see any of his "civil" responses last year, but this year his smarmy sarcasm is cloaked in a veil of false politeness. The condescending shots he takes at dissenters in yesterday's column could only be viewed as "civil" by those that don't know any better.

[SMU_Sox]

Sheehan's article debunks pitching to the score.
This is a must read for anyone who would think of voting for Jack Morris on the HoF ballet.

Here is an excerpt from the article.
IP R RA
More 82 2/3 38 4.14
+7 43 2/3 19 3.92
+6 76 2/3 42 4.93
+5 123 2/3 63 4.58
+4 186 2/3 83 4.00
+3 290 2/3 150 4.64
+2 377 165 3.94
+1 549 255 4.18
0 1224 1/3 540 3.97
-1 396 206 4.68
-2 216 1/3 105 4.37
-3 111 2/3 66 5.32
-4 49 29 5.33
-5 15 14 8.40
-6 3 4 12.00
-7 1 0 0.00
Less 0 0 N/A
TOT. 3746 1/3 1779 4.27

Is this the run distribution of a pitcher who was "pitching to the score"? Since we haven't really seen that animal in captivity, we have to guess, but I would think we'd see a broader distribution of RAs, with a valley in the +1 to -1 range, and higher RAs as the pitcher had more runs to work with. Now, if you squint, you can see that valley, although it's more from 0 to +2 than centered around 0. However, Morris was pretty bad when trailing by a run, suggesting that he was good at turning small deficits into big ones. He also didn't show a big jump in his RA when he was ahead by a lot of runs, and in fact, his RA when he had at least a seven-run cushion is better than his career mark. Morris wasn't turning a lot of 8-0 games into 8-4 games.Playing with the data a little, we get:

Morris ahead: 4.24
Morris tied: 3.97
Morris behind: 4.82

This isn't surprising, as to be behind, Morris would have had to have given up at least one run, a pretty good first indicator that he was going to give up more. The sharply rising ERAs as Morris falls behind follow from this; if Morris started an inning down multiple runs, he probably didn't have it that day.

and his conclusion:

As I said, I don't know what the performance record of someone who had successfully pitched to the score would look like. I am certain, though, that for a pitcher to build his Hall of Fame case on the notion that he did such a thing, he couldn't have put his team behind in nearly two-thirds of his career starts, and he couldn't have blown leads once a month throughout his career.

Jack Morris was a very good pitcher whose primary skill was durability. He benefited from coming up with a number of good players, players who would form the core of a good offense that scored lots of runs for him. He happened to have a career in a down period for starting pitchers, so he stands out among his peers more than someone with his performance record would in the 1970s or 1990s.

He's not a Hall of Famer. As much as I loved watching Game Seven in 1991, and as much as I think the man got cheated by collusion in 1986, he's not a Hall of Famer.

Why can't this crap argument for Morris die already? It has been wrong, is wrong, and will be wrong. It's like saying that I'm thin. No matter what mirrors you use to look at me the truth is I'm fat.


edit: I need to learn how to use the excel function. I will edit this later and make a chart.

Edited by johnlimberakis, 22 December 2010 - 12:04 AM.

[Rough Carrigan]

It doesn't die because arguments aren't only about the topic of debate, they're also about the debaters.

And Heyman likely has a subconscious or perhaps even conscious desire to be seen as supporting old timey values in baseball. As a result he might be susceptible to dumb arguments that will result in his positioning himself on that side of things.

[kieckeredinthehead]

It doesn't die because arguments aren't only about the topic of debate, they're also about the debaters.

And Heyman likely has a subconscious or perhaps even conscious desire to be seen as supporting old timey values in baseball. As a result he might be susceptible to dumb arguments that will result in his positioning himself on that side of things.

I think Heyman's rejection of the argument is more deeply rooted. He's not supporting old timey values, he's supporting the players. He talks to pitchers like Morris and Schilling and they say, "We pitched to the score," and I'm certain that they believe that they did. It would be truly unsettling for Heyman if it turned out that the players were wrong, that the story they told themselves was nonsense. That's a bigger concept for somebody to grasp: that what is true and what we think is true are two very different things. That's the leap that people like Heyman (and Joe Morgan) are unable to make: just because people have a deep history in and deep knowledge of the game doesn't make them right. And for a sportswriter like Heyman, that's the death knell. The only thing that he has going for himself is access. If the players can't actually give him any greater understanding of the game, then he's lost. That's the argument he's making: "I didn't vote for Blyleven because the famous people I know told me not to." The rest of the arguments are non-sensical because he's tying himself in knots trying not to recognize that one simple fact.

Edit: and that goes a pretty far way to explaining how Heyman became Boras' mouthpiece. He seems incapable of separating what somebody says to him with what they actually mean. I think most sportswriters cop to the fact that, say, a high power agent might be using the media as a tool for misinformation. Heyman doesn't really seem to grasp that in the same way that he can't grasp that baseball players are not always the most knowledgeable about how baseball works.

Edited by kieckeredinthehead, 22 December 2010 - 12:58 AM.

[joe dokes]

I didn't see any of his "civil" responses last year, but this year his smarmy sarcasm is cloaked in a veil of false politeness. The condescending shots he takes at dissenters in yesterday's column could only be viewed as "civil" by those that don't know any better.

Bingo. I got into it with him in 2007 when he touted Kaz Matsui's "resurgence" after escaping NY. (Because those NY writers, the club from which Heyman sprung, weed out the weak). When I pointed out to him that his "resurgence" was entirely Coors-based (his #s away from Coors were identical to his Met #s away from hitter-death Shea), he gave me the passive-aggressive "we'll have to agree to disagree" and "the numbers dont reflect how awful he was in NY." Until, of course, Matsui hit a GS on the road for Colorado in the NLDS and generally tore up DS. Then I got a one-line email touting Matsui's road heroics. But nothing after he lapsed back into mediocrity the rest of the playofs and WS.

So, yeah, I suppose he deserves a tiny bit of credit for replying to his critics, but when those replies show no respect for his critics, or the points they raise, then how much credit does he deserve?

"Please explain...." & "How do you know" are the best questions to ask these clowns, because they often can't and usually dont. "Jon, what do you mean, 'he pitched to the score?'" "It means that he gave up lots of runs and inflated his ERA when his teams were already ahead, so the runs didn't matter." "OK, Jon, how do you know that." "errr, ummm..."

As the last post suggests, *players* have been telling him this for years. And whatever I think of Heyman's reasoning ability, it probably does suck to have to come to grips with the idea that even the great players often have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the larger context of the games they play.

[crawjo]

If I were running things I would go through all the ballots, which I believe are stored in boxes at the Hall of Fame, identify every voter who voted for Morris but not Blyleven, and immediately take away their voting privileges.

[Joe Sixpack]

http://jonahkeri.com...cast-11-part-4/
Bert Blyleven on the Jonah Keri podcast

Good series of HoF podcasts from Jonah Keri last week...earlier in this series he brought up Blyleven with Bob Elliot and Elliot mentioned that he'd voted no for Blyleven for several years until someone sent him a pretty convincing argument in a series of emails that they exchanged, and he has since voted yes. It's refreshing to listen to writers that have open-minded viewpoints on this stuff.

[Tartan]

Has anyone other than Jack Morris gotten the "he pitched to the scoreboard!" defense? Because I see it every goddamn year when his case comes up and I can't think of anyone else to whom it applies in the minds of dipshits like Heyman.

[rbeaud]

Excellent thought experiment on Blyleven and the 1979 World Series over on Where Have You Gone, Andy Van Slyke?

I followed the link in the piece to Baseball Think Factory and read the comments. I couldn't pull away from the posts by SSB, it was a magnificent trainwreck! To paraphrase one comment, I learned more than I thought possible about Blyleven....and it feels so good. (I would bet much of the arguments were posted in the SoSH HoF discussionsand I missed it.) It is a damned shame Heyman gets to vote.

[ivanvamp]

It doesn't die because arguments aren't only about the topic of debate, they're also about the debaters.

And Heyman likely has a subconscious or perhaps even conscious desire to be seen as supporting old timey values in baseball. As a result he might be susceptible to dumb arguments that will result in his positioning himself on that side of things.

I want to ask about this "pitching to the score" idea. I believe folks here when they say that the stats don't support the idea. But I also know from playing and coaching baseball (albeit at lower levels...up to the Babe Ruth/high school level) that if it's a one run game, you pitch very carefully and you're much more locked in. But if you have a 7 run lead in the middle to later innings, you're more likely to pitch more relaxed and towards the middle of the plate because you know one hit (even if it's a homer) won't hurt you.

So I've played the whole "pitch to the score" thing, I've coached "pitch to the score", and I've observed it on several levels. So it's a real phenomenon. But I also believe that there is no statistical way to verify this.

Thoughts?

[JohntheBaptist]

Has anyone other than Jack Morris gotten the "he pitched to the scoreboard!" defense? Because I see it every goddamn year when his case comes up and I can't think of anyone else to whom it applies in the minds of dipshits like Heyman.

I've definitely heard it used to prop up Catfish Hunter's case in the past.

[Tartan]

I've definitely heard it used to prop up Catfish Hunter's case in the past.

That's not a shock. It's such a fundamentally absurd concept, but that's what guys like Heyman rely on.

It's not even that bothersome that he wants to vote for Morris and not Blyleven. It's that his main - nay, only - criteria are either hypocritical (i.e. every damn time he cites stats to support Morris that actually better support Blyleven) or outright stupid (like pitching to the score).

[BucketOBalls]

I've definitely heard it used to prop up Catfish Hunter's case in the past.

Well, if Morris gets in he will join Catfish as the absolute bottom feeder of the Hall. Both have a career ERA+ of 105.

[crawjo]

Well, if Morris gets in he will join Catfish as the absolute bottom feeder of the Hall. Both have a career ERA+ of 105.

Rube Marquard, too.

[NHbeau]

Phil Rizzuto says hi...

[Spacemans Bong]

Rizzuto at least was the best player in baseball for a year, which is a lot better than anything Morris ever did.

[TheBoomah]

Phil Rizzuto says hi...

...as does Rick Ferrell.