Hall of Fame balloting

[Mighty Joe Young]

 
I'm sorry, but no. 
 
The job of a pitcher, any pitcher, is to get outs without giving up runs.  Except in very limited situations, there is nothing positive or admirable about not going for the easiest out.  Giving up hits, or walks, or home runs, is the opposite of getting an out.   There was no benefit to him, or the team, for taking a longer time to get those remaining outs than necessary.  If he was capable, why not get pop flies, or ground outs, or get guys to hit into double plays?  The answer is because he couldn't, because he wasn't good enough.  He was a pretty good pitcher, but he wasn't that good.  You know who was that good?  Guys like Clemens, Pedro, Johnson, Maddux, etc... Hall of Fame caliber players.    You don't get extra credit for saying "Well, I could have done what they did if I wanted to."   No. If you could have, you would have.  To suggest that there was a greater benefit to being less good than you could have been is the definition of "complete bullshit", and is antithetical to the nature of sporting competition.
 
I feel like this argument is a deliberate perversion of sabremetrics and/or a reaction to the rise over the past decade in the value placed on working up a pitch count.  I believe Jack Morris and his ass-backwards supporters think something like this:
 
"Well, wait, you're telling me that going up there and taking an 8-pitch strikeout is better than taking a few hard cuts and trying to put runs on the board?  That's not what this game is about!"
"I don't believe it."
"Yea, hey, you know, Jack was a gamer, not a stat head.  He just let it rip.  He didn't care about pitch counts or any of that stuff!"
"Seriously!  If it was 7-2, sure he might give up some runs, but he'd buckle down when it mattered!"
 
It's the opposite of objective analysis.  It's fucking stupid.   It's like arguing that pulling the goalie in hockey when you're up 4-0 is a perfectly defensible strategy because you have a big lead, and the benefit of resting your goalie makes it worthwhile.   

 
I would suggest reading HOF Christy Mathewson's book "Pitching in a Pinch" - the whole "pitching to the score" idea dates back to the deadball era. Basically Mathewson - and one presumes most pitchers- really only bore down when facing the opponent's star players (which , in 1912 were relatively few) - the rest of the time they coasted. This was completely defensible - and, in fact, necessary - because stamina was so highly valued. Starters were expected to throw compete games - and to pitch a couple of times a week.
 
Pitchers still do this to a degree. Schilling used to talk about expending far more energy - both physical and mental, when trying to get out of a jam.
 
The opposite of this - and the idea that you seem to be suggesting here , is that pitchers should go 100% every inning, every start. But if you are trying to conserve energy for later in the game , or the week, or the season - what's wrong with trying 90% when the score is 25-2 in the third inning? After all, the ultimate goal is to win the game.
 
But, in reference to Morris  - as mentioned , there is no evidence to suggest he systematically did any such thing. He may thought he did - and uses this to build up his case - at least in his own mind. But detailed analysis (mentioned up thread) revealed no evidence to back up this idea.
 
One final note. Was reading this yesterday and I think it sums up the different approaches quite well;
 
http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/no-87-nolan-ryan/

 

[BucketOBalls]

Greg Maddux is one of the greatest pitchers the game has ever seen, by just about any measure.  I cannot fathom casting a HOF ballot with him eligible and deciding to NOT vote for him.  Because to not vote for him is to suggest that he doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, or that (at a minimum) 10 other people in that particular group deserve to be in *right now* ahead of him.
 
To quote Vizzini, it's inconceivable.

 
That ballot is so full, I can see people leaving him off in order to vote for deserving candidates who need the votes more. It's not like he isn't going to get in.
 
Now, if you don't vote for him and have less than 10 names on your ballot they should take away your voting rights.
 

 

[ivanvamp]

 
There is an element of truth to this, but only insofar as the rationale for throwing strikes is to keep people off base. 
 
The reason to be aggressive in the strike zone when you have a big lead isn't because you want the pitcher to decrease his effort, it's that you don't want him walking anyone.  Which is drleather's point:  no pitcher ever intends to give up runs.  They are trying to maximize the efficiency of the outs they record.  Walking people with a big lead is the worst sin you can commit in that context.

 
Of course no pitcher is trying to give up runs.  If anyone thinks that's what I'm saying they need to have their head examined.  What I'm saying (which I can't believe I need to explain this) is that pitchers are more wiling to pitch less than max effort in order to throw strikes, which means they're willing to risk getting hit - and  they're willing to do this because they have a big lead.  Without a big lead, they'd seek to be far more fine, which requires more effort and concentration.  This is pretty common; whether they should or not is immaterial.  
 
Anyway, I think most of us agree:  Morris shouldn't be in the HOF.

 

[Leather]

Spare me the "no pitcher goes 100% all the time!" strawman. 
 
I'm talking about comparing players to players, and who belongs in the Hall of Fame, not asking how hard Jack Morris was playing the game, or some other subjective thing that, frankly, he is asking voters to buy into so he can start talking about "guts" or some nonsense, and not how good he was at his job.
 
Assuming, arguendo (and I do believe), that no pitcher pitches "max effort" all the time: a 90% (or 80% or 70% or whatver "coasting" consists of for an MLB pitcher) effort from a Tom Seaver or Bert Blyleven or Christy Mattheweson, or Curt Schilling was, the statistics clearly show, better than a 90%  effort from Jack Morris.  Some of those guys pitched in a similar era as Jack Morris,  yet their non "max effort" pitching was still good enough not to require the post-hoc excuse of "Well, I was just being less good than I needed to be to be effective because, well, that's what I was asked to do." 
 
In other words, a hypothetical:
 
Pitcher A:  "Max Effort" ERA:  3.25; "Coasting" ERA: 4.00
Jack Morris: "Max Effort" ERA: 3.25; "Coasting" ERA: 5.40.
 
Morris is asking voters to ignore the "Coasting" ERA, because then they will see that he is really just as good as Pitcher A.   It's a stupid argument.
 
EDIT:  One other thing:  the inverse of his point devalues pitchers that were consistently great.  If his "coasting" effort can be discounted because it wasn't necessary for him to be great at the time, than he is also saying that Pedro or Clemens striking out more than 5-6 guys in a 4-0 game is really not worthy of praise because it was unnecessary.  He's saying those guys were show-offs.

 

[Average Reds]

 
Of course no pitcher is trying to give up runs.  If anyone thinks that's what I'm saying they need to have their head examined.  What I'm saying (which I can't believe I need to explain this) is that pitchers are more wiling to pitch less than max effort in order to throw strikes, which means they're willing to risk getting hit - and  they're willing to do this because they have a big lead.  Without a big lead, they'd seek to be far more fine, which requires more effort and concentration.  This is pretty common; whether they should or not is immaterial.  
 
Anyway, I think most of us agree:  Morris shouldn't be in the HOF.

 
That comment was less directed at you and more at an earlier post where people suggested that pitchers were OK with throwing "meatballs, give up 4-5 runs but get outs and pitch the complete game."  But it was sloppy to include that thought in a post responding to yours.
 
As to the idea that pitchers use less than max effort, I don't buy it.  At least not in the physical sense.  They may feel less stress because of the circumstances and therefore feel less "worn out" but that's not the same things as throwing with less effort, even if it has the same result.
 
 

 

[ivanvamp]

Maybe you (DrLeather) didn't see where I said Morris shouldn't be in the HOF.  I'm not defending him or his candidacy.  And I'm really not arguing against your points.  But BCsMightyJoeYoung referenced Schilling's comments about expending more energy in tight spots.  It happens.  If you're trying to get through the gruel of a 162-game season (and hopefully, postseason as well), you probably don't pitch the same in a May game up 10-2 in the 8th than you do in the late September playoff drive, clinging to a 4-3 lead in the 7th with runners on first and second.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
That comment was less directed at you and more at an earlier post where people suggested that pitchers were OK with throwing "meatballs, give up 4-5 runs but get outs and pitch the complete game."  But it was sloppy to include that thought in a post responding to yours.
 
As to the idea that pitchers use less than max effort, I don't buy it.  At least not in the physical sense.  They may feel less stress because of the circumstances and therefore feel less "worn out" but that's not the same things as throwing with less effort, even if it has the same result.
 
 

 
But they *do* sometimes throw with less physical effort.  Pitchers sometimes cruise at a "normal" working fastball speed, but when they're in a big, tight spot, they'll reach back for something more and try to throw as hard as possible.  That takes more physical effort.  I can't imagine any pitcher that's never done that.  So if THAT represents "max effort", clearly they don't always operate at "max effort", which makes sense.  Think of any athlete in any sport.  Take basketball.  How many players always go all out every trip up and down the floor?  Answer:  None.  Why?  Because sometimes the game situation doesn't demand it.  Why do baseball players not give max effort running out every ground ball?  Because they don't need to.  And if you're up 10-2 in the 8th, you don't need to give max effort on every pitch at that point; usually a little less still gets the job done.

 

[Leather]

I'm not arguing with anyone here, in particular, about his candidacy.  I'm taking issue with his (and his supporters) claim that he "pitched to the score" and so his high ERA should be a non-factor, and that goes for whether or not "pitching to the score" exists or not.  It's immaterial.  Others have chimed in about whether or not "pitching to the score" exists, and that is entirely beside the point.

 

[Cumberland Blues]

 
Maybe it will happen for Trout or Harper in 25 years when they are eligible,   but it's not happening before then.   And even then there will be some old dude somewhere who is pissed about something and will leave them off the ballot

 
The guy who asked the clown question will leave Harper off.

 

[ivanvamp]

I'm not arguing with anyone here, in particular, about his candidacy.  I'm taking issue with his (and his supporters) claim that he "pitched to the score" and so his high ERA should be a non-factor, and that goes for whether or not "pitching to the score" exists or not.  It's immaterial.  Others have chimed in about whether or not "pitching to the score" exists, and that is entirely beside the point.

 
Yeah, well I agree with you on that.

 

[redsahx]

 
But they *do* sometimes throw with less physical effort.  

 
That's true. I think the key issue though (which I assume you also agree on) is that it doesn't take much skill to pitch with a big lead. Most major league pitchers are capable of winning when they get 6, 7 or more runs of support, not just an "ace".

 

[Average Reds]

 
Yeah, well I agree with you on that.

 
On that, I think we can reach consensus.  (At least between us.)

 

[DJnVa]

It's probably been posted, but just a reminder that the announcement will be live on MLB Network and MLB.com--show starts at noon, announcement at 2.

 

[DJnVa]

Predictions: Class of 4--Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, and Biggio with Raines, Piazza, and Bagwell inching closer and Morris falling just short. Schilling around 50%.

 

[CaptainLaddie]

I want a live feed of Jack Morris when he doesn't get in despite his obnoxious campaigning.

 

[ThePrideofShiner]

A must read on the brilliance of Greg Maddux. Very fascinating.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/greg-maddux-a-hall-of-fame-approach-that-carried-an-average-arm-to-cooperstown/2014/01/07/fdd7ae82-77d3-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html
 

First, Maddux was convinced no hitter could tell the speed of a pitch with any meaningful accuracy. To demonstrate, he pointed at a road a quarter-mile away and said it was impossible to tell if a car was going 55, 65 or 75 mph unless there was another car nearby to offer a point of reference.
 
“You just can’t do it,” he said. Sometimes hitters can pick up differences in spin. They can identify pitches if there are different releases points or if a curveball starts with an upward hump as it leaves the pitcher’s hand. But if a pitcher can change speeds, every hitter is helpless, limited by human vision.
 
“Except,” Maddux said, “for that [expletive] Tony Gwynn.”

 

[terrisus]

On a random note, I wonder if any votes will accidentally be cast for Frank Thomas.

 

[joe dokes]

 
I'm sorry, but no. 
 
The job of a pitcher, any pitcher, is to get outs without giving up runs.  Except in very limited situations, there is nothing positive or admirable about not going for the easiest out.  Giving up hits, or walks, or home runs, is the opposite of getting an out.   There was no benefit to him, or the team, for taking a longer time to get those remaining outs than necessary.  If he was capable, why not get pop flies, or ground outs, or get guys to hit into double plays?  The answer is because he couldn't, because he wasn't good enough.  He was a pretty good pitcher, but he wasn't that good.  You know who was that good?  Guys like Clemens, Pedro, Johnson, Maddux, etc... Hall of Fame caliber players.    You don't get extra credit for saying "Well, I could have done what they did if I wanted to."   No. If you could have, you would have.  To suggest that there was a greater benefit to being less good than you could have been is the definition of "complete bullshit", and is antithetical to the nature of sporting competition.
 
I feel like this argument is a deliberate perversion of sabremetrics and/or a reaction to the rise over the past decade in the value placed on working up a pitch count.  I believe Jack Morris and his ass-backwards supporters think something like this:
 
"Well, wait, you're telling me that going up there and taking an 8-pitch strikeout is better than taking a few hard cuts and trying to put runs on the board?  That's not what this game is about!"
"I don't believe it."
"Yea, hey, you know, Jack was a gamer, not a stat head.  He just let it rip.  He didn't care about pitch counts or any of that stuff!"
"Seriously!  If it was 7-2, sure he might give up some runs, but he'd buckle down when it mattered!"
 
It's the opposite of objective analysis.  It's fucking stupid.   It's like arguing that pulling the goalie in hockey when you're up 4-0 is a perfectly defensible strategy because you have a big lead, and the benefit of resting your goalie makes it worthwhile.   

 
We are in heated agreement.....
Just to be clear, I'm just re-stating what I think the "pitching to the score" argument being made in Morris's favor was. And we've all seen pitchers "just throw strikes" when up big late, and let BABiP take care of the rest. What I was saying is that one part of the Morris Mythology (to counter the high ERA) was that he did exactly that writ large. And in theory, its possible. But its just wrong on the facts. It isn't what he did (or at least there's no evidence of it).
 

It's the opposite of objective analysis.  It's fucking stupid.   It's like arguing that pulling the goalie in hockey when you're up 4-0 is a perfectly defensible strategy because you have a big lead, and the benefit of resting your goalie makes it worthwhile.   
 

 
No, but bringing in Bryan Villareal in the 9th when you're up 10-0 (and Lester has thrown 90 pitches) isn't such a bad idea, even if he gives up 5 meaningless runs.  All I'm saying is that the Morris Defenders argue that Morris was often his own Villareal ("now pitching, shittier, ahead-by-10 Jack Morris"). But he wasn't.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

For anyone to leave Greg Maddux off the ballot is simply mind-boggling to me.  To insinuate that he's unworthy because he played in the Steroid Era is even worse.  How someone like Ken Gurnick is allowed to vote is indefensible if he's going to use this "logic."  Yeah, Ken, Maddux doesn't deserve to be in but Morris does.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

On a random note, I wonder if any votes will accidentally be cast for Frank Thomas.

 
Or , more to the point, NOT cast for Frank Thomas

 

[moondog80]

Regrading Maddux, what if a voter said this:  "Yes, I think Maddux should get in, but since we are limited to 10 players, I left off Maddux in favor of ten guys  who "need" the vote more.   Maddux is obviously better than Jeff Kent, but I think they are both deserving, and Maddux gets in no matter what I do, where Kent might need my vote to even stay on the ballot."

 

[terrisus]

Regrading Maddux, what if a voter said this:  "Yes, I think Maddux should get in, but since we are limited to 10 players, I left off Maddux in favor of ten guys  who "need" the vote more.   Maddux is obviously better than Jeff Kent, but I think they are both deserving, and Maddux gets in no matter what I do, where Kent might need my vote to even stay on the ballot."

 
I think this pretty well answers that: 
 

 
That ballot is so full, I can see people leaving him off in order to vote for deserving candidates who need the votes more. It's not like he isn't going to get in.
 
Now, if you don't vote for him and have less than 10 names on your ballot they should take away your voting rights.
 

 
And is one of the reasons in favor of removing maximum limits on ballots.
 
For anyone who voted for less than 10, there's really no possible excuse.

 

[BucketOBalls]

 
We are in heated agreement.....
Just to be clear, I'm just re-stating what I think the "pitching to the score" argument being made in Morris's favor was. And we've all seen pitchers "just throw strikes" when up big late, and let BABiP take care of the rest. What I was saying is that one part of the Morris Mythology (to counter the high ERA) was that he did exactly that writ large. And in theory, its possible. But its just wrong on the facts. It isn't what he did (or at least there's no evidence of it).
 
 
No, but bringing in Bryan Villareal in the 9th when you're up 10-0 (and Lester has thrown 90 pitches) isn't such a bad idea, even if he gives up 5 meaningless runs.  All I'm saying is that the Morris Defenders argue that Morris was often his own Villareal ("now pitching, shittier, ahead-by-10 Jack Morris"). But he wasn't.

 
I can agree that there may be a difference between "max effort" and coasting, giving up runs never helps a pitcher bc...you have to throw more pitches.  I mean, even if, to take the above example, Morris was his own Villareal....you would think he would just decide to max effort after a while to get out of the inning. If becomes clear that "coasting" isn't getting it done, you would think they would bear down after a while just to get out of the inning.
 
Unless a "max effort" pitch is like 10x as much work as "coasting"*, you would think they would bear down after a while. Even if it's something like 2-3 times(which seems somewhat plausible), it still makes sense to put in the effort to get out of the inning fairly quickly I would think. I suppose in the NL you can always wait for the pitcher to come up.
 
*Seems high, just based on max effort vs sustained effort in other things, but I admit I don't have any real experience with pitching so I can't say for sure.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

“I am the house,” he said.
 

 
What a great, great line. Thanks for sharing that story.
 
Before I read this piece, I always thought it was weird that Maddux was from Las Vegas. He didn't seem like a "Vegas guy" at all, Mike Piazza seemed like a Vegas guy. But after reading this story, Maddux is the ultimate Vegas guy. Only he's the guy that owns the casino, not the yokel who dresses up and loses his pay check in craps.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

A must read on the brilliance of Greg Maddux. Very fascinating.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/greg-maddux-a-hall-of-fame-approach-that-carried-an-average-arm-to-cooperstown/2014/01/07/fdd7ae82-77d3-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html

 
Maddux may never have been a fireballer, but Boswell still definitely has his fastball.
 
A great read, thanks for posting.

 

[terrisus]

giving up runs never helps a pitcher bc...you have to throw more pitches.

 
Not necessarily.
A 1-pitch Home Run followed by a 1-pitch pop-up is far fewer pitches than an 8-pitch strikeout.
 
I think there's an issue here in that there's essentially 2 different conversations going on:
 
1) "Pitching to the score" - this does happen. BABIP is less than 1.000, if a player puts the ball in play there's a chance it will be an out. In fact, in general it's going to be less than .500. So, groove a meatball down the middle of the plate to two straight hitters, and you're likely to get 1 out from it. Obviously that's an extreme example, but the point is, sometimes you just want to get quick outs, as opposed to grinding out 10-pitch at-bats (which still may end in a hit or a walk anyway)
 
2) "Jack Morris pitched to the score, and so his high ERA doesn't matter as much - he had the most wins in the 80s!" This has been shown to be false from a couple of angles - that he didn't "pitch to the score" much better than most other players (most pitchers with a 6-run lead are going to get a win), and that there were many times in close-scoring games where he gave up too many runs as opposed to "buckling down and pitching to the tight score."

 

[gtg807y]

A must read on the brilliance of Greg Maddux. Very fascinating.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/greg-maddux-a-hall-of-fame-approach-that-carried-an-average-arm-to-cooperstown/2014/01/07/fdd7ae82-77d3-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html
 

 
That was great. I would love to read a book by Maddux, everything I've heard him say about how he pitched is fascinating. He's the Sherlock Holmes of the mound. 
 
I'd also love to read a book about what goes through Manny's head, but for different reasons.

 

[SemperFidelisSox]

Jon Heyman has Mattingly and McGriff on his ballot.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

A must read on the brilliance of Greg Maddux. Very fascinating.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/greg-maddux-a-hall-of-fame-approach-that-carried-an-average-arm-to-cooperstown/2014/01/07/fdd7ae82-77d3-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html
 

 
 
That was fantastic ..
 
I mentioned this Posnanski article on Nolan Ryan up-thread but it really stands out in contrast ..
http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/no-87-nolan-ryan/

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Good god, Heyman is a fool.  Just on MLB bemoaning the internet and its "sabermetric re-evaluation" of Morris and how he suddenly became unworthy of the Hall because of it.  As if Morris was already in and was removed by the stat-heads and put back on the ballot because of evil sabermetrics.

 

[DJnVa]

It's Maddux, Glavine, and Thomas.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Ding dong the witch is dead.
 
Morris denied and off the ballot.

 

[ForceAtHome]

Three new inductees: Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas.

 

[phrenile]

Biggio got 74.8%.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Biggio at 74.8%.  Ouch.

 

[DJnVa]

Jesus, Biggio at 74.8%.

 

[ForceAtHome]

Biggio got 74.8%.

 

[mascho]

How many more votes would Biggio have needed? Asking for a friend...

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

How many more votes would Biggio have needed? Asking for a friend...

 
Two.

 

[ForceAtHome]

How many more votes would Biggio have needed? Asking for a friend...

 
427/571 is what he got. He needed 2 more.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Morris' percentage dropped from last year.  lolboohoo

 

[Greg29fan]

Morris didn't even get close - 61.5%

 

[CaptainLaddie]

Fuck everything.  Biggio should have been elected in his first year.  This is stupid.

 

[ForceAtHome]

Maddux: 97.2%
Glavine: 91.9%
Thomas: 83.7%
Biggio: 74.8%
Piazza: 62.2%
Morris: 61.5%
Bagwell: 54.3%
Raines: 46.1%
Clemens: 35.4%

 

[CaptainLaddie]

Mussina and Schilling getting below 30% is a crime....

 

[mabrowndog]

Schilling with 29.2%
 
McGriff only with 11.2%. What utter horseshit. They're murdering the Crime Dog.

 

[terrisus]

Biggio got 74.8%.


He'll get in, obviously, but absurd that he hasn't yet.
Maybe he'll get in with Bagwell.

 

[CaptainLaddie]

So the votes for Jacque Jones and Kenny Rogers were from the Deadspin vote, right?

 

[mascho]

Hideo Nomo got votes?

 

[gtg807y]

Who in the god damn hell voted for Jacque Jones?
 
Edit: table didn't work, and if that's the Deadspin ballot that explains it.