Hall of Fame balloting

getfoul

New Member
Oct 24, 2011
75
Random thought, but trying to think of the next Hall of Fame candidate to cause people to flip out like Jack Morris... how about Omar Vizquel?.  He had a lot of "Future Hall of Famer Omar Vizquel" support while he was playing.  I don't think he's worthy, but if the same voters are there in 4 years, he'd probably get a lot of support.
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
35,626
Maui
BigMike said:
So how many turd in the punchbowl votes do we get that leave Maddux off their ballot?
 
I assume there will be some number of blank ballot's returned.   they are idiots
 
How many clowns actually return a ballot that has people on it, but no Maddux?
 
 
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Ken Gurnick, MLB.com Dodgers beat writer, is a special kind of stupid.  From the MLB.com staff official ballots...
 
There you go.  This asshole needs to get his card yanked.  Impossible to justify that.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,265
Manchester, N.H.
nattysez said:
Ken Rosenthal and Jon Heyman are whining on Twitter about people attacking Gurnick.  They just don't get it.
 
I think they get it, but they aren't brave enough to turn on one of their own, lest they do something mindbogglingly stupid in the future.
 
Edit: Too bad Gurnick didn't decide on that before alleging Maddux wasn't a HoF pitcher. Or he couldn't wait five years to make sure Mariano wasn't unanimous.
 

I am an Idiot

"Duke"
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2007
5,116
Poz' chat thoughts on Gurnick:
 
"It's a real shame. I really thought Maddux had a real shot at unanimous simply because it's just so indefensible not to vote for him. But I guess what really bugs me about Ken's protest is ... I don't get it. I don't really know what he's protesting. Baseball from 1994 on? There were no steroid users BEFORE 1994? It's a mystery to me. And, yeah, it's a shame."
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,674
Miami (oh, Miami!)
sdiaz1 said:
There are few things I detest more than the yearly Hall of Fame steroids debate. These sports writers are full of crap. They brag about their access inside the locker rooms, about their connections to players, trainers, staff and other various sources. Yet, they all pretend that they were in the dark about the use of steroids and PEDS during the 80's - early 2000's as they made their careers writing about the home run chase, Bonds dominance, and Roger Clemens' resurgence.  I was eleven when Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire broke 62, and I remember joking with my brother and father about how they both (Sosa especially) seemed so much bigger than they did a few years before (using the science of baseball card comparison) and even being aware of the distinct possibility that these guys were using substances to support their super-human growth.
 
I also have zero patience when people argue that steroid tainted players should not be in the hall of fame based on some moral high ground. There are racists and segregationists in Cooperstown, there are hall of famer anti-Semites and homophobes,  there are womanizers and wife beaters. Letting in a few guys who injected needles in their ass, so that they could be better at the sport will hardly do anything to tarnish the legacy of the hall of fame any more than all of those of previously elected players do. If you think it does, then you should reassess your values.
 
Seems like you've got two arguments here:
 
1) The writers should have reported on this earlier.   People say this and I just don't get it.  It's not like the writers "are" the HOF - they're the gatekeepers.  They're often not the same writers who were in the locker rooms (although some are.)  But even so, even if they colluded, how does their collusion change the fact that some players cheated and reaped the rewards thereof?
 
2) Wifebeater in the HOF!  Alert!!  Don't get this one either.  The issue is cheating *at the game itself* and in so doing, inflating your statistics at the expense of other players.  Regardless, there's clearly a "nice guy" push that applies to borderline statistical candidates - so "morals" have been a part of the process for years already. 
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
I could actually get behind Gurnick's ballot if his reason was to demonstrate that the system is broken, the way Deadspin is attempting to do.  Maybe it comes out later that this was all a bit of performance art to accomplish exactly that, but I don't think he'd be able to convince many people after his statement about why he voted for Morris and only Morris, even if it was "in character."
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
From Posnanski's chat:
 

Comment From Mike
What percentage of the BBWAA do you think utilizes Sabermetrics when filling out their ballot?
 
Answer:
Probably a higher percentage than anyone would think. I'd say half.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
I am an Idiot said:
Poz' chat thoughts on Gurnick:
 
"It's a real shame. I really thought Maddux had a real shot at unanimous simply because it's just so indefensible not to vote for him. But I guess what really bugs me about Ken's protest is ... I don't get it. I don't really know what he's protesting. Baseball from 1994 on? There were no steroid users BEFORE 1994? It's a mystery to me. And, yeah, it's a shame."
 
There's no evidence of steroids in baseball before 1994....
 

 
Also penalizing Maddox for having good numbers in the steroid era is even more puzzling. I understand that pitchers were on roids as well but it seems batters benefited quite a bit more.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
JohntheBaptist said:
 




User Actions
  Follow

JIM BOWDEN@JimBowdenESPNxm

Ken Gurnick just told us that he’ll abstain from Hall of Fame voting going forward. He will not vote again. Sirius 209 XM 89
 
 
What a moron:
 
@jimbowdenespnxm Ken Gurnick told us one of the reasons he will never vote again is that he would NOT have voted for Mariano Rivera either b/c of era XM 89
 
So is he actually abstaining from voting or just choosing not to vote for anyone since he doesn't think anyone playing after 94 qualifies? Abstaining and declaring no one is worth voting for are not the same thing, you think a writer would know that.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,419
Not here
What are the chances they actually elect ten of the guys who should make it? Zero?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,674
Miami (oh, Miami!)
NortheasternPJ said:
 
There's no evidence of steroids in baseball before 1994....
 
Also penalizing Maddox for having good numbers in the steroid era is even more puzzling. I understand that pitchers were on roids as well but it seems batters benefited quite a bit more.
 
While I'm sure steroids would have helped any player recover quicker and work out harder, Maddox in particular seems like he would benefit the least from them - he relied on control.  His fastball was in the low low 90s for the vast majority of his career, and his pitching peak correlated to his prime physical years (26-29). 
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,236
All of this nonsense is precisely why I've come to agree with the "vote for the player's performance and let history do the rest" view.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,419
Not here
NortheasternPJ said:
So is he actually abstaining from voting or just choosing not to vote for anyone since he doesn't think anyone playing after 94 qualifies? Abstaining and declaring no one is worth voting for are not the same thing, you think a writer would know that.
 
I'm sure someone will make a point of looking for his ballot next year. If he sends in a blank one, I think that's license to kick him in the testicles repeatedly.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
The other thing about Morris' candidacy is that all the arguments people make to overlook the high ERA fall apart with just the slightest bit of work. 
 
All of those complete games "saved the bullpen" -- Fine, but his ERA in the 7th through 9th innings was about the same as it was in innings 1 through 6
 
He "pitched to the score" -- Fine, but his OPS against was almost exactly the same regardless of whether it was a high-leverage, medium-leverage, or low-leverage.
 
He "was a big game pitcher" -- sometimes, see "pitched to the score"
 
He "was in the pre-steriods era" -- when offense was lower, and offense was diluted by expansion twice during his career, plus, all that year-to-year variation in his performance (not a curious pattern at all?)
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,867
San Andreas Fault
NortheasternPJ said:
 
There's no evidence of steroids in baseball before 1994....
 

 
Also penalizing Maddox for having good numbers in the steroid era is even more puzzling. I understand that pitchers were on roids as well but it seems batters benefited quite a bit more.
Clemens with a very pedestrian last four years with Boston and then four Cy Youngs after he left? 
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
The "pitched to the score" argument is simply laughable on its face, and has been disproven elsewhere (FJM or Deadspin, I believe.).
 

cannonball 1729

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 8, 2005
3,572
The Sticks
Plympton91 said:
 
He "was a big game pitcher" -- sometimes, see "pitched to the score"
 
 
 
Don't forget the part where his postseason ERA is basically the same as his regular season ERA, and he sucked out loud in the playoffs in 1987 and 1992 (i.e. half of the times he was ever in the playoffs).  I always think of this when people tell me that Morris was THE GUY you wanted to start the big game.
 

terrisus

formerly: imgran
SoSH Member
cannonball 1729 said:
 
Don't forget the part where his postseason ERA is basically the same as his regular season ERA, and he sucked out loud in the playoffs in 1987 and 1992 (i.e. half of the times he was ever in the playoffs).  I always think of this when people tell me that Morris was THE GUY you wanted to start the big game.
 
Yeah, but his team won the World Series in 1992, so clearly he was just "pitching to the series." He knew they could afford to lose those two games, so it wasn't a big deal.
 

BucketOBalls

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
5,643
Steak of Turmoil
cannonball 1729 said:
 
Don't forget the part where his postseason ERA is basically the same as his regular season ERA, and he sucked out loud in the playoffs in 1987 and 1992 (i.e. half of the times he was ever in the playoffs).  I always think of this when people tell me that Morris was THE GUY you wanted to start the big game.
 
What's funny is when people use this as an excuse to vote for him over Schilling.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
terrisus said:
 
Yeah, but his team won the World Series in 1992, so clearly he was just "pitching to the series." He knew they could afford to lose those two games, so it wasn't a big deal.
In a macchiavellian ploy, he was tiring out the opposing team's batters by tricking them into repeatedly circling the bases on a day when the silly fools didn't realize that uber competitor Morris had chosen to lose anyway.  What a gamer!
 

redsahx

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2007
1,455
LF Pavillion
When a player is finally voted into the hall unanimously one of these days, it will be more an indicator of human progress than of that player's actual relative greatness.
 

Mr Jums

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2009
625
Somerville
drleather2001 said:
The "pitched to the score" argument is simply laughable on its face, and has been disproven elsewhere (FJM or Deadspin, I believe.).
 
I don't know if this is what you were thinking of but Posnanski talks a bit about it here. He specifically talks about Morris pitching to the score and then looks at his W-L record and ERA when his teams scored 6+ runs, 5 runs, etc. 
 
 And here’s the argument for Morris pitching to the score: When Morris’ teams scored four-plus runs, he went an amazing 210-35 — an amazing .857 winning percentage. The average team had a .727 win percentage. Now, does this mean Morris actually pitched to the score? Well, you can decide that because, unfortunately for the Jack Morris’ faithful, there’s a second (and more significant) part of the question.
 
See, pitching to the score doesn’t just mean giving up seven runs when your team scores eight. Let’s be realistic: Lots of pitchers can do that. If Morris was slightly better at that, well, that’s fine, but the crux of “pitching to the score” means pitching WELL when your team doesn’t score a lot of runs.
...
 
And now, we look at it in total: When Morris’s teams scored one, two or three runs, he went 32-87 with a 4.08 ERA. That’s not good. And that’s not even including his high ERA when his team was shut out.
It seems to me you could argue, maybe, that Morris did battle well his teams scored runs for him. He completed games, and made every start and brought victories home when his team put runs on the board. But pitch to the score? No. Not unless the score was high.
 
 

BigMike

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2000
23,244
redsahx said:
When a player is finally voted into the hall unanimously one of these days, it will be more an indicator of human progress than of that player's actual relative greatness.
 
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
 

Rice4HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2002
1,887
Calgary, Canada
One argument I heard against giving someone 100% of the votes is that Maddux (or Ripken/Seaver/Trout whoever) wasn't as good as Ruth (Williams/Mays/Mantle whoever) and they didn't get 100% so neither should the new guy.

In other words, a mistake was made before so rather than fix it, we're going to perpetuate it. 'Cause 2 wrongs make a right. Or something like that.
 

terrisus

formerly: imgran
SoSH Member
And of course, Ruth wasn't as good as Cobb anyway, since that was who got the highest percentage in that first year.
 
But, yeah, that seems to be what it comes down to - some writers viewing the vote percentage as some sort of "ranking," and so leaving deserving players off just so they get a lower percentage. Which is, of course, absurd.
 

gtg807y

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 31, 2006
3,162
Atlanta, GA
BigMike said:
 
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
 
It'll never happen, if only because someone will leave a candidate off solely for the reason of "well if Ruth/Williams/Mays/etc weren't unanimous, then no one should be!" stance. Unless the Hall of Fame and BBWAA make significant changes to the voting criteria and who gets to vote, which I also don't think will ever happen.
 

PrestonBroadus Lives

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 21, 2007
280
Rice4HOF said:
One argument I heard against giving someone 100% of the votes is that Maddux (or Ripken/Seaver/Trout whoever) wasn't as good as Ruth (Williams/Mays/Mantle whoever) and they didn't get 100% so neither should the new guy.

In other words, a mistake was made before so rather than fix it, we're going to perpetuate it. 'Cause 2 wrongs make a right. Or something like that.
 
Starting next year when some moron doesn't vote for Randy Johnson or Pedro because, "well, if Maddux couldn't get 100% of the vote..."
 

sdiaz1

New Member
Apr 17, 2013
111
My problem with the writers and in reality all of Major League Baseball is that the entire industry from the team owners all the way down to national sportswriters benefitted immensely from the events that occurred during the steroid era that reinvigorated national interest in the sport. These people are not blind, and not all of them are stupid. People involved in professional baseball knew that steroid use was widespread, yet no one did anything. After 20 or so years of this going on Jose Canseco decides to write a book and people freak out, lazy hacks of politicians decide to get involved (because hey why regulate the financial industry when we can regulate baseball) and then MLB decides to throw all of the players under the bus. Then after all the public outrage occurs, columnists realize that they can increase their fledgling readership by writing scandalous stories attacking the credibility of every ball player of the era.
 
If you want to apply some discount to the stats accumulated by players who used steroids, that is fine. However, any system you use will  be arbitrary and unscientific. I also would be curious if you would then like to go back and adjust the stats of Ruth, Foxx, and Gerigh. After all they had a much bigger competitive advantage in that they never had to play against players of color.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Rice4HOF said:
One argument I heard against giving someone 100% of the votes is that Maddux (or Ripken/Seaver/Trout whoever) wasn't as good as Ruth (Williams/Mays/Mantle whoever) and they didn't get 100% so neither should the new guy.

In other words, a mistake was made before so rather than fix it, we're going to perpetuate it. 'Cause 2 wrongs make a right. Or something like that.
This really should be revamped to mirror the NFL HOF process. It's simply ridiculous that people have to put a percentage on it. Either you belong or your don't. The fact that this guy doesn't believe Maddux and Rivera are not HOFers is asinine.

I'm also pretty sure that there was more than one voter who left Maddux off his ballot because of this stupid Babe Ruth argument that really shouldn't hold water.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,867
San Andreas Fault
Mr Jums said:
 
I don't know if this is what you were thinking of but Posnanski talks a bit about it here. He specifically talks about Morris pitching to the score and then looks at his W-L record and ERA when his teams scored 6+ runs, 5 runs, etc. 
And here’s the argument for Morris pitching to the score: When Morris’ teams scored four-plus runs, he went an amazing 210-35 — an amazing .857 winning percentage.
 
Barry Zito is 110 - 6 with 4 or more runs of support. Zeets for HOF!
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,867
San Andreas Fault
PrestonBroadus Lives said:
 
Starting next year when some moron doesn't vote for Randy Johnson or Pedro because, "well, if Maddux couldn't get 100% of the vote..."
It's more basic than that with Pedro because he only won 219 games. You know someone will leave him off for that. 
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
I don't understand how somebody can refuse to vote for Hall of Famers from the steroid era and draw a paycheck from Major League Baseball. I mean, if you're going to be a piece of shit, at least have the courage of your convictions. What a pathetic coward. 
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Al Zarilla said:
It's more basic than that with Pedro because he only won 219 games. You know someone will leave him off for that. 
That jackass that left him off the MVP ballot have a vote? Since most of these voters are also AARP members anyone ever consider that this is just old people bitching about inconsequential shit? I hope they reform this like the NFL. You never hear about this type of crap with football.

Oh and in regards to Jack Morris. Since most people consider the "Steroid Era" to have started with Canseco...Morris played against him. So to leave Maddux off for Morris based on that logic is hypocritical. I also know that Tim Raines won't get in today. That's a crime
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,236
drleather2001 said:
The "pitched to the score" argument is simply laughable on its face, and has been disproven elsewhere (FJM or Deadspin, I believe.).
 
I thought "pitching to the score" in this context meant that if Morris was up 7-0, he'd throw meatballs, give up 4-5 runs but get outs and pitch the complete game, with the resulting high ERA. Its not a laughable theory, IMO, (altho its highly unlikely to happen enough to make a difference) but it is easily disproven.
I seem to recall Joe Sheehan (or maybe Clay Davenport or Woolner) at BP looking at *all* of his starts and finding just as many high-runs allowed games where Morris gave up the runs *first* and was bailed out later -- the exact opposite of "pitching to the score." The conclusion was that if the split was roughly 50-50 between giving up the runs first and giving them up after he got a lead in those high-run games, then there isn't evidence of "pitching to the score" as the term was used by writers in defense of Morris's candidacy.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
The past few years, hasn't there been someone who kept a running tally of the votes that had been released publicly?  I can't find anything like that this year.
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,756
So it looks like Maddux, Glavine and Big Hurt are pretty much definites today.  Biggio and Piazza on the bubble.  I think Biggio gets in this year.  
 
Next year could be huge with Unit, Pedro, and maybe Piazza and Bagwell.  
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
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.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
gtg807y said:
 
It'll never happen, if only because someone will leave a candidate off solely for the reason of "well if Ruth/Williams/Mays/etc weren't unanimous, then no one should be!" stance. Unless the Hall of Fame and BBWAA make significant changes to the voting criteria and who gets to vote, which I also don't think will ever happen.
 
Agree with this.
 
Without significant reform in the process, there's always going to be a handful of idiots among the voters who will consider it their duty to "guard the integrity of the game" by casting a blank ballot or some other nonsense to make sure that no one is ever elected unanimously.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
joe dokes said:
 
I thought "pitching to the score" in this context meant that if Morris was up 7-0, he'd throw meatballs, give up 4-5 runs but get outs and pitch the complete game, with the resulting high ERA. Its not a laughable theory, IMO, (altho its highly unlikely to happen enough to make a difference) but it is easily disproven.
I seem to recall Joe Sheehan (or maybe Clay Davenport or Woolner) at BP looking at *all* of his starts and finding just as many high-runs allowed games where Morris gave up the runs *first* and was bailed out later -- the exact opposite of "pitching to the score." The conclusion was that if the split was roughly 50-50 between giving up the runs first and giving them up after he got a lead in those high-run games, then there isn't evidence of "pitching to the score" as the term was used by writers in defense of Morris's candidacy.
 
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.   
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
I understand what you're saying, drleather, but pitching is a terribly grueling endeavor.  There are times, in a tight game, where you REALLY need to get this key out, and you'll max effort a pitch or two to get it.  Think Tazawa vs. Cabrera in that key ALCS at-bat.  But if you're up 7-1 and nobody on base, you don't REALLY need to get this out, and so you don't need to max effort those pitches.  You just throw strikes, and if he belts one out, so be it.  Just look at all the game thread comments where the Sox have a lead and a reliever will come in and not throw strikes…the commentary is almost always, "Cripes, you're up 5 runs, just throw friggin' strikes…if he homers, who cares?"  
 
I don't think there's any meaningful way to quantify it, and so "pitching to the score" is not a good way to evaluate a pitcher's stats or HOF chances, but pitchers definitely do "pitch to the score" at times.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
I'm perfectly willing to believe that Morris (or anyone else) pitched to the score, and adjust my HOF opinion accordingly.  But you can't just say that he did it, you have to bring evidence (and one game doesn't count as evidence).  And eveyone who has looked at Morris' case has concluded that he did not "pitch to the score".
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
ivanvamp said:
I understand what you're saying, drleather, but pitching is a terribly grueling endeavor.  There are times, in a tight game, where you REALLY need to get this key out, and you'll max effort a pitch or two to get it.  Think Tazawa vs. Cabrera in that key ALCS at-bat.  But if you're up 7-1 and nobody on base, you don't REALLY need to get this out, and so you don't need to max effort those pitches.  You just throw strikes, and if he belts one out, so be it.  
 
And yet, there are pitchers in baseball history that don't seem to explain this deliberate/non-deliberate ineffectiveness.  They are in the Hall of Fame.
 
I mean, not to be flip, but my whole point is:  if he needs to explain why he was kind of shitty a lot of the time, then he wasn't that good to begin with
 
"Pitching to the score" = Being intentionally shitty = being shitty.
 
Just look at all the game thread comments where the Sox have a lead and a reliever will come in and not throw strikes…the commentary is almost always, "Cripes, you're up 5 runs, just throw friggin' strikes…if he homers, who cares?"
 
I don't think there's any meaningful way to quantify it, and so "pitching to the score" is not a good way to evaluate a pitcher's stats or HOF chances, but pitchers definitely do "pitch to the score" at times.
 
 
And in those situations, if the reliever gave up a run, or two, or three, was he doing a good job?  No.  And the game threads would (and do) go into frantic "Oh my god I can't watch" mode, and a thread pops up entitled "What's wrong with [Reliever X]?" 
 
EDIT:  and the commentary is never "if he homers, who cares?", it's "get him to put the ball in play [and maybe make an out]".
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
ivanvamp said:
I understand what you're saying, drleather, but pitching is a terribly grueling endeavor.  There are times, in a tight game, where you REALLY need to get this key out, and you'll max effort a pitch or two to get it.  Think Tazawa vs. Cabrera in that key ALCS at-bat.  But if you're up 7-1 and nobody on base, you don't REALLY need to get this out, and so you don't need to max effort those pitches.  You just throw strikes, and if he belts one out, so be it.  Just look at all the game thread comments where the Sox have a lead and a reliever will come in and not throw strikes…the commentary is almost always, "Cripes, you're up 5 runs, just throw friggin' strikes…if he homers, who cares?"  
 
I don't think there's any meaningful way to quantify it, and so "pitching to the score" is not a good way to evaluate a pitcher's stats or HOF chances, but pitchers definitely do "pitch to the score" at times.
 
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.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
drleather2001 said:
 
And yet, there are pitchers in baseball history that don't seem to explain this deliberate/non-deliberate ineffectiveness.  They are in the Hall of Fame.
 
I mean, not to be flip, but my whole point is:  if he needs to explain why he was kind of shitty a lot of the time, then he wasn't that good to begin with
 
"Pitching to the score" = Being intentionally shitty = being shitty.
 
 
And in those situations, if the reliever gave up a run, or two, or three, was he doing a good job?  No.  And the game threads would (and do) go into frantic "Oh my god I can't watch" mode, and a thread pops up entitled "What's wrong with [Reliever X]?" 
 
EDIT:  and the commentary is never "if he homers, who cares?", it's "get him to put the ball in play [and maybe make an out]".
 
Don't read my thoughts on pitching to the score as being an argument for Jack Morris deserving to be in the Hall of Fame.  I don't think he should be in.  But pitchers definitely do not "max effort" every pitch when they're up big compared to situations like Tazawa vs. Cabrera.  They just don't.  You only have so much energy over the course of a season.  
 
The problem is that guys like Maddux or Pedro were so good that they didn't need to max effort every pitch in order to get outs.  Morris wasn't near those guys' level, and so when he just pitched to contact like that, well, the contact was much more likely to result in base runners or runs.  
 

RoyHobbs

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2005
1,800
Pg. 35 of "Win it For"
It's funny, Denny Martinez has fairly similar counting stats (and a WAR of 49.5 to Morris's 43.8) but no one gave a shit about his [non-]candidacy.
 
Is this entirely a case of Morris making such a big stink about how he should be in the Hall, that people sat up and gave in to the noise? Didn't I read how some candidates (Blyleven, was it?) have PR firms send out argumentative presentations on behalf of their clients?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,674
Miami (oh, Miami!)
drleather2001 said:
 
And yet, there are pitchers in baseball history that don't seem to explain this deliberate/non-deliberate ineffectiveness.  They are in the Hall of Fame.
 
I mean, not to be flip, but my whole point is:  if he needs to explain why he was kind of shitty a lot of the time, then he wasn't that good to begin with
 
"Pitching to the score" = Being intentionally shitty = being shitty.
 
 
And in those situations, if the reliever gave up a run, or two, or three, was he doing a good job?  No.  And the game threads would (and do) go into frantic "Oh my god I can't watch" mode, and a thread pops up entitled "What's wrong with [Reliever X]?" 
 
EDIT:  and the commentary is never "if he homers, who cares?", it's "get him to put the ball in play [and maybe make an out]".
 
 
Not to defend Morris, but there's a whole era of ballplayers who didn't value the same things we currently value.  (e.g., Dusty Baker and pitch counts).   It's totally conceivable that starters were kept in games and told to "coast" as much as they could as long as they were up a few runs.  I'm sure some pitches are more difficult/painful to throw than others.  These guys shouldn't be penalized for doing what they were told to do, or playing the game the way it was expected to be played.  
 
This does not prove a case for Morris, but if pitching to the score existed, we'd have been able to track it though pitch counts/types/velocity.  Unfortunately we don't have that data for years gone by.  The mere fact it exists as a concept is something.  Whether it's a baseball writer's invention or something that was coached would go a long way in arguing whether it was real (i.e., if pitchers tried to do it.)