Who will be the next Giant in the Hall?

[Rog]

The Giants have more players in the Hall of Fame than any other.  Who will be the next Giant to join them?

Will it be the steroid-tainted Barry Bonds?

Jeff Kent, he of more homers than any other second baseman?

A guy like Will Clark?

Another Duke Snider/Warren Spahn type who played for the Giants only in the fading twilight of his career?

A player going all the way back to Don's era who is voted in by the Veterans Committee?

And when do we think it might happen?

[allenreed]

I don't think it will happen for Kent today, though it will be cooler than cool if he gets in ahead of Bonds.

They had a debate on MLB Channel last night about who should and shouldn't get in, and other issues surrounding the Hall and the voting. Extremely good. Two players were on the panel (Harold Reynolds and Ron Darling) as well as Bob Costas, Ken Rosenthal, Joel Sherman and some super annoying guy named Chris Russo. Evidently this guy's a Giants fan. He talks like a used car salesman. Very loud and very fast. What he said didn't make him annoying. Just his manner of speaking.

We've talked about Jack Morris here, and when his name came up, both the guys who played against him thought he was a slam dunk. The writers much less so. They agreed on Maddux, Glavine and Frank Thomas going in on this go round.

Another concept they brought up was "historical signifigance". Was the player part of a big moment in baseball history. Did he make significant changes in the game. I thought this was interesting. They pointed to Schilling as a player with historical signifigance. I guess the converse is a player who piles up good numbers in a quiet career without raising a lot of attention. Maybe guys like Biggio or Palmeiro.

[klaiggeb]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to be a huge dissentor; NO ONE with an ERA of darned near 4.00 (3.90) deserves to get into the Hall of Fame.

No one.

That's ludicrous.

boly

[allenreed]

I would tend to agree with you, but I think one needs to look a bit deeper than that. I'm not making a case for Morris mind you. I just think there's more to it than that.

[Rog]

I think the era in which a pitcher pitched should be considered as well as pure ERA. In the steroids era, for instance, ERA's were higher.

In Morris' case, his park-adjusted ERA was 105, which means he was only 5% better than the average pitcher. The 3.90 would be the highest in Hall history, but perhaps worse would be inducting someone who was just 5% above average.

Some will make the case for Morris as a post-season pitcher, but his ERA was just about the same as during the regular season. Others will say he pitched to the score, although there is no empirical evidence to indicate so.

I think it could be possible to make a case for a pitcher with a 3.90 ERA in an extreme hitters' park in an extreme hitters' era, but I don't think Morris comes close to falling into that category.

[allenreed]

One stat that was brought up is that Morris pitched into the ninth in 52% of his starts. Pretty darn impressive. You sure aren't ever going to see that again. Again, I think it comes down to more than a mathematical formula. The 3.90 ERA is certainly damning. According to those that played against him Morris was considered one of the best and most feared pitchers of his time. Personally, I can see the case either way, but I tend to give alot of credence to the opinions of those that played against him. They all seem to think Jack is a slam dunk. And not to revisit a prior argument, but almost every hitter who faced Koufax considers him the best they ever saw.

[sfgdood]

Russo is darned entertaining, especially in NY where 95% of the listeners speak as loudly and obnoxiously as he. But he knows his stuff and he's definitely a huge Giants fan who absolutely DETESTS the Dodgers. I like him because he loves the game...not the stats but the actual game.

[allenreed]

Russo definitely seemed to know what he's talking about. The voice is just too abrasive for me. I couldn't listen to him for very long. But that's just me.

Maddux, Glavine, and Thomas. 16 people actually didn't vote for Maddux. I'd like to hear their reasoning. Biggio just missed with 74.8%.

Bonds and Clemens got a smaller percentage of votes than last year. Good stuff.

Trivia: Smoltz will probably go in when the time comes. Have three pitchers from the same rotation ever made the HOF before?

Maddux, Glavine, and Bobby Cox all go in together.

[sfgdood]

I'm confused with the voters. It's said that morals mean more in gaining entry into the baseball HOF than in the other sports' halls. But Bobby cox used his wife as a punching bag for years and yet here he sits honored as a baseball hero. If he gets to go then why should it be so bad to let guys like Bonds in? Just askin.

[Rog]

Allen -- One stat that was brought up is that Morris pitched into the ninth in 52% of his starts. Pretty darn impressive. You sure aren't ever going to see that again.

Rog -- Good point, although just because we won't see something again as the game has changed isn't as big as it might seem. Pitching into the 9th inning over half the time is impressive, but he still averaged only a bit above seven innings per start. That's excellent, but probably not exceptional for the era.

Allen -- Again, I think it comes down to more than a mathematical formula.

Rog -- No question. The biggest advantage of stats is that they're objective, but they're not a be-all, end-all. That said, they're being used more and more all the way from evaluting present players by GM's to evaluating old players by the Hall of Fame voters.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2164/who-next-giant-hall#ixzz2pq0Fv7q5

[Rog]

Regarding Morris' 52% start completion rate, I came across a couple of pertinent facts.

First, prior to the past two seasons when Roy Halladay pitched injured, he averaged 7.03 innings per start. That's slightly less than Morris' 7.11 frames per outing. But given the difference in eras, I would say Halladay's rate was easily more impressive.

Second, while Morris entered the 9th inning in over half his starts, he completed only 64% of those outings. That's less than two out of three, indicating Morris may not have been great at sealing the deal once he reaced the 9th inning.

A question here regarding Roy Halladay. Based on what he's done thus far in his career, should he be voted into the Hall?

He's won only 203 games, but he has pitched deeply into games compared to his peers and has a 131 ERA+ (which is comparable to Sandy Koufax, for example). Roy's innings per start is not only extremely impressive for his era, it was actually a small notch above Sandy's despite that era difference.

Incidentally, I'm not trying to rag on Koufax here. I agree with those who felt he was the best they had faced. He is the perfect example of a peak pitcher who was helped by his home park. Regardless of how we look at it, it's just a question of HOW great he was -- not if.

And back to Halladay, he has actually pitched 365 more innings than Sandy and has won 38 more games. Sandy was a peak pitcher, while Roy wasn't as great at peak but extended his brilliance over a much longer period. And both came up with the highly impressive 131 ERA+.

How do we compare them when considering entrance into the Hall?

[allenreed]

Jan 8, 2014 14:31:11 GMT -5 sfgdood said:

I'm confused with the voters. It's said that morals mean more in gaining entry into the baseball HOF than in the other sports' halls. But Bobby cox used his wife as a punching bag for years and yet here he sits honored as a baseball hero. If he gets to go then why should it be so bad to let guys like Bonds in? Just askin.

Allen- The way the guys on MLB explained it was more ethics than morality. Bonds has a few domestic violence issues too, which he passed on to his son. I think there's a bit of a, what to call it, good ole boy network involved too. Bonds was a complete ass to the media for his whole career. They certainly aren't going to help him now. Same with Clemens.

[allenreed]

I like Halladay more than Morris. Simply was more often a dominant pitcher. Morris was more of a bulldog. It was going to be a tussle. He'll get you sometimes, you'll get him sometimes. But far more often than not, in the end, Jack was going to come out on top. Halladay could come out and throw a no-no or a shutout almost any time. Morris, not so much.

Footnote: JT Snow got some votes.

[Rog]

With the exception of Shoeless Jackson and Pete Rose, the ethics clause doesn't seem to apply. I do believe there is at least one confessed murderer in the Hall.

That said, clearly the steroids guys are being "punished" for their involvement or alleged involvement.

Not to overemphasize it, but more and more of the voters are becoming more cognizent of the sabremetrics approach. In that regard, I think it's kind of like a team evaluating prospects. It's part scouting and part analytics. Probably the best way to evaluate a present player, a retired player or even a prospect is to use a combination of both.

Regarding the analytics, it seems to me the key is to access the most relevant stats. An example is the 52% reaching the 9th inning by Jack Morris. I think it was important to look at how close Morris' actual innings per start compares to his peers (which I haven't done)is important. In a way, it is better for a guy to go out and pitch seven innings ever start rather than pitching a complete game in one and five in the next.

Both pitchers average seven innings, but the former guy likely helps the staff and perhaps team more. There a lot of ways to evaluate, and added depth of the interpretation of stats is likely a benefit.

[Rog]

Another thing to consider is the way the staff is used in a particular era.

Today most late-inning relievers have lower ERA's than almost any starter. If a pitcher can get his team into the 8th inning, he has done a lot to help his team.

Back when most of us were kids, there weren't great closers and set up men. It was important for the starter to go as far as he could. If he had to be taken out early in the game, there was usually a long reliever (something of a failed starter)to go deeply into the game -- if not the rest of the way. Today teams don't usually use their long man as long as before, so it can be more disruptive if the starter has to be taken out early.

[sfgdood]

Allen- The way the guys on MLB explained it was more ethics than morality. Bonds has a few domestic violence issues too, which he passed on to his son. I think there's a bit of a, what to call it, good ole boy network involved too. Bonds was a complete ass to the media for his whole career. They certainly aren't going to help him now. Same with Clemens.

Dood - so it's ok to slap your wife around as long as you kiss the media's ass...I get it now.

[sfgdood]

On the ethics issue, that's a grey area as well...Gaylord Perry and other spit throwers are in. Lots of known greenies poppers are as well. What about sign stealers? That doesn't seem ethically above board and yet it is accepted.

[Rog]

For Randy -- Most stats geeks have played the game and love it. They get it from a "scouting" standpoint and from an analytical standpoint, which gives them an advantage over most who aren't "stats geeks."

Of course, those others don't get that and may never get it.

By the way, here is the question those who put down the stats geeks don't seem to get. If someone were a stats geek and hadn't played baseball, why in the world would he choose the world of baseball in which to use his statistical analysis?

What is it that drew him to baseball to begin with? His love of politics?

[allenreed]

I think the motivation was more pride when we were kids. It was a badge of honor to pitch a complete game. You were weak if you needed help or needed to come out early.

Greenies aren't nearly the same thing. It might get you through a day game after a night game at the end of a road trip. That's more than a bit different than transforming yourself into a different person and player through the use of PEDs. Greenies aren't going to double your home run output. I think that's the rub. The PED guys' stats are so distorted that you can't really take them seriously. Think Sosa hits 60+ HRs thrice without steroids? Then comes the question of rewarding someone for cheating. These guys sold out, cheated the game, the fans, and themselves. Now it's time to pay.

I'm not sure what the situation was between Cox and his wife. Why did she stay with him, why didn't she report him? Seems like she could have made alot of money. But that was outside the baseball arena. I've seen Cox interviewed as a manager. He wasn't kissing the media's ass. I'm not sticking up for anyone who hits a woman, mind you. I remember hearing about it, but don't know many, if any details.
The thing is, Bonds got such a big head (no pun inteneded) that he thought the rules didn't apply to him. He acted like he was a king and everyone else was his serfs. That's just not going to work, no matter what your profession is and how good you are at it. It's going to come back and bite you in the ass. You think all the media people he humiliated aren't just aching for a way to get back at him? It's amazing that Bonds even expects to be treated fairly.

[allenreed]

With the sabermetrics thing. Does it come down to just looking at a table of stats? Has it really come to that? I think there's still alot to be said for actually having seen the guy play. Talking to the guys who played against him. It's a human game. There should be more than just looking at numbers. Certain players are greater than their numbers.They just are. Clemente's numbers aren't the greatest. But I doubt there are many who saw him play who wouldn't agree that he's a HOFer.

[Rog]

Allen -- With the sabermetrics thing. Does it come down to just looking at a table of stats? Has it really come to that? I think there's still alot to be said for actually having seen the guy play. Talking to the guys who played against him. It's a human game. There should be more than just looking at numbers. Certain players are greater than their numbers.They just are. Clemente's numbers aren't the greatest. But I doubt there are many who saw him play who wouldn't agree that he's a HOFer.

Rog -- As I mentioned earlier, it's a combination of stats and "scouting." As for Roberto, his numbers are actually better than I thought, and there is no question he is a Hall of Famer. I have a tougher Hall than the actual one, and Roberto almost surely makes mine.

Incidentally, I'll bet I'm the only one here who saw Roberto hit three homers in a game. He also made a spectacular throw that day, although it was off the mark. But since there was no way to tell that it would be off line, there was little choice but for the runner to hold third.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2164/who-next-giant-hall#ixzz2psOEWGUQ

[allenreed]

They had a special on Clemente on MLB the other night. Very interesting. Alot more to the guy than I knew about. Quite the humanitarian, and regarded as sonewhat of a god in Latin America, especially his native Puerto Rico, and among his teammates as well.. Watching the highlights, what struck me is the style Roberto played with. The way he swung, the way he hit the ball, the way he ran and threw, all had a unique style and flair. Other than Mays, I can't think of another player who's style was so eye-catching and aesthetically pleasing.

[rxmeister]

I love Chris Russo. He became huge here in NYC and then parlayed that into a huge satellite radio deal. He was hilarious here because he was on a NY radio station that broadcast Mets games and he hated both the Mets and Yankees. You guys need to go on you tube and find his "just one time" rant from about ten years ago when the Giants were eliminated from the playoffs. It was epic as he talked about how he would give up his kids for just one series victory. Wonder what he gave up for two? And the next Giant in the HOF? Randy Johnson!

[klaiggeb]

Rog said: Some will make the case for Morris as a post-season pitcher, but his ERA was just about the same as during the regular season. Others will say he pitched to the score, although there is no empirical evidence to indicate so.

I think it could be possible to make a case for a pitcher with a 3.90 ERA in an extreme hitters' park in an extreme hitters' era, but I don't think Morris comes close to falling into that category.

---boly says---

Rog, with all due respect, horse poopy.

If the ballpark was so "hitter friendly," then explain how:

Mickey Lollich has a 3.44 ERA
Hang Aguirre, (who played some 16 years), posted a 3.68
And Jim Bunning, who pitched most of his career in that stadium had a 3.27 ERA

Again, with all due respect, that argument holds no water.

Morris, by the stat you found, was merely 5% better than an average pitcher.

Yes, he had some big games, but he wasn't and should never be considered for the HOF with a 3.90 ERA

[Rog]

Rog said: Some will make the case for Morris as a post-season pitcher, but his ERA was just about the same as during the regular season. Others will say he pitched to the score, although there is no empirical evidence to indicate so.

I think it could be possible to make a case for a pitcher with a 3.90 ERA in an extreme hitters' park in an extreme hitters' era, but I don't think Morris comes close to falling into that category.

---boly says---

Rog, with all due respect, horse poopy.

If the ballpark was so "hitter friendly," then explain how:

Mickey Lollich has a 3.44 ERA
Hang Aguirre, (who played some 16 years), posted a 3.68
And Jim Bunning, who pitched most of his career in that stadium had a 3.27 ERA

Again, with all due respect, that argument holds no water.

Morris, by the stat you found, was merely 5% better than an average pitcher.

Yes, he had some big games, but he wasn't and should never be considered for the HOF with a 3.90 ERA

Rog -- I agree with you, Boly. I wasn't saying Jack should make the Hall. Just the opposite, in fact.

Here is something ironic, Boly. No matter if we agree or disagree on something else, we both agree I am far more a stats man than you. But here is the irony. You said any pitcher with a 3.90 ERA should never be considered for the Hall. We both agree Morris shouldn't be there, and I too have cited that his 3.90 ERA would be the highest in the Hall. But I am not so stats-oriented (or perhaps because I am) as to say that a 3.90 ERA should disqualify a pitcher from the Hall.

The 3.90 stat is an absolute for you. For me it is a strong consideration, but not an absolute.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2164/who-next-giant-hall#ixzz2q0twsqWO

[Rog]

By the way, it finally came to me that I missed the obvious answer to my question here. The next ex-Giant to make the Hall will be Randy Johnson.

[rxmeister]

Rog, see above. I'm very hurt you didn't read my post!

[donk33]

I'm neutral on Jack Morris making the HOF, however, sometimes I think you have to look a little closer at the stats.....Morris pitched too long, he had a fairly good ERA during his peak years, but it ballooned up in his late 30's....another factor, when you have a bull-dog pitcher as Morris, managers tend to leave him a little too long in games where he doesn't have his good stuff...Morris lacked a whole lot of consistency, but when he was good, his stats were excellent.....I'll take any pitcher that can pitch "good enough to win" than I guy who pitches well, but loses...

[Rog]

Mark -- Rog, see above. I'm very hurt you didn't read my post!

Rog -- Me too! Somehow I got distracted somewhere between Chris Russo and Johnson.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2164/who-next-giant-hall#ixzz2qBQqJhnr

[Rog]

Don -- I'm neutral on Jack Morris making the HOF, however, sometimes I think you have to look a little closer at the stats.....

Rog -- Of course.

Don -- Morris pitched too long, he had a fairly good ERA during his peak years, but it ballooned up in his late 30's....

Rog -- Good point. That said, most pitchers -- even the great ones -- usually suffer a similar fate. Jack's problem was that his ERA wasn't low enough before his decline phase to withstand the decline phase.

Jack never had an ERA below 3.00. Not once. Is there any other Hall of Fame pitcher whose ERA wasn't below 3.00 in multiple seasons? Jack had only one season below Madison Bumgarner's CAREER ERA.

Don -- another factor, when you have a bull-dog pitcher as Morris, managers tend to leave him a little too long in games where he doesn't have his good stuff...

Rog -- Good point, but probably not all that relevant when one looks at his overall career. For instance, the only game in Morris' last 20-win season (1992, when he went 21-6) that Jack gave up a lot of runs, yet went two more innings than runs allowed came on April 16th when he pitched 8 innings while allowing 6 runs. Let's take a look at that one.

Jack gave up three runs before retiring a batter in the second inning. He then allowed three runs in his final seven frames. Doesn't sound as if his manager left him in too long. It was much more a case that the Yankees got to him early.

Where is the evidence that Morris was allowed to pitch too long compared to the other pitchers in the Hall?

Don -- Morris lacked a whole lot of consistency, but when he was good, his stats were excellent.....

Rog -- Isn't that true of most good pitchers? In that 21-6 season, he gave up no earned runs 3 times, one earned run 5 times and two earned runs 8 times. In other words, he pitching "excellently" in fewer than half his 34 start -- and yet won 21 of them.

Don -- I'll take any pitcher that can pitch "good enough to win" than I guy who pitches well, but loses...

Rog -- We all will. But where is the evidence that was the case with Jack? In the season I mentioned, nearly half (10) of his 21 wins were by four runs or more.

I mentioned the number of games in which Jack yielded two earned runs or fewer while winning 21 games. In 2007, Matt Cain pitched similarly, yielding no earned runs 2 times, one earned run 9 times, and two earned runs 7 times. Whereas Jack pitched "excellently" in just under half his games, Matt pitched at that same level in 18 of his 32 starts. Yet somehow Jack went 21-6 while Matt went 7-16. That's a difference of 24 games above and below .500.

Did Jack go a spectacular 21-6 because he "pitched just well enough to win," or did he benefit hugely from a hefty 5.56 run support compared to Matt's 3.20? Think Matt's won-loss would have been a little better with 70% more runs? Or to put it another way, would Jack's won-loss have been slightly worse had he received 2 1/3 fewer runs of support?

I definitely agree with you that I would easily take the pitcher who "pitched just well enough to win" over the guy who "pitched just well enough to lose," but many who have studied Jack far more than you and I put together have concluded that Jack DIDN'T "pitch just well enough to win," but rather received a ton of run support.

Three times Jack won 20 games. In those three seasons Jack had ERA's between 3.27 and 4.04, but he received 4.75, 5.46 and 5.56 runs of support.

Think Jack truly "pitched just well enough to win?" Then why is it that he went 21-6 with a 4.04 ERA yet only 15-13 with a 3.94 ERA, 17-16 with a 4.06 ERA, and 16-15 with a 4.18 ERA? It might have had something to do with his 4.39, 4.17 and 4.52 runs of support.

In 1984, Jack won 19 games. Think his 5.06 runs of support had anything to do with it? He won 18 in 1987 -- with 5.27 runs of support. He also won 18 games in 1991 -- with 5.00 runs of support.

In 1979 he won 17 games -- with 5.32 runs of support. In 1981, he had one of his best winning percentages (.667) with 5.38 runs of support.

What we see with Jack is a pattern that suggests he "pitched just well enough to win" when he received excellent run support -- but not when he received "only" good run support.

I haven't done any research on this, but my guess is that if Morris had the 3.35 career ERA of Cain or the 3.46 of Tim Lincecum, he might have achieved the holy grail of 300 wins. If he had the 3.08 of Bumgarner, he almost certainly would have.

Let me ask you this: Do you think that Jack went 68 games over .500 while Bumgarner, Cain and Lincecum are just a combined 34 games over because "he pitched just well enough to win?" Or because he got a ton more run support than the Giants' trio.

That's right. As a trio, Bumgarner, Cain and Lincecum have been CLEARLY better than Morris -- in slightly more innings than Jack pitched in his career. Yet Jack was twice as much over .500 as the Giants' trio.

Morris was known as a big-game pitcher, and in the postseason he went a pretty good 7-4 despite a 3.80 ERA. But Bumgarner, Cain and Lincecum have combined for a 12-6 record with a combined 2.67 ERA. If Morris was a big-game pitcher, the Giants' trio must be a HUGE big-game trio.

Bumgarner has a shot at the Hall. Cain and Lincecum have very little. Morris went 254-186 with a 3.90 ERA. Bumgarner, Cain and Lincecum have combined to go 231-97 with a 3.34 ERA. To put this into better perspective, Morris pitched 44 fewer innings than the Giants' trio, yet gave up 221 more runs.

Of the three points you made here, that Jack "pitched just well enough to win" is likely the least validated.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2164/who-next-giant-hall?page=1#scrollTo=18352#ixzz2qBSWglnK