Question for the group regarding Hall of Fame eligibility....

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I have to disagree; Mickey Lolich is not a Hall of Famer. He was a pretty good pitcher for a while, but compared to his peers, he just doesn't measure up. And there's certainly nothing historic about his pitching performance. That's overstating it a bit.

His 7 year WAR peak is 38.6. There are 50 starters in the Hall, and they average a 50.3 7 year peak WAR. Lolich is ranked 112th all-time as a starter by JAWS. And, his career ERA + is 108. 100 is Major League average.

He finished second in the Cy Young once, and third once. And in those seasons, his ERA + was only 124 and 127. Hardly exemplary. He didn't receive any votes the other eight seasons where he was a full time starter, post 1967.

Wins in a decade isn't really a great way to evaluate a pitcher. A good pitcher can get a lot of wins on a great team, and the Tigers team he was on was very, very good. Multiple seasons of 90 + wins, including a 103 win season in 1968 when they won the World Series. Given his number of complete games, it doesn't surprise that he won a lot of games. But his pitching metrics, again, ERA +, WHIP and FIP, don't show he was anything spectacular.

Good pitcher, but not a Hall of Famer, in my opinion.

Bill- While I agree with you that Lolich is not a Hall of Famer, I have to point two instances of his pitching performances being historic:


1.) He won three games in the 1968 World Series culminating with breaking Bob Gibson's 7-game World Series winning-streak - oh, and clinching the championship for the Tigers.

2.) In 1971, he amassed 376 Innings Pitched which were the most by any pitcher since Grover Cleveland Alexander threw 388 in 1917.

Now, I'd call both of those pretty darn historic.

As for my opinion on who's out that should be in...I have to go back to the island again:

Minnie Minoso and Luis Tiant
Tiant's stats compare favorably to both Drysdale and Hunter, though I concede that those two are border-line at best.

But, Hey - Eppa Rixey is in there - so why not Lolich and Kaat and Tommy John!

[the 'stache]

Not Hall of Fame worthy. I made a typo last night when I said his career ERA + was 108. It's 104. For his career, he was 4% better than the average Hall of Fame pitcher. And he deserves induction into Cooperstown? Really?

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Heck Lolich is 28th in fWAR since 1920 among all starters and considering his innings pitched is in good company for HOF consideration.
.

Jack Morris isn't Hall of Fame worthy, either.

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

Lolich certainly deserves more consideration than Jack Morris.

I wouldn't call either one of those things historic.

Historic is hitting in 56 games in a row, or batting .400 in the live ball era. Being the pitcher that ends another pitcher's World Series winning streak is a nice talking point, but you're really overselling that if you consider it an historic feat.

And pitching 388 innings, while impressive, is not what I'd call historic, either.

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Bill- While I agree with you that Lolich is not a Hall of Famer, I have to point two instances of his pitching performances being historic:

1.) He won three games in the 1968 World Series culminating with breaking Bob Gibson's 7-game World Series winning-streak - oh, and clinching the championship for the Tigers.

2.) In 1971, he amassed 376 Innings Pitched which were the most by any pitcher since Grover Cleveland Alexander threw 388 in 1917.

Now, I'd call both of those pretty darn historic.

[stargell1]

Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Steve Garvey

All 3 were superstars and should be in.

[nat]

"Lolich certainly deserves more consideration than Jack Morris."

I dunno, zero isn't greater than zero.


And let's keep a lid on the fWAR. Very few pitchers have a substantial impact on batting average on balls in play; year to year differences are almost all random variation. But when we're talking about hall of fame qualifications we're not talking about two or three hundred innings, we're talking about thousands and thousands. I.e., enough for us to be confident that we're seeing a real skill and not random variation. For hall of fame discussions you want bWAR.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by nat

"Lolich certainly deserves more consideration than Jack Morris."

I dunno, zero isn't greater than zero.


And let's keep a lid on the fWAR. Very few pitchers have a substantial impact on batting average on balls in play; year to year differences are almost all random variation. But when we're talking about hall of fame qualifications we're not talking about two or three hundred innings, we're talking about thousands and thousands. I.e., enough for us to be confident that we're seeing a real skill and not random variation. For hall of fame discussions you want bWAR.

bwar is fairly lousy, baseball reference is an antiquated system ERA+??? that's like 1995 saber technology. FIP stabilizes over time and as you said, the large sample size evens things out, sure it might underestimate uber ground ball pitchers a touch, but not enough to make that much difference. (if you consider that WAR isn't a perfect system anyway)

[DBesse27]

My guy is in and that's all I care about

[Harliduck]

Edgar Martinez most likely won't cut it with the regular vote, I look for the veterans committee on his era to put him in. As a Seattle homer, I will celebrate. I don't care about stats, just listen to his peers.


I'm still in the Gil Hodges camp. Dominate player, historic Manager achievement (69 Miracle Mets). His exclusion surprises me...with such a Yankee and Dodger bias you would think he would have been a no brainer.

I grew up in the 80's and I'll be honest, when I think of superstars from that era I was not thinking Trammel, Whitaker, Morris...well, maybe Morris...and I loved the 84 Tigers. They were great players, but I don't get it...maybe because I didn't live in or near Detroit. I'm not trying to rile anyone up, and I am sure one could make the same comments to me about Edgar. Grich? Reading his name in this thread is the first time I have ever heard anyone talk of him and the hall. That name surprised me. Simmons? He played in an era of great catchers and was overshadowed, but his stats and how I remember him I do believe he has a shot. Imagine a Ted Simmons in today's market, he would be a superstar. I am not sure I could say that about Trammel and Whitaker. Whitaker led the league only 1 time in ANY stat on his baseball card, games played in the strike shortened 1981 season. Dominate? In 19 years? He batted over .300 once. Long above average career. Same for Trammel...he led the league twice in Sac's...twice. Nothing else. You can throw saber metrics at me all day long, if you can't lead the league during your era in ANYTHING, you were not dominate. I guess both were better than Barry Larkin, he never lead the league in anything, ever. I am sure he loves PED's more than anyone...

Great article on Minoso...his cultural additions I believe were enough. When I was a kid I actually thought he was already in. A shame he died without this honor.

I would not be upset for Tommy John as well...his above average (not enough) stats are more to do with longevity, but his addition to the game forever changed the game and many, many players after him. His name is synonymous with current baseball, how many players can say that?

[nat]

This hits both of the points that I made above: all-around players get ignored, and middle infielders are unfairly held to the offensive standards of corner players.

Trammell, Whitaker, and Grich weren't amazing at any one thing. But they were good at pretty much everything. You can be a great player by being one-dimensional (so long as you're very very good in that one dimension), or you can be a great player by being good everywhere (while being outstanding nowhere). All three of them hit for good, but not great, power, got on base well (but weren't the best), played good defense (but they weren't Ozzie), and so on. Yes, Ozzie was the better defensive player, but they were all better than him at the bat. Sure, Reggie Jackson was a better hitter, but it's a good thing that Jackson didn't try playing shortstop.

Relatedly, it's probably a mistake to ask middle infielders to lead the league in offensive categories. The class of players who can play 2B or SS is pretty small. The intersection of that class with the class of players who can lead the league in major offensive categories is tiny. Different positions have different offensive expectations, which is a fact that we should recognize when discussing the hall of fame.

[bravos4evr]

there tends to be 3 kinds of HOF players:

1- those who accumulate counting stats via shorter careers with more dominant numbers - like say Pedro, Koufax or Dimaggio

2- those who who accumulate stats via very long careers of solid production - like Eddie Murray or Pete Rose

3- those who do both (the inner circle) of Ruth, Aaron, Mays,Ted Williams


I think all deserve inclusion, as there is more than one way to have an elite career.