Morris & Trammell Elected to HOF

[Gnep31]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Right. Because the players are the keepers of baseball knowledge.

This is the Baseball HOF and wins do matter to baseball players. This isn't the writers HOF or the Analytics HOF. Is a person a great baseball player or not?

When a starting pitcher does his job his team more than likely wins. Especially in the 80's when starters lasted more than 6 innings.

Of the hundreds of games I have started pitching in my lifetime, including college and current Federation league, I can probably count on one hand the number of losses I have taken that were not my fault. If I lose 1-0 then I shouldn't have given up that one run. Some people believe the team should have scored more, but that is not the mindset of a good starting pitcher or baseball players. All the analytics say it was a great start, but baseball players don't care....it wasn't a WIN.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Gnep31

This is the Baseball HOF and wins do matter to baseball players. This isn't the writers HOF or the Analytics HOF. Is a person a great baseball player or not?

When a starting pitcher does his job his team more than likely wins. Especially in the 80's when starters lasted more than 6 innings.

Of the hundreds of games I have started pitching in my lifetime, including college and current Federation league, I can probably count on one hand the number of losses I have taken that were not my fault. If I lose 1-0 then I shouldn't have given up that one run. Some people believe the team should have scored more, but that is not the mindset of a good starting pitcher or baseball players. All the analytics say it was a great start, but baseball players don't care....it wasn't a WIN.

Does that make a pitcher on a playoff team who wins 18 games with an ERA of 4.86 and WHIP of 1.44 a better pitcher than the guy who played for a 70 win team who went 11-13 with an ERA of 2.77 and a WHIP of 1.14?

Sounds like it does.

[Gnep31]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Does that make a pitcher on a playoff team who wins 18 games with an ERA of 4.86 and WHIP of 1.44 a better pitcher than the guy who played for a 70 win team who went 11-13 with an ERA of 2.77 and a WHIP of 1.14?

Sounds like it does.

Yes...absolutely!

The guy who only won 11 games shouldn't have given up the runs in the situations he did or else he probably would have more wins.

Stats cannot paint an accurate or true picture on how runs were given up. The person with the higher ERA might have given up runs late in games that were already decided. He might have gotten roughed up on a day or two his arm was on fire. ERA doesn't factor in the guy who eats up innings, but gives his team a chance to win every time he takes the ball.

As a coach I take winners over stats guys all day every day. I've had players and teammates who rack up stats but choke in big situations or big games and cost us wins. They can't make the game winning shot or get the big out when it really matters the most. Players and coaches want to be around winners not stats guys.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Gnep31

Yes...absolutely!

The guy who only won 11 games shouldn't have given up the runs in the situations he did or else he probably would have more wins.

Stats cannot paint an accurate or true picture on how runs were given up. The person with the higher ERA might have given up runs late in games that were already decided. He might have gotten roughed up on a day or two his arm was on fire. ERA doesn't factor in the guy who eats up innings, but gives his team a chance to win every time he takes the ball.

As a coach I take winners over stats guys all day every day. I've had players and teammates who rack up stats but choke in big situations or big games and cost us wins. They can't make the game winning shot or get the big out when it really matters the most. Players and coaches want to be around winners not stats guys.

That makes very little practical sense. Everyone knows you have to score more runs than the other team to win a game. A pitcher who is going to give up less runs, i.e. has a low ERA, is going to put his team in a better situation to win. A guy with a higher ERA means his team has to score more runs to win the games he pitches.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by packs

That makes very little practical sense. Everyone knows you have to score more runs than the other team to win a game. A pitcher who is going to give up less runs, i.e. has a low ERA, is going to put his team in a better situation to win. A guy with a higher ERA means his team has to score more runs to win the games he pitches.

ERA tells the number of runs but not when they were given up. Not every run affects the outcome of the game the same. If we accept the idea that some people fold under pressure and others rise to the occasion, 2 people won’t the same ERA may be diifferent in how likely their team is to win.

A stat calculating win probability and the pitchers impact on it each time they give up a run could he’d light. I assume this exists somewhere...

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

ERA tells the number of runs but not when they were given up. Not every run affects the outcome of the game the same. If we accept the idea that some people fold under pressure and others rise to the occasion, 2 people won’t the same ERA may be diifferent in how likely their team is to win.

A stat calculating win probability and the pitchers impact on it each time they give up a run could he’d light. I assume this exists somewhere...

Yeah. There's a stat for that.

Win Probability Added (WPA) captures the change in Win Expectancy from one plate appearance to the next and credits or debits the player based on how much their action increased their team’s odds of winning. Most sabermetric statistics are context neutral — they do not consider the situation of a particular event or how some plays are more crucial to a win than others. While wOBA rates all home runs as equal, we know intuitively that a home run in the third inning of a blowout is less important to that win than a home run in the bottom of the ninth inning of a close game. WPA captures this difference.

[btcarfagno]

Not surprisingly, Jack Morris' WPA isn't anything special, much like the rest of his body of work. Thus disproving the notion that "he only gave up runs late in games that were blowouts" or "he gave up most of his runs in games where his team scored a lot of runs anyway".

Nope.

WPA values for the players from my list whom I said were better pitchers than Jack Morris:

Mike Mussina 37.67
Kevin Brown 31.63
Bret Saberhagen 25.62
Kevin Appier 23.13
David Cone 23.03
Jimmy Key 22.34
David Wells 20.60
Dwight Gooden 20.19
Dave Stieb 20.11
Frank Viola 17.16
Steve Finley 16.84
Rick Reuschel 15.23
Jack Morris 14.08
Kenny Rogers 11.79
Mark Langston 11.73
Bob Welch 10.31
Frank Tanana 10.07

So Morris is anywhere from somewhat below to way below most of the players on my list when the context of play by play comes into frame.

Still not a Hall Of Famer by any stretch.

[Gnep31]

Originally Posted by packs

That makes very little practical sense. Everyone knows you have to score more runs than the other team to win a game. A pitcher who is going to give up less runs, i.e. has a low ERA, is going to put his team in a better situation to win. A guy with a higher ERA means his team has to score more runs to win the games he pitches.

Stats in baseball are only indicators of expected outcomes. Too many other variables go into wins and losses.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Gnep31

Stats in baseball are only indicators of expected outcomes. Too many other variables go into wins and losses.

ERA is independent of a win or a loss. It looks like Baseball Reference has a stat called Win / Loss percentage with an Average Team too. Jack Morris' percentage for his career was 517, which meant he had just over a 50/50 chance of winning any game for any team over his entire career. That doesn't seem great. For comparison, Mike Mussina has a 590. Dave Stieb's percentage is 570.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Gnep31

Yes...absolutely!

The guy who only won 11 games shouldn't have given up the runs in the situations he did or else he probably would have more wins.

Stats cannot paint an accurate or true picture on how runs were given up. The person with the higher ERA might have given up runs late in games that were already decided. He might have gotten roughed up on a day or two his arm was on fire. ERA doesn't factor in the guy who eats up innings, but gives his team a chance to win every time he takes the ball.

As a coach I take winners over stats guys all day every day. I've had players and teammates who rack up stats but choke in big situations or big games and cost us wins. They can't make the game winning shot or get the big out when it really matters the most. Players and coaches want to be around winners not stats guys.

So in 1908 you would take 21 year old Nick Maddox over 20 year old Walter Johnson then? Maddox won 23 games. Johnson just 14. Maddox was the better pitcher. Correct?

[abothebear]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

So in 1908 you would take 21 year old Nick Maddox over 20 year old Walter Johnson then? Maddox won 23 games. Johnson just 14. Maddox was the better pitcher. Correct?

For 1908, this is a no-brainer. You take the 23 wins.

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by abothebear

For 1908, this is a no-brainer. You take the 23 wins.

This is awesome! I just got a T206 Maddox (rubs hands together, laughs maniacally, and waits for value of the newly purchased Maddox card to exceed the big train...)

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by abothebear

For 1908, this is a no-brainer. You take the 23 wins.

So if you have those two pitchers switch teams what happens to the win totals of the pitchers?

Tom C

[abothebear]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

So if you have those two pitchers switch teams what happens to the win totals of the pitchers?

Tom C

Maddox wins 2 games less than he did for his original team because he started fewer games. Being so close to his hometown in Maryland, Nick would meet up with his old school chums and carouse, often being in no condition to take his turn on the Boundary Field mound.

Johnson wins four games then gets hit in the left orbital bone by a comebacker in the 7th inning of a game in mid-May. Walter battles blindness and chronic headaches for much of the rest of his life and never pitches again. But Pittsburg was ahead at the time of the accident and the team was able to finish out the win, so 5 wins.