Pure stats versus Observation... and the damage to the game

[Mark68]

I think the comparison to Finley is a copout personally.  I loved Finley, but you will never see me argue him for the HoF. 

In about what 75 more total games on the record Morris but 2.5 times the CGs and twice the shutouts... Finley compares statistically due to higher rate of Ks which the stat heads give more weight as a quantifiable thing... i get that, but again, ask the guys they faced which one they feared more for a larger part of the career.

Morris was a guy that for more than a decade, was among the list of guys that opposing hitters feared.  Yes, that makes him one of the best and among the dominant guys.

 

Again though this isnt JUST about Morris... its about how in my opinion the over abundance of stats and moneyball are hurting the game.. taking away its personality.  turing into a giant game of Strat-o-Matic.  A guy like Erstad or Eckstien would never got a shot today I dont think.. they dont fit the mold.. yet without hem this board never knows what its like to win a title.

 

I guess thats ok with some of you... it isnt with me, its that simple.  Agree or not thats up to you... ive said my piece.   

Actually, I wasn't even looking at the Ks. The first stat I looked at was ERA.

 

And don't give me the "he pitched to the score" argument. That has been disproven in another thread.

[jsnpritchett]

  Crap, Jeppy throws really hard, I doubt too many hitters fear him.

 

Correct.  His own teammates and fans do, but probably not opposing hitters...

[Docwaukee]

In terms of whether the game evolving has made it better or worse, we need only look at whether the game continues to be supported by fans and whether people spend their money to watch.  They do and perhaps at historically high rates. 

 

baseball is a very complex organism.  it's a billion dollar industry centered around people playing a game.  The ultimate goal of which is to win.  Winning is the biggest factor to any teams success, so they are going to try and find a competitive advantage to do so.  Increasing specialization is part of that. 

 

I want the Angels to be a fun team to watch.  I want to like the players, coaches, executives and ancillary staff.  I want to enjoy the ball park experience when I go, and I want to enjoy the broadcast on tv or radio when I tune in.  But ultimately, I want the team to win.  Fan support is tied to that first and foremost.

 

Winning brings in fans which brings in money which improves the ability to win. 

 

So in order to get those butts in the seats, you need to leave no stone unturned and use every resource imaginable to get maximum value on to the field.  Baseball is also somewhat unique in that there is a massive accumulation of data due to the sheer number of games played every season.  If you can glean information from that data that gives you an advantage, then why not use it just as you would use a competitive advantage you recognized thru observation of play on the field.  A pitcher tipping his pitches.  A guy fouls a ball off his foot and the next pitch comes inside.  A batter fakes a bunt to draw the 3b in. 

 

You use the resources available to you to help your team win. 

[floplag]

there have always been players playing only for themselves and their own personal gain. 

 

However, By and large, most of the players play the game to win. 

 

while I undertand your theory that you have to take context into account relative to the era that a player played, I totally disagree that the evolution of the game and where we are now has ruined it. 

 

But if historical context need be applied, then let's fire up the flux capacitor.

 

Morris first year of HOF vote eligibility was 2000 and for the first 5 years or so, he hovered around 20%.  Then the next five years, he bumped to about 40% max and it wasn't until the last couple of years that he bumped into the 50's/60's.  In the meantime, he's been promoting his own cause.  The voters that were a lot closer to the era in which he pitched actually gave him far fewer votes than he has gotten recently.  The fans and members of the BBWA weren't looking at Morris' WAR back in 2000. 

 

They didn't find him worthy then, and he wasn't considered worthy now.  Why?  He's not a hall of fame caliber pitcher. 

opinion is not fact, but if you wanna fire that up then lets include that context... HoF voters from 2000ish to now have been extremely tight on the votes when deserving candidates were on the ballot that did eventually make it

im not going to go year by years but there was never more than 2 since then and by your logic why did Rice and Blyleven eventually make it? 

It isnt as cut and dry as you portray it, unless of course all you do it look at the numbers

[floplag]

Actually, I wasn't even looking at the Ks. The first stat I looked at was ERA.

 

And don't give me the "he pitched to the score" argument. That has been disproven in another thread.

 

I never made that argument... though whether or not it has been disproven is debatable.. but also moot.

I dont think Morris and Finley are comparable pitchers at all... just because they had a similar ERA does not make them the same type of guy.. you do realize that, right?

[AngelsLakersFan]

 Finley compares statistically due to higher rate of Ks which the stat heads give more weight as a quantifiable thing...

 

No, Finley compares favorably due to giving up a similar, albeit less, number of runs in a higher run scoring environment than Morris.

 

Both players lead the league in CG's once, with Morris finishing in the top 10 ten times to Finley's five. WAR gives Morris credit for those innings, yet he still finishes 15 wins shy of Finley in that metric, that I am also aware that you don't care about. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

A guy like Erstad or Eckstien would never got a shot today I dont think.. they dont fit the mold.. yet without hem this board never knows what its like to win a title.

 

Erstad was a #1 draft pick, He is also 5th all time in Angels franchise history in career WAR. His 2000 season was the best season in franchise history before Mike Trout came along, according to WAR. David Eckstein's 2002 season is ranked 23rd...

[floplag]

No, Finley compares favorably due to giving up a similar, albeit less, number of runs in a higher run scoring environment than Morris.

 

Both players lead the league in CG's once, with Morris finishing in the top 10 ten times to Finley's five. WAR gives Morris credit for those innings, yet he still finishes 15 wins shy of Finley in that metric, that I am also aware that you don't care about. 

Just as you dont care that many more of Morris innnings came late in games... you value each inning the same, i dont. 

... and dont even play the wins card please.. just, dont. 

[floplag]

Erstad was a #1 draft pick, He is also 5th all time in Angels franchise history in career WAR. His 2000 season was the best season in franchise history before Mike Trout came along, according to WAR. David Eckstein's 2002 season is ranked 23rd...

and both are now "grit" punchlines on this board on a virtual daily basis...

[Mark68]

I never made that argument... though whether or not it has been disproven is debatable.. but also moot.

I dont think Morris and Finley are comparable pitchers at all... just because they had a similar ERA does not make them the same type of guy.. you do realize that, right?

So, if two pitchers have overlapping careers in the same league for nine years, they're not comparable?

 

Just because they are two different types of pitchers, they can still be compared.

[tdawg87]

you are right.. CG is quantifiable... and its also disappearing.

As i said in my post Morris did something for what 10 of 11 straight years, that has only been done twice in the last 13 by the rest of the league combined? Why is that?

And Im not ignoring anything.. im respecting how he pitched,, and what he did. However, i absolutely do give more credence to 9 innings pitched in a complete game than i do 9 innings over 2 games.. your darned right. pitching thru those last three innings when you are tired and still getting it done is far more relevant to me than the first 3 of the next game after going 6 in the last. Its a philosophical difference, but im entitled to that am i not?

Again it comes back to context, and watching the game rather than looking at stat sheets.

Do i think guys feared Maddox.. hell yes i do, wouldn't you have? If not then why is he there? i think every guy in theh all was feared by the opposition.,. isn't that part of the mystique?

And why is it disappearing? This has been mentioned several times already. And no it isn't because of selfishness.

I'm not sure what you mean by "context". Wouldn't context lend more credence to the argument that pitching a complete game is a byproduct of its era? The complete game is disappearing because pitch counts are shrinking. Morris had the benefit of not really having a "pitch count". And while he should be commended for remaining healthy and productive despite this, you don't get into the hall for being healthy. Pitchers today simply aren't allowed to go deeper into games. But you act as if the best pitchers throw 5-6 innings and call it a night, never pitching into the illusive final 3 innings. Look at Justin Verlander. He recently had a streak of 63 straight starts pitching at least 6 full innings. Did Jack Morris ever do that? Did he ever come close to that?

Also, Maddux was a feared pitcher in your opinion, but you act like Morris being feared by everyone is a fact. Well I think hitters fear pitchers that can get them out, so in that regard, Chuck Finley was more feared because he was better at doing just that.

You can choose to ignore whatever stats you want to fit your view. That is your right and your prerogative. You can enjoy the game however you want. But stats are an important part of the game and always have been. We aren't even talking about advanced stats like xFIP or WAR. Just basic stats like ERA and WHIP show that Jack Morris is not a HOFer. The advanced stats only serve to further that point. He was a good pitcher. But not HOF worthy.

You are arguing that the voting process is wrong and messed up, and most here will agree with you. But your reasoning for it is exactly the opposite of everyone else. You seem to think stats play too big of a role in the process while most feel they don't play enough of a role. Again you have every right to feel that way I just think it's odd.

[floplag]

So, if two pitchers have overlapping careers in the same league for nine years, they're not comparable?

 

Just because they are two different types of pitchers, they can still be compared.

 

That is not what i said.. what i said is that i do not consider them the same caliber of pitcher. 

Statistically close, yes. But again it comes down to perception, observation, and all that other stuff that doesn't show up on a stat sheet and isnt part of fangraphs or baseball reference.  You know, the real world.

Clearly many of you are fine with the giant game of strat-o-matic... thats fine, you are entitled to that, as i am entitled to disagree.  You keep reading the box score, ill watch the games. 

 

[Coachbulldog]

A guy like Erstad or Eckstien would never got a shot today I dont think.. they dont fit the mold.. yet without hem this board never knows what its like to win a title.

 

 

Long before there was anything known as advanced statistical analysis, "the mold" was ever changing. The type of player that contributed in one era might not be the type of player that contributes in another. Guys like Mark Belanger, John Roseboro, and Dal Maxvill wouldn't get a shot today but Orioles, Dodgers, and Cardinals fans knew what it was like to win a title with them. 

Edited January 10, 2014 by Coachbulldog

[AngelsLakersFan]

Just as you dont care that many more of Morris innnings came late in games... you value each inning the same, i dont. 

... and dont even play the wins card please.. just, dont. 

 

First of all a homerun in the first is just as valuable as a homerun in the 9th. All runs scored count the same. 9th inning runs don't get a triple word score or anything. Yes they FEEL more important to fans and players because they come at the end. As an Angel fan you should also know that wins in April are just as important as wins in September, even if they feel different. 

 

Now some people do find this sort of thing interesting, to the point that they invented a stat specifically to measure it - it's called Win Probability Added. It gives all those bonus points you love at the end of games and measures that thing we call 'clutch.' While those extra high leverage late innings do give Morris an extra edge not seen when looking at WAR they still fall short of Finley.

 

Finley was flat out a better pitcher than Morris is just about everything other than complete games. I know you are arguing against the use of facts in favor of using your gut feeling to evaluate performance but at some point we simply have to call this debate for what it is, and that is something comparable to a seriously sick person refusing to see a doctor for religious 'reasons.'

[floplag]

Long before there was anything known as advanced statistical analysis, "the mold" was ever changing. The type of player that contributed in one era might not be the type of player that contributes in another. Guys like Mark Belanger, John Roseboro, and Dal Maxvill wouldn't get a shot today but Orioles, Dodgers, and Cardinals fans knew what it was like to win a title with them. 

very true coach.. i just saw a bit on Piazza on MLB where Lasorda was quoted as being told by everyone that scouted him that he couldnt do anything... we all know the history.. but again using today's metrics etc.. Piazza never gets a chance today.

[tdawg87]

That is not what i said.. what i said is that i do not consider them the same caliber of pitcher.

Statistically close, yes. But again it comes down to perception, observation, and all that other stuff that doesn't show up on a stat sheet and isnt part of fangraphs or baseball reference. You know, the real world.

The problem with this is that stats are factual evidence of performance. Perception doesn't provide evidence of anything. It's basically just an "ok I guess I'll take your word for it" kind of thing. Usually stats serve to back up perception. In this case the stats don't back up your perception. So what is wrong? The stats, or your perception?

[jshep]

very true coach.. i just saw a bit on Piazza on MLB where Lasorda was quoted as being told by everyone that scouted him that he couldnt do anything... we all know the history.. but again using today's metrics etc.. Piazza never gets a chance today.

 

lol

[Docwaukee]

That is not what i said.. what i said is that i do not consider them the same caliber of pitcher. 

Statistically close, yes. But again it comes down to perception, observation, and all that other stuff that doesn't show up on a stat sheet and isnt part of fangraphs or baseball reference.  You know, the real world.

Clearly many of you are fine with the giant game of strat-o-matic... thats fine, you are entitled to that, as i am entitled to disagree.  You keep reading the box score, ill watch the games. 

 

what real world do you like in where data isn't used to measure performance in any industry?

 

you watch the game.

 

I'll look at the box score, read articles on fangraphs, mlb, baseball prospectus, baseball america, espn, the la times, the oc register etc.  I'll also watch the games. 

 

You go ahead and continue to think that people who read fangraphs lack the power of observation, intuition and have no regard for intangibles.  Because the ability to analyze a box score and the ability to recognize value that doesn't show up there must be mutually exclusive. 

[Inside Pitch]

Just as you dont care that many more of Morris innnings came late in games... you value each inning the same, i dont. 

... and dont even play the wins card please.. just, dont. 

 

I value those late innings, I value them a lot which is why I would entrust them to a fresh pitcher more capable of getting outs and preserving the win instead of letting some self serving asshole trying to pad his CG stats who's main impetus is to protect his reputation as a competitor.   How many times did Morris cost his team a win because he refused to come out of a game and then gave up a lead?  A "team" win is the end all be all of any game isn't it? or do wins count for more when one guy gets the CG?

 

Your initial selfishness argument is flimsy.  It's subjective and can just as easily be thrown back at you.

 

BS aside, I don't think it's any real surprise that Morris posted his best Winning % in the same season he posted his worst CG % in any full season.  The Blue Jays had Tom Henke and Duane Ward around and were able to limit how many times Morris could give up the lead and cost the team wins while being a "competitor."

[floplag]

First of all a homerun in the first is just as valuable as a homerun in the 9th. All runs scored count the same. 9th inning runs don't get a triple word score or anything. Yes they FEEL more important to fans and players because they come at the end. As an Angel fan you should also know that wins in April are just as important as wins in September, even if they feel different. 

 

Now some people do find this sort of thing interesting, to the point that they invented a stat specifically to measure it - it's called Win Probability Added. It gives all those bonus points you love at the end of games and measures that thing we call 'clutch.' While those extra high leverage late innings do give Morris an extra edge not seen when looking at WAR they still fall short of Finley.

 

Finley was flat out a better pitcher than Morris is just about everything other than complete games. I know you are arguing against the use of facts in favor of using your gut feeling to evaluate performance but at some point we simply have to call this debate for what it is, and that is something comparable to a seriously sick person refusing to see a doctor for religious 'reasons.'

 

i love how ive listed facts and stats to support my view, and yet you say i am somehow against them becasue i reach a different conclusion... funny

 

In my opinion the idea that all innings are created equal, or that a win in April is as important as a win in October, is simply not true.  It is true that noone ever won a pennant in April... though we have certainly lost a chance to in a few.  I get that, but again, statistically these things are measured equally for the most part, you dont get 1.5 games credit for a win in Oct, but the mentality is completely different in those circumstances, it is much harder late in games than it is early.  If you cant understand that then you either never played the game or somehow think the human body performs as well when its tired as it does when its fresh.  I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

 

Just to clarify one point.. i dont think Morris is a great as Maddux, or Glavine, or many other guys in the hall...  but there are degrees of greatness and degrees of fame.. not every one in the hall is as worthy as Ruth, that doesnt detract from what they did accomplish to be on a lesser tier of fame.

 

[Inside Pitch]

Long before there was anything known as advanced statistical analysis, "the mold" was ever changing. The type of player that contributed in one era might not be the type of player that contributes in another. Guys like Mark Belanger, John Roseboro, and Dal Maxvill wouldn't get a shot today but Orioles, Dodgers, and Cardinals fans knew what it was like to win a title with them. 

 

 

I would argue that as defensive metrics have gained credence, guys like Belanger and company have once again been proven to be valuable.   The 90s and it's offense offense offense approach where teams like the A's felt defense didn't matter at all hurt glove first guys but as defensive metrics have evolved many of the old adages about pitching and defense have been proven without a doubt to be true.  I mean, there have been a lot of studies done on run prevention Vs run production with the same end result -- keeping guys from scoring leads to wins.

 

The current saber atmosphere is VERY friendly to guys like Belanger and Dal Maxvill.   

[Inside Pitch]

very true coach.. i just saw a bit on Piazza on MLB where Lasorda was quoted as being told by everyone that scouted him that he couldnt do anything... we all know the history.. but again using today's metrics etc.. Piazza never gets a chance today.

 

Which metrics are those?  The ones that argue that he wasn't as bad defensively as people making "obserbvations" were trying to say he was or the ones that show him to be the greatest hitting catcher in the history of the game?  

BTW, Tommy Lasorda is famous for running at the mouth with things that do little more than further his never ended agenda of self promotion.  There is a very well known story of Ted Williams seeing Piazza hit and saying he had a future in MLB.  Heck you can actually see a video of their meeting when he was 15 online.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Inside Pitch

[floplag]

Which metrics are those?  The ones that argue that he wasn't as bad defensively as people making "obserbvations" were trying to say he was or the ones that show him to be the greatest hitting catcher in the history of the game?

 

I mean, you really can't be serious.

all the scouts that told lasorda not to draft him... dont beleive me, look it up yourself... or dont i dont care lasorda himself said it on the show.  Lasorda took him anyway based on his opinion and perception.

[YouthofToday]

all the scouts that told lasorda not to draft him... dont beleive me, look it up yourself... or dont i dont care lasorda himself said it on the show. Lasorda took him anyway based on his opinion and perception.

Or he knew Piazza's family and wanted to make sure there kid was drafted...

[floplag]

OK im done.. ive listed the stats i base my opinion on and why.. ive listed what i think its doing to the game.. clearly im in the minority, im fine with that.

When a thread is degraded to insults and the "lol" posts now without any real discussion its no longer worth the time.. please feel free to lock it or delete it.