Wins Above Jack Morris

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Modern analytics dismiss pitching victories – at least in awards voting -- but stats for individual player contributions still use the word “Win” in their titles, like WAR, WAA or WPA. Can anyone New School clarify?

 

I played with one pitcher who, when discussing opponents, would say, “I beat them.” And I always corrected him: “You mean, we beat them.”

 

Nowadays, thanks to pitch counts and bullpen games, the workhorse starter is an endangered species. Certainly, with the use of openers becoming widespread, scoring rules for win eligibility need to be revamped.

 

So, is there still such a concept as a winning pitcher? If we're not going to use numbers, can we at least still use the words "winner" and "loser" as adjectives? For example, when it comes to facing the Yankees, especially in Yankee Stadium, am I wrong to call Eovaldi a winner and Price a loser? That's what I saw in 2018 and even Spring of '19 (before Braiser blew the Gardner game). I'm also thinking Eovaldi > Sale vs. NY, at least last year.

 

We like to be able to count on a guy to nail down wins in tight games, and throw shutdown innings after the offense scores, especially after taking the lead. We’ve also witnessed hurlers with great numbers who sometimes seem to pitch just good enough to lose. But is it all just random… or myths… or can qualitative data actually show trends?

[Bellhorn04]

A pitcher's Won-Lost record is mostly for funsies because it's based on arbitrary rules. You can pitch great and get a loss or pitch lousy and get a win. This is pretty obvious.

 

WAR and WAA are meant to be a true evaluation of a player's contributions to team wins.

[mvp 78]

If Morris spent his whole career with the Mariners or another mediocre franchise, he wouldn’t be known as a winning pitcher.

 

If Pedro did the same, he’d still be HOF.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Good pitchers make teams good; it’s not usually the other way around. Ballplayers will tell you there’s much value in a starting pitcher that teams have supreme confidence playing behind. This isn’t necessarily something measurable, when other stats like ERA, WHIP and FIP can also be rendered meaningless, depending on approach. No formula can calculate a man’s mindset if, for example, he has a big lead and decides to pitch to contact instead of straining for strikeouts or pitching around star hitters.

 

I’m not a Jack Morris fan, though I know there was controversy in his recent Hall of Fame selection. Morris threw for some good teams, but in high-scoring games only his teammates know for sure if he was missing his spots or just lobbing them in there, trusting his borderline-Cooperstown DP combo and Gold Glove centerfielder.

 

Old school fans would expect a pitcher that led his decade in victories to eventually get enshrined on a bronze plaque. Some would debate Morris had mediocre stats, but he also had the reputation of being able to win no matter the situation – be it a 1-0 World Series Game Seven or a 10-9 slugfest.

 

To me, the best data for Jack Morris is reflected in the number 3. That’s how many different franchises that went on to win world championships wanted him on the mound to start Game One of a World Series. That’s the sign of a true ace.

[Bellhorn04]

So then you have to relate this to Nolan Ryan and Bert Blyleven, who had mediocre W-L records and few postseason appearances because they were generally on bad teams.

[mvp 78]

Nope.

[moonslav59]

Good pitchers make teams good; it’s not usually the other way around. Ballplayers will tell you there’s much value in a starting pitcher that teams have supreme confidence playing behind. This isn’t necessarily something measurable, when other stats like ERA, WHIP and FIP can also be rendered meaningless, depending on approach. No formula can calculate a man’s mindset if, for example, he has a big lead and decides to pitch to contact instead of straining for strikeouts or pitching around star hitters.

 

I’m not a Jack Morris fan, though I know there was controversy in his recent Hall of Fame selection. Morris threw for some good teams, but in high-scoring games only his teammates know for sure if he was missing his spots or just lobbing them in there, trusting his borderline-Cooperstown DP combo and Gold Glove centerfielder.

 

Old school fans would expect a pitcher that led his decade in victories to eventually get enshrined on a bronze plaque. Some would debate Morris had mediocre stats, but he also had the reputation of being able to win no matter the situation – be it a 1-0 World Series Game Seven or a 10-9 slugfest.

 

To me, the best data for Jack Morris is reflected in the number 3. That’s how many different franchises that went on to win world championships wanted him on the mound to start Game One of a World Series. That’s the sign of a true ace.

 

Not every "true ace" makes the HOF.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Not every "true ace" makes the HOF.

 

I think guys like Schilling, Clemens and Pettitte will eventually. While Ryan was an automatic, Blyleven and Morris took a long time to get recognized.

 

Give the old school voters credit, though on Ryan. He went 8-16 in 1987 and still finished fifth in the Cy Young. It wasn't like they were just picking big "winners" ahead of him, either; two guys above Ryan had records of 13-9 and 16-16, and a reliever with 5 Ws won it.

[Slasher9]

clemens and pettitte are steroid users. no chance they get in the Hall.

unless they buy a ticket at the door...

[Carpin]

Petite used HGH not an steroid

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

clemens and pettitte are steroid users. no chance they get in the Hall.

unless they buy a ticket at the door...

 

I'm talking 15-20 years from now, when most voters on that Veterans Committee would have either played in an era when the majority of guys did some kind of PEDs or they did them themselves.

[Bellhorn04]

One thing for sure about Morris, he pitched a hell of a game in that 1991 WS Game 7.

[moonslav59]

One thing for sure about Morris, he pitched a hell of a game in that 1991 WS Game 7.

 

He was "money."

 

So was Josh Beckett, and he ain't gettin' into the HOF.

 

[notin]

Wins Above Jack Morris? Bah! Felipe Lopez will always be the true standard...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Kinda hijacking my own thread, but since this topic was supposed to be about modern metrics: on MLB TV today there was a discussion about top shortstops, and it was reported that Bogaerts was last in DSR. Also interesting: in one of the articles projecting a Betts to LA trade, a writer suggested Gavin Lux as the Red Sox new shortstop, because the writer assumed Bogie would soon have to be moved to another position anyway.

 

One more question about WAR: if WAR supposedly "measures a player's value in all facets of the game", then why are there also separate categories for Offensive WAR and Defensive WAR?

[jacksonianmarch]

Wins above Jack Morris, lol. I like that. You can always play the "what if" game, but it wasn't until King Felix won the CY with a losing record that voters started looking beyond wins and losses. In the history of the game, that is a very short window of time.

 

The other thing I want to see managed for post career accolades is the compilers vs the truly elite. The great comparison is Andy Pettitte vs Roy Halladay. PEDs aside, they had very similar WARs (Pettitte 68, Doc's 65). Pettitte in 18 seasons, Doc in 16. But Halladay had a 6 yr run where he put up 38.6WAR and had 200+IP in that time. Pettitte had consecutive 4WAR seasons once (96 and 97). Halladay did it 3 yrs in a row, had two good years of 2.8 and 3.8WAR then ran 6 straight amazing years together. Doc's final 2 seasons totaled 1.8WAR. Pettitte had his final 4 WAR season in 2007, but from 08-13 (he sat out one season) he totaled 13.5WAR. The thing Pettitte did was be consistently good from day 1. Halladay had 3 partial seasons to start his career that essentially amounted to nothing and a final season that was a negative. In his 16 seasons in the majors, 12 were good to elite and 4 were entire duds. Pettitte was below 2 WAR twice in his career and both were injury shortened seasons (where his production was up to his standard). He was the steady Eddy while Halladay was the shooting star that faded. I don't know what the answers are. Are you a HOFer if you were never lights out but consistently good for nearly 2 decades? Are you a HOFer only if you were the top of your game for a shorter period of time? Not sure. I also think the stink of the PEDs is going to fade. As the writers who hid their eyes from the reality then came down with a hammer afterwards start to die out and the writers who grew up in the steroid era start to take a stronger place in the community, I think more people will vote for the guys who used

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I think they'll all get in eventually. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but hopefully in theirs.

 

The case for Pettitte is strong; quick research shows that every pitcher who led his decade in victories made the Hall of Fame (I only looked back as far as 1950, when integration made such accomplishments more legit). As for the just-concluded Teens, the top three in Ws will be first-ballot guys: Scherzer, Verlander, Kershaw.

 

Pettitte paced the 00s with the lowest leading total in seven decades -- 148 wins (nine more than Halladay, who was fourth)... but Andy is also the career postseason leader in wins, games started and innings pitched. Sure he pitched for great teams, but if pitching is 70% of the game, and your ace has five rings, I'd say he deserves a plaque.

[notin]

Kinda hijacking my own thread, but since this topic was supposed to be about modern metrics: on MLB TV today there was a discussion about top shortstops, and it was reported that Bogaerts was last in DSR. Also interesting: in one of the articles projecting a Betts to LA trade, a writer suggested Gavin Lux as the Red Sox new shortstop, because the writer assumed Bogie would soon have to be moved to another position anyway.

 

One more question about WAR: if WAR supposedly "measures a player's value in all facets of the game", then why are there also separate categories for Offensive WAR and Defensive WAR?

 

They’re components of WAR...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

They’re components of WAR...

 

I get that, but they don't add up. All these brilliant statisticians, and not one could devise a cumulative formula... that any fan with an elementary school education could grasp? Like 2.5 OWAR + 2.0 DWAR + 1.0 Baserunning WAR = 5.5 Total WAR (I'm not even going to ask how they figure the components).

 

Most of us kids avoided long division, but we all knew how to calculate batting averages by middle school (at least by using calculators).

[Bellhorn04]

I get that, but they don't add up. All these brilliant statisticians, and not one could devise a cumulative formula... that any fan with an elementary school education could grasp? Like 2.5 OWAR + 2.0 DWAR + 1.0 Baserunning WAR = 5.5 Total WAR (I'm not even going to ask how they figure the components).

 

Most of us kids avoided long division, but we all knew how to calculate batting averages by middle school (at least by using calculators).

 

The WAR component additions and subtractions on Baseball-Reference (B-R) are actually pretty easy to decipher.

 

There is a 'positional' adjustment you have to watch for.

[Bellhorn04]

I honestly don't think Jack Morris should be in the Hall, and yes, my starting point for that statement is his career WAR.

 

Morris's career bWAR is 43.5.

 

Schilling's is 80.5.

 

Hello?

[notin]

I honestly don't think Jack Morris should be in the Hall, and yes, my starting point for that statement is his career WAR.

 

Morris's career bWAR is 43.5.

 

Schilling's is 80.5.

 

Hello?

 

Heck, Jamie Moyer’s is 49.9...

[Bellhorn04]

Jack Morris is a perfect example of what people mean when they say it's not supposed to be the Hall of the Very Good.

[notin]

Jack Morris is a perfect example of what people mean when they say it's not supposed to be the Hall of the Very Good.

 

Morris is a bizarre example very good pitcher whose entire career was suddenly cast into greatness because of one game in the limelight...

[moonslav59]

I honestly don't think Jack Morris should be in the Hall, and yes, my starting point for that statement is his career WAR.

 

Morris's career bWAR is 43.5.

 

Schilling's is 80.5.

 

Hello?

 

I agree. I also think Schilling is borderline.

[S5Dewey]

This age of sabermetrics and WAR had made membership in the HOF a joke. Members are there because they were voted on by people with biases rather than using what we now realize is a more equitable way of determining worth - the computer.

 

The solution to this is relatively simple. First determine a minimum WAR necessary to be eligible for the Hall. Then determine the WAR of every player who played the game. Next sort every player from Step 2 by WAR. Those who fit the minimum criteria for membership can stay. Throw the rest of the bums out.

 

In the future there's no need to have balloting by those biased people. Simply use that minimum WAR value to be worthy of membership. This will provide a fair and equitable way for players to be enshrined in the Hall and should end all of this debate about who should be in and who shouldn't. It will also be about as much fun as doing your taxes.

[Bellhorn04]

I agree. I also think Schilling is borderline.

 

Schilling should be a slam dunk IMO.

 

If 80.5 WAR and an awesome postseason resume doesn't get you in, that's f***ed up.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The WAR comparisons make a good case for Schill, Bell -- I think WAR is what some writers think makes Grienke a HOFer; he's already at 71.7. Although I can't recall ever watching him and hearing any discussion about immortality (I know, it's the new Harold Baines argument -- he of the 38.7 WAR).

 

As for Morris, like I said, he's a guy where stats can't possibly tell the whole story because he never cared about anything but winning -- as in, three rings as the Game One starter for three teams. Beat writers who watched him and voted on hardware gave him Cy Young votes in seven years, MVP votes in five years, plus the WS MVP in '91. In comparison, Schilling also won three rings as a top of the rotation starter, but only had four years where he got Cy/MVP votes, with two postseason MVPs. They're both borderline, but I'd say both deserving as aces who were counted upon to come up clutch.

 

On the latter criteria, it's also why I'd take a guy like Bumgarner over Grienke as a future Hall of Famer, even at almost half the WAR (so far).

[moonslav59]

There are players in the HOF that don't deserve it. If we use Baines as the comp the Hall would be tripled in numbers.

[notin]

This age of sabermetrics and WAR had made membership in the HOF a joke. Members are there because they were voted on by people with biases rather than using what we now realize is a more equitable way of determining worth - the computer.

 

The solution to this is relatively simple. First determine a minimum WAR necessary to be eligible for the Hall. Then determine the WAR of every player who played the game. Next sort every player from Step 2 by WAR. Those who fit the minimum criteria for membership can stay. Throw the rest of the bums out.

 

In the future there's no need to have balloting by those biased people. Simply use that minimum WAR value to be worthy of membership. This will provide a fair and equitable way for players to be enshrined in the Hall and should end all of this debate about who should be in and who shouldn't. It will also be about as much fun as doing your taxes.

 

Right because the voting method was so perfect. The same method that said “Tony Perez? In. Steve Garvey and Don’t Mattingly? Out. Dave Bancroft? In. Larry Walker? No. Don Sutton? Makes sense. Jim Kaat? No it doesn’t.” Yeah let’s defend that method.

 

The fact that Bert Blyleven took 15 years to get into Cooperstown shows what a joke voting is. The guy was fifth all time in strikeouts - the most exciting pitching category. If you’re top five all time in any cumulative category, you should be in the Hall...

Edited November 27, 2019 by notin