THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Ooohh that’s good.

Well...no. Just because you support Jack Morris for the HOF, doesn’t mean your support is based ONLY on what he did from 1980-89. That’s pretty ridiculous.

I am not a Jack Morris supporter, fwiw.

Morris, when not pitching in the 1980s: 92-67, 4.32, 11 WAR.  Plus THE GAME.

Yup, good thing he picked up those 11 WAR, plus whatever THE GAME was worth (I guess about 20 WAR? * ) as that puts him just over the threshhold.

(*) oooh, right, I forgot… that’s an intangible game that led to a World Series win that can’t be quantified but nonetheless is being quantified by keeping him on the ballot for so long

What is a proper valuation of Morris’s World Series game? If we make the simplifying assumption that he turned them from 100 percent losers to 100 percent winners (more like 90% but still) than he was worth the difference in revenues from winning a world series to winning a pennant.

I would guess that in current dollars that’s worth 20-30 million and at 5 million dollars you’re talking about 5 extra WAR from that game which brings him up to around 45 for his career.
That number is a lot closer to a Hall of Fame case
(although it still only brings him up to Guidry’s level)

(I don’t support Morris for the Hall of Fame but do feel that playoff stats should be considered far more heavily than they currently are.)

I don’t have a problem making each World Series win as 10x that of a regular season win.  As long as you are CONSISTENT and apply it to all players and all games. 

Jack Morris has had horrible post-season games too you know.

If you want, make the division series 2x, and the conference series 5x, and the World Series 10x.  Whatever.  Just state the assumptions up front and apply them to everyone.

What I’m saying is that in addition to a stat like WPA it might be worth looking at stats like PPA (playoff or pennant probability added) and CPA (championship probability added)

And I said I’m ok.  And I also think it would be virtually impossible that it would help Jack Morris’s case for HOF.

If you think it helps Jack Morris, what do you think 1988 did for Orel Hershiser?

Mike #4 said:

I don’t support Morris for the Hall of Fame but do feel that playoff stats should be considered far more heavily than they currently are.

Does this count for negative WPA in the playoffs as well? Or just positive?

I understand what you want to say, but I think it heavily weights things in favor of teams that are perennial contenders. It also creates another big incentive for players to sign with contending teams rather than stay at home (I don’t think that’s a positive for the game).

It should obviously count negative for bad results in the playoffs. I don’t really think that the remote possibility of having a borderline case for the HOF made slightly less borderline is going to make a major difference in players decision.

Nor do I think the HOF vote should take into consideration its effect on the competitive balance of the game.

You’re right, I shouldn’t have brought up the impact on competitive balance. That’s neither here nor there.

If we start diddling around with “playoff probability added” then the Houston team gets a big goose egg, because Lance Berkman’s +2 WPA gave a whopping zero chance for them to make the playoffs (realistically speaking). On the other hand, the Yankees and Rays are racking up huge amounts of PPA to the point where James Shields (and his 0.02 WPA) gets more PPA than the +2 WPA that Berkman got.

Derek Jeter with -0.58 WPA on the season would have a hugely negative PPA and should be docked hard for it (though I hardly believe the writers would be able to acknowledge that—the Yankees will make the playoffs after all!).

I guess it all depends on what we want the Hall to be. Should it enshrine players who play a big role in the playoff narrative, or just the players who really kick butt (even if their team didn’t). I don’t want Paul O’Neil being enshrined over Bert Blyleven, and that’s where I see the HOF voting headed if we count PPA/Playoff WPA even more heavily than it already is.

Jack Morris is always an interesting discussion to me because the saberists hate him so badly to counter what they feel is the media over-applauding him for “one game” (game 7, ‘91)

Jack Morris:

1984 (Awesome)
---------------
ALCS: 1 ER in 7 IP (W)
WS: 2 ER in 9 IP in G1 (W), 2 ER in 9 IP in G4 (W).

3-0 with a 1.80 ERA in 3 games.

1987 (Not good)
--------
ALCS: Morris gave up 6 ER in 5 IP, and they kept him in for a 129-pitch CG, as they lost 6-3 at MIN.

0-1 6.75 ERA in 1 game.

1991 (Overall, great)
-------
ALCS: 4 ER in 5.1 IP in Game 1 (W), 2 ER in 8 IP in game 4.
WS: 2 ER in 7 IP in G1 (W), 1 ER in 6 IP in G4 (ND), and of course, 0 ER in 10 IP in a series-winning historically great start (W).

3-0, 2.23 ERA in 4 games.

1992 (Bad to Horrible)
---------------
ALCS: 4 ER in 9 IP (L), 5 ER in 3.1 IP (ND)
WS: 3 ER in 6 IP (L), 7 ER in 5.2 IP (7)

0-3, 7.43 in 3 games.

---------------------------------

So, in 11 post-season games I have 5 dominant starts, 1 good start, 2 average starts, and 3 poor/horrible starts.

The 2 “average” starts were [1] 4 ER in 9 IP, and [2] 3 ER in 6 IP. Since those could both be labelled as “quality starts”, I suppose the case could be made that they should count as “good”.

I see a whole lot more there than just one great game in a game 7. If Morris is borderline, I think his post-season performance would nudge him in.

Even counting his horrible post-season starts against him, his post-season stats are still good enough to nudge him forward, especially considering the historically great and dramatic G7 game.

His teams won 2 world series, in large part, due to his performance. Lost an ALCS in which his loss was huge, and won a world series where he did not help the team one bit.

From #5 :

“you’re talking about 5 extra WAR from that game which brings him up to around 45 for his career.
That number is a lot closer to a Hall of Fame case
(although it still only brings him up to Guidry’s level)”

Of course we would also need to credit Guidry for game 2 of the 1977 ALCS and game 4 of the 1977 WS.  Likewise, both starts from the 1978 playoffs. Lastly, games 1 and 5 of the 1981 WS.  So considering all playoff appearances, Guidry may move ahead further than he did with regular season WAR alone..

I might be completely clueless here, but I thought there was a case for putting Ron Guidry in the Hall of Fame.  I just checked the career stats for both Guidry and Morris to make sure I wasn’t crazy for thinking this.  Guidry at least has stronger credentials than Morris.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.

Take Dave Stieb’s innings pitched and earned runs allowed.

Add Todd Van Popple’s innings pitched and earned runs allowed.

You now have Jack Morris’s innings pitched and earned runs allowed. Not exactly, sure, but very close for both numbers.

Morris 1987. 

Who beat him in that game?  None other than Bert Blyleven, who has an outstanding postseason record himself.  Until Blyleven gets in, then there should not even be a discussion on Morris.  Blyleven did everything better than Morris.

Blyleven: 4970 IP, 2029 runs allowed.
Morris: 3824 IP, 1815 runs allowed

Difference: 1146 IP, 214 runs allowed (1.68 runs per game)

Implication?  Take out Blyleven’s 4 BEST seasons, and he’s STILL ahead of Jack Morris.

Wow. So Blyleven is Jack Morris PLUS four years of Sandy Koufax. That, kids, is one impressive pitching record.

I’m always amazed/bothered at the idea that “since ABC got into the HoF, then XYZ should be there too”, even if ABC was a poor selection (even though we’re talking about great players).

I don;t think Jack Morris should be in the HoF, I just always bring up that he had more accomplishments than just one good WS game, as some folks like to marginalize what he did.

But, just the same, one mistake or poor choice, doesn’t mean we have to compound the problem by auto-making the same choice on different players.

At my job, I have made decisions I would like to reverse. But, that doesn;t mean I have to make the same poor choice over and over, just to be “fair” or consistent. That would get me fired, right?

Jack Morris should not be in. That doesn’t mean every pitcher that was “Morrislike” in stats needs to go in. The slope is endless, as there will always be someone “similar” to the next guy that got in because so-n-so was in, but only because he compared favorably to what’s-his-name that was a borderline selection.

Personally, this works in my favor, because eventually there could be so many borderline and slope decisions that my man Jose Cruz (the dad) could get into the HoF, once park and era adjustments are made to offensive stats and comparisons to other borderline candidates open the door.