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

[floplag]

Based on much of the conversation of late regarding Morris and others.. and some comments ive read about the writers.. something occurred to me that i wonder what some of you might consider...

 

So, a lot of people are talking about the new stats... the new standards... and replacing the older writers with the newer more stats knowledgeable ones... and i use that term loosely.

 

I wonder if you consider a guy like Morris... a guy that was more worried about doing the job... saving the bullpen... pitching 9 innings win or lose... versus the so-called specialist of today, and these guys that want to get out of a game after 5 innings if they have kept it to a so-called quality start, which guys like Morris would have laughed at.

 

So what we end up with is a bunch of guys more worried about their stats for their next contract... or consideration for the hall etc... than guys that go out there and get it done.  To me it has damaged the game with all the so-called specialization, and placing the sole measuring stick on the box score... than actually watching the player. 

 

Think about it, do you think for one minute half these guys voting have even seen an Angel game in the last 5 years?  oh sure maybe if they were playing the Yankees or something but aside from coincidence you think any of the so-called national writers watching anything more than highlight reels?  and reads the box score?

 

Is that the game you guys want to watch?  is that truly how we are to measure these players?

 

Don't get me wrong I'm not against stats and use them myself, but i also try to temper it with actually making an effort to research, watch, and read more than a box score.

 

Here is a stat to think about... Morris had 175 COMPLETE Games in his career...  from 1980 to 1991 he had 10 or more CG every year but once, 9 in '84.  The league leader last year had 5... only 2 guys have had 10 or more since 2000.

 

The de-evaluation of Jack Morris to me is the thesis of what has changed in the game in the last couple of decades and i cant say i like where its going.  Starting pitchers are to the point where if they go 5 and dont give up 5 runs they get applauded... to Morris that would have been a disgrace.  Grit and the so-called intangibles have become a punch line... but we an Angel fans know we dont win a title without them. 

 

We are on our way to nothing but specialization players in the game... and i tell you what when it gets to that point is the day i stop watching the game.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

Oh boy. You don't have anything to worry about as long as they keep limiting the number of spots on an active roster and don't change the rules to allow players to reenter a game. Those things have staid the same, what we are seeing is a more efficient use of players and better roster construction. Pitchers like Morris aren't around anymore, not because today's pitchers cannot pitch complete games, but rather because todays managers are smarter and understand that using tired pitchers leads to injury and additional losses.

 

Perhaps if Morris had been used more effectively he would have had a Hall of Fame career.

Edited January 10, 2014 by AngelsLakersFan

[Blarg]

There were a lot of pitchers that proceeded Morris that did the same thing during their careers, logged a ton of innings and paid the ERA price in the long run. They still were not the top of their class in terms of the best pitchers of their time.

 

Morris is only an example because no pitchers these days are groomed to pitch past a 120 pitch count. However the pitcher today seems to start fast and go as hard as they can for their 6 inning stint. In Morris day the pitcher would start off soft tossing the first three innings as a warm up and pitch harder in the late innings. Different times means different approaches.

 

It does not make Morris a Hall of Fame pitcher. He had a long career, a few memorable games in the World Series and overall just an average career ERA. In fact the only stat that Morris was leading the leagues with for any stretch of time was wild pitches.

 

In retrospect, Chuck Finley had a similar career but with no World Series chances to showcase his talent. Chuck Finley was not a Hall of Fame pitcher. 

[Mark68]

Floplag, your argument is really not about stats vs observation. It's about specialization. Guys don't complete games any more because there are closers, setup guys, and pitch counts. In the olden days, starting pitchers completed games because they were also the best pitchers on the team, and those that weren't good enough to be starters were relegated to the bullpen.

 

Things change, games evolve.

[floplag]

yes... you are right... but applying today's standards, to Morris, is part of the problem im referring to.

As for this rest this isnt just a Morris argument, only using him as the example... the idea of specialization and evolution of the game is the problem, using those to judge guys that played in a different time, under different rules and expectations... is silly

[Angelsjunky]

Chuck Finley is a great comp for Jack Morris:

 

Finley: 200-173, 3.85 ERA (3.91 FIP) in 3197.1 IP, 467 GS (63 CG, 15 Sho), 1332 BB (3.75/9), 2610 SO (7.35/9), 55.9 fWAR

Morris: 254-186, 3.90 ERA (3.94 FIP) in 3824 IP, 527 GS (175 CG, 28 Sho), 1390 BB (3.27/9), 2478 SO (5.83/9), 52.5 fWAR

 

The main difference is that Morris pitched more games, innings, and had many more complete games. Finley walked a few more batters but struck out more. Their ERAs are basically identificaly and they're both very close to their FIP. The difference in complete games is largely due to the eras they pitched in. Actually, even despite that Morris average only a half an inning more per start (7.1 to 6.6).

 

I've been vocal about disliking WAR for pitchers because it over-emphasizes peripherals and de-emphasizes things like run prevention, which WAR doesn't like because you can't separate it from defense. But it makes pitchers like Tom Glavine and Jered Weaver looks worse than they actually were or are. I plan on writing a post about this in regard to Jered Weaver for the blog when I get a chance, but let's take a look at Finley and Morris:

 

RA9-WAR

Finley: 57.4

Morris: 56.5

 

These numbers are very close to their WAR, which makes me think that their WAR is pretty close to their overall value. Compare Tom Glavine: 64.3 WAR, 88.0 RA9-WAR. That tells us that a lot of Glavine's value is in things that aren't represented by WAR (or FIP). Weaver is heading in that direction, with 30.4 WAR and 38.3 RA9-WAR.

 

Anyhow, the main point is that--like Eric said--if you vote for Jack Morris then you have to seriously consider Chuck Finley, who was just about as good but simply pitched 600 innings less - that's three years. Furthermore, what RA9-WAR points out is that there's very little "hidden value" in the stat lines of Morris and Finley. They are what they appear to be: #2 starters with excellent longevity. I'm not sure that qualifies as a Hall of Famer, but at least its worth considering.

[Inside Pitch]

There were a lot of pitchers that proceeded Morris that did the same thing during their careers, logged a ton of innings and paid the ERA price in the long run. They still were not the top of their class in terms of the best pitchers of their time.

 

Morris is only an example because no pitchers these days are groomed to pitch past a 120 pitch count. However the pitcher today seems to start fast and go as hard as they can for their 6 inning stint. In Morris day the pitcher would start off soft tossing the first three innings as a warm up and pitch harder in the late innings. Different times means different approaches.

 

It does not make Morris a Hall of Fame pitcher. He had a long career, a few memorable games in the World Series and overall just an average career ERA. In fact the only stat that Morris was leading the leagues with for any stretch of time was wild pitches.

 

In retrospect, Chuck Finley had a similar career but with no World Series chances to showcase his talent. Chuck Finley was not a Hall of Fame pitcher. 

 

Pitchers aren't groomed to throw 120 pitches in part because the game has changed.  Teams started to look at the attrition rate of arms and how pitch counts and innings totals may be impacting injuries and looked for ways to keep guys from breaking down.  The late 80s early 90s also saw the shift towards bullpen specialization than altered the game tremendously.  

 

The CG stat is a relic from a different era -- no different than the massive difference in CGs between Morris' era and Walter Johnson's.

[Mark68]

yes... you are right... but applying today's standards, to Morris, is part of the problem im referring to.

As for this rest this isnt just a Morris argument, only using him as the example... the idea of specialization and evolution of the game is the problem, using those to judge guys that played in a different time, under different rules and expectations... is silly

I don't think we're using just today's standards to argue against Morris. He wasn't even close to the best pitcher of his era. To use the "old" stats, he doesn't even measure up. He led the league in wins only twice, and one of those was in the abbreviated 1981 season. He led the league in ERA ZERO times. He led the league in complete games, shutouts, strikeouts, and innings pitched once each.

 

However, he did lead the league in walks and earned runs allowed once each, and for good measure, Morris led the league in wild pitches six times.

 

His career overlapped with Maddux's for nine years and, for all but the first two, Maddux was far superior.

 

In fact, his career overlapped with Chuck Finley's for nine years, and for all but the first three, FINLEY was the superior pitcher.

[Inside Pitch]

yes... you are right... but applying today's standards, to Morris, is part of the problem im referring to.

As for this rest this isnt just a Morris argument, only using him as the example... the idea of specialization and evolution of the game is the problem, using those to judge guys that played in a different time, under different rules and expectations... is silly

 

 

So compare him to Lolich, Tiant, Kaat.   None of those guys are HOFers -- if Tian't isnt a HOFer, I can't see why anyone would argue that Morris should be.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Inside Pitch

[Brent Maguire]

Pitchers aren't pitching complete games anymore because statistics show that pitchers get WAY worse the 3rd time through the batting order.

Thats not groundbreaking news to anybody but it's a huge reason why pitchers aren't being forced to go 7-9 innings every game.

The ever growing number of power arms in the bullpen is definitely contributing to this as well. When a guy is gassed, there's no real reason to keep him out there when you can bring a guy in that throws 98.

[YouthofToday]

How many Cy Awards did Morris win? Was he ever the best pitcher in a 3 year time period?

I did it hilarious how folks try to pigeon home any and all narratives possible to get him in. It's like findings facts to fit your conclusion versus having a thesis, exploring facts and ... ... After facts and observations are evaluated a conclusion can possibly be reached.

[Angel_In_Germany]

You'd be hard pressed to find pitchers who are only looking to go 5 innings, most aren't happy with being pulled, so I think that's an unfair statement in the OP.

[Brent Maguire]

How many Cy Awards did Morris win? Was he ever the best pitcher in a 3 year time period?

I did it hilarious how folks try to pigeon home any and all narratives possible to get him in. It's like findings facts to fit your conclusion versus having a thesis, exploring facts and ... ... After facts and observations are evaluated a conclusion can possibly be reached.

Yup. 

 

The worst argument I keep hearing is the "winningest pitcher of the decade" argument. Are we still not past the stage where we are valuing pitchers wins more than anything? 

 

Morris was good in the 1980's no doubt. He still wasn't the best or really even close to the best. By fWAR, he was the 10th best pitcher with 32.3 fWAR, ranking behind Mike Witt. 

[HaloMagic]

get out of a game after 5 innings if they have kept it to a so-called quality start,

I just wanted to point out that this isn't possible.

[mtangelsfan]

How many Cy Awards did Morris win? Was he ever the best pitcher in a 3 year time period?

I did it hilarious how folks try to pigeon home any and all narratives possible to get him in. It's like findings facts to fit your conclusion versus having a thesis, exploring facts and ... ... After facts and observations are evaluated a conclusion can possibly be reached.

 

Wait, are you a stat guy actually using lack of a purely subjective voted in award as proof as to why shouldn't be in the HOF?  That seems a little hypocritical to me.

 

Regardless, I am not a stat guy by any means.  But there is no damage to the game.  If people enjoy the game based on statitistics, more power to them.  Personally I think they miss out on other things but that is only my opinion.  There is no damage to the game.  Zero. 

 

It's a great game, the more the merrier.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Chuck Finley is a great comp for Jack Morris:

 

Finley: 200-173, 3.85 ERA (3.91 FIP) in 3197.1 IP, 467 GS (63 CG, 15 Sho), 1332 BB (3.75/9), 2610 SO (7.35/9), 55.9 fWAR

Morris: 254-186, 3.90 ERA (3.94 FIP) in 3824 IP, 527 GS (175 CG, 28 Sho), 1390 BB (3.27/9), 2478 SO (5.83/9), 52.5 fWAR

 

The main difference is that Morris pitched more games, innings, and had many more complete games. Finley walked a few more batters but struck out more. Their ERAs are basically identificaly and they're both very close to their FIP. The difference in complete games is largely due to the eras they pitched in. Actually, even despite that Morris average only a half an inning more per start (7.1 to 6.6).

 

I've been vocal about disliking WAR for pitchers because it over-emphasizes peripherals and de-emphasizes things like run prevention, which WAR doesn't like because you can't separate it from defense. But it makes pitchers like Tom Glavine and Jered Weaver looks worse than they actually were or are. I plan on writing a post about this in regard to Jered Weaver for the blog when I get a chance, but let's take a look at Finley and Morris:

 

RA9-WAR

Finley: 57.4

Morris: 56.5

 

These numbers are very close to their WAR, which makes me think that their WAR is pretty close to their overall value. Compare Tom Glavine: 64.3 WAR, 88.0 RA9-WAR. That tells us that a lot of Glavine's value is in things that aren't represented by WAR (or FIP). Weaver is heading in that direction, with 30.4 WAR and 38.3 RA9-WAR.

 

Anyhow, the main point is that--like Eric said--if you vote for Jack Morris then you have to seriously consider Chuck Finley, who was just about as good but simply pitched 600 innings less - that's three years. Furthermore, what RA9-WAR points out is that there's very little "hidden value" in the stat lines of Morris and Finley. They are what they appear to be: #2 starters with excellent longevity. I'm not sure that qualifies as a Hall of Famer, but at least its worth considering.

 

These stats indicate that Finley was the better pitcher, but that Morris pitched about two more years. It's not exactly fair to make excuses but those two years are perhaps accounted for in Finley's lost time in the bullpen and in not being signed due to having that compensation pick tied to him as a free agent at the end of his career.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Wait, are you a stat guy actually using lack of a purely subjective voted in award as proof as to why shouldn't be in the HOF?  That seems a little hypocritical to me.

 

Regardless, I am not a stat guy by any means.  But there is no damage to the game.  If people enjoy the game based on statitistics, more power to them.  Personally I think they miss out on other things but that is only my opinion.  There is no damage to the game.  Zero. 

 

It's a great game, the more the merrier.

 

He's trying to argue with logic the OP will give credence to. 

[Stradling]

I stopped giving flops post any credence when very early on he said that all pitchers care about today are their stats and that they only want to pitch 5 innings because they didn't want their stats affected. That is absolutely ridiculous. Go ahead and tell me that Weaver, Lackey, CJ, hell any guy worth his salt wants to come out after 5 innings. Pitchers today want to go deep into games just like pitchers back in the day. The game has changed but that isn't on the pitcher, that is on organizational philosophy and the trend of the league.

[tdawg87]

It's funny because IP are one of the most important stats for a SP.

[floplag]

I stopped giving flops post any credence when very early on he said that all pitchers care about today are their stats and that they only want to pitch 5 innings because they didn't want their stats affected. That is absolutely ridiculous. Go ahead and tell me that Weaver, Lackey, CJ, hell any guy worth his salt wants to come out after 5 innings. Pitchers today want to go deep into games just like pitchers back in the day. The game has changed but that isn't on the pitcher, that is on organizational philosophy and the trend of the league.

 

i dont really care if you give my posts credence or not, but if you truly think there are not players more worried about their stats, contracts, and personal gain over the team or anything else you haven't been watching.

[floplag]

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.   

[tdawg87]

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.

I respect your opinion but do you see why your whole "complete game" argument is hypocritical? CG is a "quantifiable stat", as you put it, and so are shutouts. These are good stats, but as many others have already stated, they are a product of their era. Look at CG's for pitchers in the early 1900's. Morris doesn't even compare. Just like pitchers of today don't compare to Morris in that regard. You say that this is because pitchers only care about their own stats but you are completely neglecting the fact that IP and CG are important stats on their own. You are just picking CG because it supports your argument and because it is the only stat that does so you are throwing out all other stats and blaming "statheads" for ruining the game.

Also in regards to your "fear" argument, do you think hitters truly feared a finesse guy like Maddux?

[Docwaukee]

i dont really care if you give my posts credence or not, but if you truly think there are not players more worried about their stats, contracts, and personal gain over the team or anything else you haven't been watching.

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. 

[floplag]

I respect your opinion but do you see why your whole "complete game" argument is hypocritical? CG is a "quantifiable stat", as you put it, and so are shutouts. These are good stats, but as many others have already stated, they are a product of their era. Look at CG's for pitchers in the early 1900's. Morris doesn't even compare. Just like pitchers of today don't compare to Morris in that regard. You say that this is because pitchers only care about their own stats but you are completely neglecting the fact that IP and CG are important stats on their own. You are just picking CG because it supports your argument and because it is the only stat that does so you are throwing out all other stats and blaming "statheads" for ruining the game.

Also in regards to your "fear" argument, do you think hitters truly feared a finesse guy like Maddux?

 

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?

 

[mtangelsfan]

I respect your opinion but do you see why your whole "complete game" argument is hypocritical? CG is a "quantifiable stat", as you put it, and so are shutouts. These are good stats, but as many others have already stated, they are a product of their era. Look at CG's for pitchers in the early 1900's. Morris doesn't even compare. Just like pitchers of today don't compare to Morris in that regard. You say that this is because pitchers only care about their own stats but you are completely neglecting the fact that IP and CG are important stats on their own. You are just picking CG because it supports your argument and because it is the only stat that does so you are throwing out all other stats and blaming "statheads" for ruining the game.

Also in regards to your "fear" argument, do you think hitters truly feared a finesse guy like Maddux?

 

I pretty much agree with you except for this.  I don't think they liked facing Maddux very much at all.  The fact that he got them out a whole bunch would say that.  Maybe you mean like Kruk feared facing Johnson in the ASG that one year, but that was stupid.  Fear is subjective.  Crap, Jeppy throws really hard, I doubt too many hitters fear him.