Last week I mentioned the little tweet-storm Jon Heyman set off when he announced his Hall of Fame ballot. To review, he had Robbie Alomar, Andrew Dawson, Barry Larkin, Dave Parker, Jack Morris and Don Mattingly.
Many people took issue with this ballot, myself included. It’s a pretty
awful one all things considered. Parker? Morris? Mattingly?
At
the time I gave kudos to Heyman for standing in the box and defending
his choices. Maybe he should have quit while he was, well, stalemated.
Because today he wrote a column defending his choices in greater detail, and his case hasn’t been helped a bit. With apologies to Ken Tremendous, let’s run down this bad-boy, passage-by passage:
I consider impact more than stats. I like dominance over durability. I
prefer players who were great at some point to the ones who were merely
very good for a very long time. And I do recall it’s called the Hall of
Fame, not the Hall of Numbers.
Which
explains why he has voted for the dominant Jack Morris? (note: Jack
Morris was never dominant) and why he leaves out the famous Mark
McGwire?
The reason I haven’t yet voted for Raines is that while he was a star
in Montreal, he was merely a good player for the bulk of the rest his
career, spent mainly with the White Sox and Yankees.
Wait,
what happened to “great at some point” mattering and “good
for a long time” not being important? He has completely reversed that
with Raines.
Every year, I take hits for my lack of support of Blyleven, and this
time on Twitter I was called “stupid,” a “moron” and “idiotic,” by
(at least) a trio of Blyleven supporters. No one player incites more
controversy or stirs more emotion over his candidacy, which is slightly
ironic after a career that was marked by solid attributes such as
consistency and durability but somewhat lacking in drama.
In
the Twitter exchanges Heyman refers to there were maybe three or four
people just calling names. There were a dozen or two making sober and
cogent arguments. Heyman never addresses those arguments. It’s all
about the crazies.
My contention regarding Blyleven is that almost no one viewed him as a
Hall of Famer during his playing career, and that is borne out by the
17 percent of the vote he received in his first year of eligibility in
1998, followed by 14 percent the next year.
Yet
he is a fan of Morris, who got 22.9% of the vote in his first year and
19.6% of the vote in his second. And he spent a paragraph talking about
how his mind is changing on Tim Raines, who got 24.3% in his first year
of eligibility, but not Heyman’s vote. And Don Mattingly, who was last
seen hovering at around 16%, and also did not previously get Heyman’s
vote. And Dave Parker, who continues to get way less than 20% of the
vote (and who has a drug history unmatched in the game, which Heyman
says should disqualify McGwire).
Look, it’s completely
legitimate to change one’s vote over time. Heyman does it himself. But
to point to Blyleveln’s lackluster first year vote totals as evidence
against his Hall of Fame case is both disingenuous and tautologous.
After going on and on about how Blyleven never showed greatness as opposed to the ability to merely compile stats, Heyman says:
Some will say that Blyleven’s career was equal to Hall of Famer Don Sutton’s
but I say it is just short of Sutton’s. They both had big totals in
other categories but Sutton wound up with 37 more victories, going over
the magic 300 mark by 24.
Got that? Stat compilers suck, unless of course they compile long enough to reach some arbitrary number like 300. And make no mistake: if Blyleven had gotten the 13 wins needed to make 300, Heyman would have no problem with his relative lack of “dominance” his winning percentage or the cut of his jib. He would have voted for him on the first ballot, because he just decided that he likes some numbers and doesn’t like others, no matter how important or unimportant they are.
Many stat people suggest wins are not important in evaluating careers.
But until wins don’t decide who’s in the playoffs and who’s out, who
makes the World Series and who doesn’t, I will continue to view them as
important. A pitcher’s goal for each game is to win the game, not to
strikeout the most batters. And until that changes, I will count wins
and losses.
OK, fine, you’ve changed course on your “compiling argument.” It’s your column. So let’s assume that counting wins does matter. Unless
Heyman has devised a different sort of counting than we’re used to, how
he fails to acknowledge that Blyleven, at 287, has more wins than
Morris, at 254 is beyond me. And given that he votes for position
players who don’t get any wins credited to them, I assume he
appreciates that wins are team stats, not purely individual ones. Of
course if he concedes that Don Mattingly didn’t care about winning,
I’ll retract this point.
Heyman would, and often does, point to winning percentage as
a key factor, noting that while his supporters often cite the fact that
Blyleven pitched for bad teams, his career winning percentage — .534
– wasn’t that much better than the teams on which he pitched: .496.
What he leaves out is that the difference between Morris’ career winning
percentage — .577 — and the teams on which he pitched — .547 — is
actually less than Blyleven’s. In other words, Blyleven outpitched his teams at a better clip than the supposedly dominant Morris did.
My basic philosophy
is to emphasis impact more than numbers . . . It is why I vote or Jack
Morris, a bulldog who was considered the best
pitcher of the ’80s, and who pitched the best game of the ’90s.
The
fact that anyone considers Jack Morris the best pitcher of the 80s is
curious at best. Sure, if you go by “wins between 1980 and 1990″ I suppose he
is, but Roger Clemens was a better pitcher every single season they
shared the league together outside of Clemens’ rookie year. Dave Stieb
was better than Morris over the entire decade. But even if you set
those guys aside, doesn’t one have to acknowledge that any of the top
5-10 pitchers of the 70s — a group to which Bert Blyleven belongs –
would have, in their prime, been the best pitcher of the 80s? Being the
best starter of the 80s is like being the best football team in Alaska.
Nice factoid, but it has nothing to do with greatness.
Jack Morris: Dominant bulldog received Cy Young votes seven times, won more games in
the ’80s than anyone and was a general force in the American League
(though his overall stats admittedly aren’t as good as Blyleven’s).
So
if the stats don’t matter, we take away the most wins in the 80s thing
and we’re left with, what? Morris was a “dominant bulldog” who won Game
7 of the 1991 World Series? That’s the Hall of Fame case for Jack
Morris and the anti-case for Blyleven?
Great. It’s Heyman’s
ballot and he can do what he’d like to it. I’d just like him to point
to one piece of objective evidence that establishes Jack Morris as
“dominant” before he expects me to even begin to agree with his vote.
Until that time, I’m going to continue to assume that Heyman, like many
other writers, simply decided at one point that Bert Blyleven isn’t a
Hall of Famer and continues his increasingly stubborn search for
evidence to back up that opinion with something approaching facts.
-
- Matt - Jan 4, 2010 at 2:44 PM
-
Thank you, Craig. Heyman has been asking to be taken down for quite some time. I appreciate that he has connections that allow him access to information that the public does not have by virtue of his position, but his opinions are consistently ill-informed and serve to dumb down the dialogue, as he’s incapable or unwilling to support what he puts forward. He’s far too willing to give in to his personal biases and preferences for my liking, and it seeps into much of the content he produces. This is yet another example. It’s a shame that someone like him has the platform he does.
-
- largebill - Jan 4, 2010 at 2:48 PM
-
Ouch. Very well stated. I can understand not voting for Blyleven if you’re a really small Hall of Fame kind of guy. However, voting for Morris while saying Blyleven is unworthy is silly. The nicest thing I could say about Heyman’s column is to describe it as nonsensical. One would think he has friends in the BBWAA who could at least get him to stop digging. Each “explanation” further harms his reputation.
-
- Grant - Jan 4, 2010 at 2:51 PM
-
You forget that Jack Morris led the 80s in the all-important DGSARC (Dominant Bulldog Starts Above Replacement Canine) stat. Blyleven? A pedestrian 11th.
-
- Andy - Jan 4, 2010 at 2:55 PM
-
“Every year, I take hits for my lack of support of Blyleven, and this time on Twitter I was called “stupid,” a “moron” and “idiotic,” by (at least) a trio of Blyleven supporters.”
Heyman used Twitter to call Keith Law “dumb” after his Cy Young vote.
-
- Paul C - Jan 4, 2010 at 2:56 PM
-
“I’m going to continue to assume that Heyman, like many other writers, simply decided at one point that Bert Blyleven isn’t a Hall of Famer and continues his increasingly stubborn search for evidence to back up that opinion with something approaching facts.”
I think that’s most disturbing part of this whole debate b/c I believe that mentality spills over into Heyman’s, and other writer’s, everyday work.
-
- palehose67 - Jan 4, 2010 at 3:15 PM
-
J. Lombardo would be proud of your use of “tautologous”, Craig. Nicely done. By the way, great blog.
-
- JonathanG - Jan 4, 2010 at 3:18 PM
-
Heyman enrages me so I’m thankful that you decided on the FJM approach for this article Craig. The part I think I hated most was when he went on his little rant about WINS and how they still decide the world series.
I think its nice that Jonny is giving stats a look after many years of approaching the game in a different way. But this is cherry picking with a side of uninformed snark, pure and simple. Confirmation bias at its finest.
-
- Craig Calcaterra - Jan 4, 2010 at 3:18 PM
-
Hey Bob! Thanks for posting. I actually spend time thinking about Lombardo bingo. Words that he would be jealous that I used before he could use them. For this reason I always use “fisticuffs” and “donneybrook” whenever a fight errupts in a ballgame.
-
- Chuck - Jan 4, 2010 at 3:32 PM
-
What a muddled line of arguing Heyman presents. If you are going to have a bias (peak vs. durability, small hall vs. big hall) at least be consistent. Heyman’s reasoning all appears to be post hoc, slapped together to simply defend his gut decisions.
-
- Bill@TDS - Jan 4, 2010 at 3:38 PM
-
Well done. His column actually makes him come out sounding even worse than the votes did on their own, if that’s possible.
I just can’t get over how many people make so much out of the “most wins in the 80s” thing.
Morris had 162 wins in the ten seasons from 1980-1989. Great.
Ron Guidry had 163 wins in the ten seasons from 1977-1986. Frank Viola had 163 wins in the ten seasons from 1984-1993. Both were much better pitchers during their respective spans than Morris was through the ’80s. So Morris’ is really that much more impressive because it started on a year ending in zero?
-
- Anonymous Communist - Jan 4, 2010 at 3:38 PM
-
I was among those making cogent arguments to Heyman’s original tweet. They certainly weren’t sober, though.
-
- Josh - Jan 4, 2010 at 3:47 PM
-
Craig, if you are going to continue citing Mr. Tremendous as the standard for snarky sports criticism, then please speak to the folks at NBC about hiring him as a guest columnist or something. C’mon, maybe? Pleeeeease? I miss FJM so much.
-
- Joey B - Jan 4, 2010 at 3:56 PM
-
“My contention regarding Blyleven is that almost no one viewed him as a Hall of Famer during his playing career, and that is borne out by the 17 percent of the vote he received in his first year of eligibility in 1998, followed by 14 percent the next year.”
Not for nothing, but he should not be relying on how other people vote. Either he beleives in Blyleven or he doesn’t. His opinion to not vote for Blyleven should be completely independent of how others feel.
-
- Josh - Jan 4, 2010 at 4:00 PM
-
I would also like to draw Mr. Heyman’s attention to a fact that everyone knows but nobody cares about, that goes towards the credibility of his “Morris = dominant because of most wins in the ’80s” malarkey: Mark Grace had more hits than any other player in the 1990s. A whole decade and Gracie had the most hits. In the Steroid Era primetime! I’m sure we’ll see Heyman pimping Grace’s candidacy, right? I mean, “most of something in a decade” equals “dominance”! Unlike wins, hits are even better because they’re individual. Add in that Grace played fantastic defense, knew how to bunt, often told the umpire whether it was a ball or a strike, and was a clubhouse leader, and Heyman no doubt thinks he’s a first ballot HoF’er!
Or, maybe he knows, like I do even though I bleed Cubs blue, that Mark Grace was merely far above average and should never get into Cooperstown unless it’s for his invention (if Canseco’s book is right) of disgusting slang terms for sex – a valuable part of baseball culture and arguably a better representation of Grace’s career than his hitting.
-
- HP3 - Jan 4, 2010 at 4:05 PM
-
On the MLB Network last January, Joe Magrane and Mitch Williams were making the case for Blyleven for the Hall. Jon Heyman said accumulated stats don’t necessarily justify admittance to the Hall and that in Heyman’s mind Blyleven doesn’t belong.
Joe Magrane uttered the most insightful comment of the discussion:
“Jon, if Chico Escuela had played five more years for the Mets, you would vote for him.”
-
- ssweeps - Jan 4, 2010 at 4:19 PM
-
Why can’t Heyman be fired or at least have his vote taken away?
IDIOTIC has a new definition now—look the word up in the dictionary and see Heyman’s picture and dumb look on his face. OUCH!
Blyleven should have been in the HOF years ago. Please give me the vote so I can right the wrongs. Ron Santo, Tony Oliva, Gil Hodges, and even Mickey Lolich are better choices than Heyman’s vote.
Bobby Doerr made it because Ted Williams was his teammate…
STRIKE THREE AND YOUR OUT HEYMAN!
-
- largebill - Jan 4, 2010 at 4:50 PM
-
“My contention regarding Blyleven is that almost no one viewed him as a Hall of Famer during his playing career”
Lincoln was considered an awful president and an abuser of his presidential power by more than half the country during his presidential career. His reputation in the south didn’t start to improve until mid way through the next century.
-
- Tim R. - Jan 4, 2010 at 5:09 PM
-
What a douche. Look out Heyman…I’m gonna crap in your coffee one day soon.
-
- Robert - Jan 4, 2010 at 5:20 PM
-
Likewise I think read that Shakespeare wasn’t that highly regarded in his time. Shakespeare wasn’t viewed as *Shakespeare*. Therefore he really shouldn’t be regarded as a great writer now. QED
-
- salvo - Jan 4, 2010 at 5:41 PM
-
You want dominance??? Isn’t pitching a shutout dominant?
In all baseball history, 8 pitchers threw more shutouts than Bert Blylven: Tom Seaver and Nolan Ryan each had one more; Warren Spahn had three more, and then 5 guys Heyman may or may not have heard of who all pitched in the Deadball Era: Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, Grover Cleveland Alexander, and Eddie Plank. Hall of Famers all.
And the next 13 guys on the list after Blyleven are all in the Hall of Fame. (Blyleven is the ONLY pitcher among all those whose entire MLB career was from 1970 on.)
The reason all the guys are in the Hall of Fame is because it’s hard to compile boatloads of complete-game shutouts unless you’re dominant.
And I think he’s also No. 2 all-time in 1-0 victories. Talk about pitching to the score!!!
-
- Will Davidian - Jan 4, 2010 at 6:45 PM
-
I’d like to point out that Heyman casts himself as a victim being called “stupid” on Twitter for his ballot choices. Meanwhile, he made sure to invoke the “#dumbsportswriters” tag when it came to Keith Law’s NL Cy Young vote. At best case, Heyman is a hypocrite, but when you consider his crappy analysis, shady reporting (Scott Boras ties) and trollish agenda, he looks like a complete piece of garbage.
-
- Matt - Jan 4, 2010 at 8:04 PM
-
Complete piece of garbage! I love it. Heyman richly deserves this sort of reaction to his hackery.
-
- Tony - Jan 5, 2010 at 12:02 PM
-
Interesting comparison to Don Sutton, who is at best a questionable Hall of Famer. He can thank good health, leading to 20 plus years to accumulate wins and strikeouts, rather than real Hall of Fame talent.
That Blyleven and Morris are in the mix demonstrates how standards seem to slip year by year.
-
- Agnus Delacueva - Jan 17, 2010 at 4:10 AM
-
I just couldnt leave your website before saying that I really enjoyed the quality information you offer to your visitors… Will be back often to check up on new stuff you post!
-
- Finance - Feb 10, 2010 at 3:42 AM
-
Apart from being sexy, what do you do for a living?
