Tiger337

19 minutes ago, chasfh said:

But Jack Morris does have big games, and rings attributed mainly to him, so despite his lackluster overall numbers he’s in, even though he is far more suited more for the Hall of Famous than the Hall of Fame.

I have softened my stance on Morris's Hall of Fame credientials is recent years.  I don't consider him a big-game pitcher (not after watching 1987), he didn't "pitch to the score" and I don't care about "most wins in the 80s", but he was the most durable pitcher of his era and was the last of the complete game pitchers.  Looking at 1980 forward, he had 165 CG.  The closest one to him is Roger Clemems with 118.  Even if you go back to 1975, he is still #1. although not by as much: Morris 175 Blyleven 165 Ryan 137 Tanana 129 Niekro 127 Carlton 123.  

https://www.sports-reference.com/stathead/baseball/player-pitching-season-finder.cgi?request=1&match=player_season_combined&order_by=p_cg&year_min=1980

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Also, casual fans might mutiny if the franchise superstar they identify the team with is being benched for ineffectiveness, which would cost the team revenue. I think that would have been the case with Miggy here.

I think casual tuned out during most of that period.  Losing 100 games a year will do that.  If anything, they got pissed off about losing three stars that were actually still great - Verlander, Scherzer and Martinez - for practically nothing.  

1 minute ago, Tenacious D said:

Might have helped his Hall chances.

It would still be filthy

31 minutes ago, casimir said:

Interesting.  I thought Baltimore had serious interest in Whitaker and Cleveland had serious interest in Trammell in their final years.  I don’t recall the Whitaker and Atlanta tango.

The Yankees were interested in Whitaker too.  What a tragedy that would have been.  

31 minutes ago, casimir said:

Vina.  That’s an awesome pull.

I think his fielding along with his facial hair, grit and ability to get stars to sign with the Tigers is enough to get him into the Hall of Fame.  

Riley Greene may be down to one tool in a couple of years.  

2 hours ago, oblong said:

Nice to see you post TTF.  It's been a long time, eh?

 

Do we know it's the same person?  

26 minutes ago, buddha said:

kent's peak was better than whitaker. 

His hitting peak was better.  There is a a lot of uncertainty in fielding statistcs, but Whitaker ranks way ahead of Kent on every advanced metric I've seen, so I've got to believe he's got a big edge defensively.   And Kent isn't that far ahead offensively overall (123 OPS+ vs 118).  I do understand why Whitaker is not in.  Leaving aside all the BS reasons, he never had an MVP type season which is pretty odd given how many really good sesons he had.   You would think that he would have randomly had one elite season in all that.   

49 minutes ago, oblong said:

Where was Alomar?

 

21 runs saved.  

I have been reading Michael Humphrey's book: Wizardry where he explains his Defensive Regression Analysis stat.  According to this statistic, the second basemen we have been talking about had the following runs saved:

Grich 133

Whitaker 101

Sandberg 79

Kent -11

Best second basemen ever:

Frisch 224

Gordon 191

Mazeroski 149

Hubbard 137

Whitaker was 9th.  

Other Tigers

Vina 51

Easley 38

Polanco 29

Gehringer 14

McAuliffe -4

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

He and Austin Jackson, two of the last great glove men who didn't dive to cover ground.

If Whitaker dove more, he'd be in the Hall of Fame!

There may actually be some truth to that

14 minutes ago, tiger2022 said:

Gold gloves are not that impressive.  Jeter won 5 of them.  He had about as much range as my deceased grandfather.

Whitaker was legitimate though.  I don't care about gold gloves, but Whitaker was an excellent fielder by any metric.  

Whitaker was better than Kent.  Kent hit a liitle better, but Whitaker's superior fielding more than made up for it. 

Sandberg was better, but Whitaker lasted longer.  

Grich was slighly better for a short period, but Whitaker had more good years.  Grich missed more time to injuries.  

Utley was better, but Whitaker had more good years.  

I'd put them all in expect maybe Kent.  I've always had Kent on the bubble.  

You talk about the end of Whitaker's career like it was nothing.  He hit a lot better than most platoon players and it wasn't a strict platoon.  He accumulated enough plate appearances to get 4.7, 4.1, 2.5, 1.5 WAR from age 35 to 38.  Lots of great hitters can't do what he did in the end.  He also could still handle middle infield capably up until age 37 which is rare.  His consistency and endurance was pretty special and I'm not just saying that as a fan boy. 

2 hours ago, buddha said:

its why bobby grich isnt in.  voters tend to go with narrative and counting stats and peak value over guys who were consistently "very good" over their whole careers.

why is jack morris in the hall of fame and dave steib isnt?  or mark beuhrle?  narrative.  big game performances on the biggest stage.  not a steady accumulation of stats over a long period. 

whitaker gets in if there's a massive movement publicly to do it.  his peers have rejected him multiple times, they just dont consider him a star.

i like lou.  i want lou in, but he's still borderline for me because i'm more of a peak voter than a "compiler" voter.

Lou was a a compiler, but he was the best compiler in the history of the game!  Seriously, 17 years with an OPS over 100 for a middle infielder without ever having without ever having an MVP type season.  Nobody else has done that.  

1 hour ago, buddha said:

people dont remember lou whitaker.  trammell had a higher peak, was in the game after retirement, played short stop, was a top 10 mvp candidate 3 times, six time all star, was second in mvp in 87, was a world series mvp.

that **** matters in who gets into the hall of fame.  its why morris and trammell are in.  its why whitaker isnt.

This is the reason Lou Whitaker gives for not being in the Hall of Fame and it may be one of the biggest. I would think the lifers on the Veterans Committee loves guys that stay in the game.  

When Whitaker said that, Denny McLain (one of the interviewers) asked him in a seemingly accusatory tone why he he didn't stay in the game.  Whitaker said that he was dedicating his time to his religon and family.   I don't think McLain understood that. 😀 That whole interview was probably the best Whitaker interview ever.  He never sounded that good when he was playing.

The Drunk Lou Whitaker interview where he ripped Jack Morris was a good one too!

14 hours ago, buddha said:

the #1 overall pick in the draft turns out to be an ok #4 depth starter.  Not ideal.

that could easily be jackson jobe soon too.  pitchers are fragile.

Better than Matt Anderson.  

53 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Here's a little trivia.

The Tigers have a winning record since Scott Harris took over baseball operations. Who is the last GM (since all his predecessors had that role name) under whom the Tigers had a winning record during his tenure?

The guy that was GM for just one year?  

1 hour ago, oblong said:

Whitaker did win the GG and Silver Slugger 3 years in a row.  His top 3 similar batters on BR are in the HOF, as are 6 of the 10.   The HOF is what the voters make of it and if a guy is better than others that are in there, and more importantly are still getting in there, he should make it.  There's no definitive standard.  Lou has a better case than Tram did.  

Right, Based on who is in the Hall of Fame, both Whitaker and Trammell belong.  They are not Honus Wagner and Rogers Hornsby, but they are as good or better than half the players at their position.  Saying thst Player X belongs in the Hall of Fame because he's better than Baines is a weak argument, but when you are as good or better than half the players at your position, that's a legitimate argument. 

I also think it's OK for a voter to be a small Hall of Fame guy who won't vote for Whitaker, but they need to be consistent.  If that same person votes for David Ortiz and Jim Rice, then then he's not being honest.  

42 minutes ago, tiger2022 said:

Eddie Murray is an interesting case.

In 22 seasons, Murray hit 30+ HRs only 4 times with a high of 33.  

And age 31 to the end of his career, outside of 1 season, he was pretty mediocre.

People think he was this big basher and amazing hitter because he got to 3000 and 500, but he was always healthy and wouldn't retire...just kept getting at bats.  His last 10 years he had 12.2 WAR and his first 13 he had 56.6.  A lot of counting stats were just those of an average player for a lot of his career.

I didn't really start paying attention to baseball until about '86 or so and by that time he was kind of on the downward part of his career, which is why I wasn't too impressed with him.

I was thinking about him just the other day.  I remembered him as a big slugger back in the 80s.  When I looked him up, I was surprised that he never came close 40 homers.  There weren't as many home runs back then, but I thought he would have reached that mark at least once.  He was really good in his prime though - more of an all around hitter with high a batting average, lots of doubles, 30 homers per year.  He was also a good defensive first basemen.  He was also very consistent.  He had almost the same OPS+ every year from 1981-1984:

1981 156

1982 156

1983 156

1984 157

4 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Very good post. What would be interesting would be to see how many runs the bullpen gave up when they took over for these guys. Starting pitchers that only go 5 or 6 innings really put stress on a bullpen. Especially if it's a few starters in a row. Thats something else people overlook about Skubal, he allows the bullpen to rest in many of his starts. He would be extremely hard to replace.

There is no doubt that innings pitched for starters has become an important stat.  

41 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

I don’t buy the logic that because Whitaker isn’t in then Kent doesn’t belong either. Kent is a clear cut HOF on his own merit. Whitaker should be in, too, but the veterans committee have an attitude towards him.  I suspect they care very little for WAR and probably view it with disdain.  Lou was a bit squirrelly during his playing days and that probably rubbed his fellow players the wrong way. Hopefully this will be righted eventually.

I don't think either one is clear cut.  Whitaker is a unicorn.  He had more very good seasons than almost any infielder in history, but never had a great season.  If someone thinks that great seasons are the qualification for HoF, then they wouldn't vote for Whitaker.   That is fine as long as they are consistent.  I put a lot of weight on career value and constency.  Kent just doesn't have enough overall career value for me to say that he's clear cut.  He is not the worst Hall of Famer, but I think he gets overrated because of his Bonds-aided RBI totals.  

I don't think Whitaker is shunned just because of his personality.  I think that voters just won't look beyond hits, homers, all-star games and world series titles.

1 hour ago, tiger2022 said:

Kershaw has 80.9 WAR and Verlander has 81.7 WAR.  Who was a better pitcher?  Verlander is 5 years older than Kershaw.  One just retired and the other is playing another year

 

Kershaw was the more dominant pitcher most years.  Verlander had more career value which is what WAR measures.   If you are more interested in peak value or dominance, then WAA (Wins Above Average) is one way to measure that.  Kershaw finishes ahead of him in that.  Pitchers are even harder to rank than hitters though because their role has changed so much throughout history.  

43 minutes ago, tiger2022 said:

WAR per 162 game average:

Keith Hernandez 4.7

Will Clark 4.6

Mark Teixeira 4.4

Jack Clark 4.3

John Olerud 4.2

Miguel Cabrera 3.9

Don Mattingly 3.8

Guess the one that is a sure fire 1st ballot HOFer and guess which ones have zero chance at making the HOF?

All the guys played at least 15 years.  And Kent has the same WAR per 162 games as Cabrera, 3.9

 

Craig Nettles, 68.0 WAR, 22 years, 4.1 per 162 games

Miguel Cabrera, 67.2 WAR, 21 years. 3.9 per 162 games.

Buddy Bell, 66.3 WAR, 18 years, 4.5 per 162 games.

 

 

WAR per 162 game average is not particulatly interesting and it kind of goes against the point of WAR which is a cumulative stat. 

Cabrera will be first ballot because of how great of a hitter he was at his peak.  I really wish his last 7 years were not trash, because he looked like he was going to be in the Hank Aaron or Frank Robinson class.  

19 minutes ago, tiger2022 said:

I imagine Bonds hit all those home runs for him too.  

The dude still did what he did, no matter how much you don't want it to be true.  

Also, Kent hit 3rd and Bonds hit 4th.  Whitaker had an actual HOFer hitting after him.  That Bonds fellow couldn't even make it in the HOF.

 

Bonds batted third and Kent batted fourth in the years when Kent was getting a lot of RBI.  I just looked it up on b-ref to make sure I was remembering correctly.  I also remember they gave Kent credit for protecting Bonds which was silly. 

Kent did what he did...he was very good, but was overrated because writers love RBI.  He's not the worst Hall of Famer ever, but there are a couple of second basemen who should have been in before him.  One of them is Whitaker.  

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with Trammell batting behind Whitaker.  

6 minutes ago, Stormin said:

" You can get into the HOF if you hit 377 HRs, .862 OPS, 139 OPS+ and are a slow base runner and a poor fielder?  Why didn't the Tigers let me play second base?   -- Signed Norm Cash" 🙂

As you probably remember, Cash also had a rep as a good first baseman.  It's hard to measure firstbase defense, but the stats back up his reputation, at least in the 60s before he aged.