Goose Gossage Newest Member of Hall of Fame

For whatever reason, a rather lengthy post I just typed a half hour ago did not take. I will try again, but probably abbreviated. At any rate, still some of the same ole fluff:

I did not post selectively. I did not say Concepcion's numbers were better than Tram's across the board. Tram overall had a better bat (who wouldn't in Detroit?). Tram rates higher in his era than Davey in a few places, Davey rates higher in many others (some markedly so), and the rest of the time they're fairly even. Defensively, somewhat even, but Davey has twice the GG and was just more notable. The FP are comparable, but the park factor gives Davey a nod. MHOF for Tram is a full 25 points lower than either Oz or Davey. Tram's inconsistent where Davey was the opposite. What helps Tram is he is arguable in the top 2 of his team. Davey would be the fourth or fifth best player on his team. I still say that's irrelevant. It's not Davey's fault he was on a team with Rose, Morgan, Bench, et.al. I just don't see Tram being so much better than Davey. The numbers do not say that. Among comparables, Davey has six in the Hall. Tram? Just one.

Oh, well, if the all-knowing ones at ESPN say so....

Ole buddy, good to see you still know how to do circular reasoning And Doggie doesn't diminish the Hall. Ferrell, Schalk, and Bresnahan all do

Well, some did agree. And I did the blindfold test again this week. Laid out Davey's numbers with several other SS who were in the hall and asked them to pick out the non HOFer. Not one on the talk show picked Davey. Not one...as usual.

Not so fast. The BBWA will have Davey's name taken away, and there is talk that the Veteran's committee is in favor of Davey's candidacy. Bench, Sparky, and a host of other baseball men are politicking for him behind the scenes. Davey is a classy man who has excelled as an executive with Citgo since his retirement. His English is still very broken. And he's still not white. But it's clear baseball means the world to him. Hopefully, his contributions will mean more to serious baseball men when they get to consider him.

Back to the topic: I still say it was good to see Goose in the Hall. A reliever who could retire more than three batters? Wow! :smilewinkgrin:

 

You're right, Andy. Jack wasn't an average pitcher. His career ERA+ is 105 and 100 is the average, so let me amend my statement. He was an above average pitcher.

You see a pitcher with 254 wins and a 3.90 ERA and say he's a Hall of Famer. I see a pitcher with 254 wins and a 3.90 ERA and say that he was on a bunch of teams that were really good at scoring runs.

There have been worse selections for the Hall of Fame.

Ed, would you happen to have a link handy for that site? If they've done that kind of work, I'd like to see what other studies they've done.

 

Tom Verducci, not of the BooYah Back-back-back network, had a nice article on the Goose yesterday. You can find it here.

 

You used batting average in comparison to Mike Schmidt. You used batting average in the 70s in comparison to Johnny Bench. You used RBI in comparison to Pete Rose. You chose 64 RBI as your cutoff for Hall-worthiness. How is this not selective posting?

The SS of the 70s weren't very good. To say that Davey was the best of a group that wasn't very good in the first place is sort of a back-handed compliment.

From your blog:

What's magical about 64 RBI? I would have thought he should have more RBI considering the guys in front of him. I mean, everybody in the Big Red Machine didn't hit homeruns all the time, did they?

I'll give you the average. I dispute the idea that more hits than Mike Schmidt is a plus.

Dave Concepcion 2,326 hits in 8,723 at bats
Mike Schmidt 2,234 hits in 8,352 at bats

It took Davey nearly 400 more at bats to get 92 more hits than Schmidt.

Dave Concepcion .267 average, .322 OBP, .357 SLG, 88 OPS+
Mike Schmidt .267 average, .380 OBP, .527 SLG, 147 OPS+

You were doing better when Mike Schmidt wasn't a part of the discussion.

Fine, but average isn't that great of a statistic to begin with. I mean, his average was better, but Bench hit more homeruns, knocked in more runs, and had more walks, meaning Bench's OBP, SLG and OPS+ was higher in the 70s.

In what? The 70s? Here are their career RBI numbers.

Pete Rose 1,370 RBI
Dave Concepcion 950 RBI

Maybe those players shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame either.

 

Sorry, I don't. It was an 'accidental stumble', and I do not even remember what I was looking up.

Ed

 

Wow..where to start...we're going in circles and I don't like rehashing what we've hashed a million times. 1st, people deride Davey on speck. That he has numbers comparable to the Schmidts, Benches, et.al, is usually enough to wake them up from their biased blinders. Many won't, because biases are just too comfy. But the numbers are what they are. There's nothing magical about 64 RBI. It's a decent number for a SS, a position not noted for RBI until the late 80s/90s. And no, the BRM guys didn't hit HR all the time. But you make it sound like they were on base all the time and Davey couldn't help but drive them in. Logical gymnastics at work

Ok. I think it is. No problem.

Wow. Remarkable. I guess managers and others place too much weight, huh? I know your premise. There are power hitters and there are average hitters, and many times, both. But we're forgetting something: power hits count as average. A HR is a base hit. For a hitter to out "hit" a slugger should not be discounted as the Paris Hilton types want us to.

Davey's numbers being better / comparable to HOF SS, you say they shouldn't be in: so Ozzie shouldn't be in? Pee Wee? Aparicio shouldn't be in? Fox? Maranville? So no SS should be in except.......? Remember that some voters thought Ripken didn't belong.

The bottom line is SS with Davey's numbers are typical HOFers.

Good nite all!

 

Thanks, Ed for the analysis. Sparky Anderson loved Jack Morris - he was one his favorite players.

I too would like to see that "pitch to the situation" analysis. If it is truly a bad hypothesis, then my back-up hypothesis is that Morris' high ERA can be explained by really bad outings - when he was off he was way off. I seem to remember this being the case with him. Of course, a loss is a loss, and he had a lot fewer of them than wins. He may have been inconsistent from game to game, but he was very consistent from year to year.

Also, cc keeps saying Morris played for all these offensive juggernauts, but he fails to mention the context - i.e., one reason they were good offensively is the parks they played in - the same parks that Morris had to pitch in.

 

You keep throwing out the HOFM numbers, but I have no idea where you get yours. Baseball Reference has them as:

Smith: 142
Trammell: 118
Concepcion: 106

Just setting the record straight. By the way, I think the HOFM and 'comparable' players are not very important in determining HOF worthiness.

 

To prove this, you would have to show that throughout Morris' career he had significantly greater run support than other pitchers of his team, league and era. That would be an interesting analysis, too.

 

Tom,

Your selective stat picking is just so flaky. To make the argument that Concepcion was a comparable offensive player to Mike Schmidt or Johnny Bench is just plain ludicrous. Quit cherry-picking. Go to the real stats like OBP, SLG and OPS.

 

He has 1 number that's comparable. 1. His batting average is comparable. Bench and Schmidt are higher in every other offensive category.

I'm biased because I don't think he's a Hall of Famer. I'm biased because I looked at numbers too and don't think he should be there.

Here's where I'm going with that.

I agree with this. It's not a good argument. I'm saying that his numbers should probably be higher. Considering the kind of hitters he had in front of him, 64 RBI sounds pretty low to me. Besides that, how does hitting 6th impact his low OBP?

I don't even know what this means. If I look at other stats like OBP, I'm a "Paris Hilton type?" Ludicrous.

It took Davey 400 more at bats to get more hits than Mike Schmidt and you see that as a positive. Talk about logical gymnastics.

Batting average isn't a great statistic. It's a good stat to start with, but not a great one. The same kind of managers who think batting average shows the true value of a hitter are also the same kind of managers who don't want players clogging up the basepaths. On base percentage is a better measure of a player's value as a hitter than batting average.

You have better arguments when you compare Davey to other shortstops of a) his era, and b) that are already in the Hall (though I think there are some weak candidates already there). Which, I admit, you did. I'm not convinced that Davey's a Hall of Famer, but I'm sure you'll find some way to insult me with comments like "Paris Hilton type" and say that I engage in "logical gymnastics". How did it go again? Oh yes, I remember. I build "strawmen" and you make "value judgments."

 

A fair point. Tiger Stadium favored hitters, no doubt. This is why I've used ERA+, which adjusts the pitcher's ERA according to ballpark and ERA of the league.

I agree, it would be interesting to see that.

 

Why do you say this? Briggs/Tiger Stadium dimensions
LF ---- 340'
LCF -- 360'
CF ---- 440'
RCF -- 360'
RF ---- 325'

Not exactly a band-box. LF, RF, and CF were are all a bit above the average distance of parks, while LCF and RCF were a bit below the average distance. Overall, I'd say it was about average, with any advantage to a "power alley" hitter, negated by a disadvantage to the '"dead-pull hitter" or the "straightaway" hitters.

A few more AL parks for rough comparison:

Yankee Stadium: (Now)
LF ----- 318'
LCF -- 399'
CF ---- 408'
RCF -- 385'
RF ---- 314'

Yankee Stadium: Prior to a renovation a few years ago:
LF ---- 301'
CF ---- 461'
RF ---- 296'

Fenway Park
LF ----- 310'
LCF --- 379'
CF ---- 390'
RCF --- 380'
RF ----- 302'

Cosmisky Park:
LF --- 352'
LCF-- 382'
CF --- 415'
RDF -- 382'
RF --- 352'

Baltimore Memorial Stadium
LF ---- 309'
LCF -- 376'
CF ---- 409'
RCF -- 376'
RF ---- 309'

Baltimore Camden Yards
LF ------ 333'
LCF ---- 364'
CF ----- 410'
RCF ---- 373'
RF ------ 318'

Anaheim Stadium
LF ----- 330'
LCF --- 387'
CF ----- 400'
RCF --- 370'
RF ----- 330'

and, of course, we can't overlook my personal favorite among ball parks, and also, of course, the favorite Stadium of Andy T., the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome

LF ---- 343'
LCF -- 385'
CF ---- 408'
RCF -- 367'
and RF to the giant "Baggie" - 328' :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

I still maintain that bias is against Davey, and the truth is (heard a host on one of the XM stations say it tonight about Davey, ironically) that he admitted he never thought Davey was HOF caliber until he actually did the stat comparisons, and now he thinks he should be in...but we keep going around on the same ole bromides re Davey. Some think he should be in, some don't. So be it. But one thing is in my craw:

CCROB, that is the lynch-pin of my argument. The factoids are just that. People ran with them. I never said and never will say those are the planks, if you will. Just factoids.

I never insulted you, friend. I constantly refer to the "Paris Hilton" types in the media and in culture - in sports reporting, politics reporting, and news reporting. In sports they are the ones who insist on 500 HR, 300 pitching wins...you know the type, the ones who want the latest shining whatever. They glom onto whatever the "it" is at the moment. "It" is a constantly changing thing. In politics right now, it's "change." Well, anyway...

And CCROB, I never insulted you. I did say you were doing logical gymnastics. That was not intended as an insult. (Note the presence of a smiley). You and I have had discussions around here long enough to know better. I apologize for any insult you felt. Know that was not my intent. I call Andy the mayor of Bromide-town, and he knows me well enough from around here to know we kid around, but respect the heck out of each other.

I don't recall what you're talking about re: strawmen vs. value judgements.

You have to admit this: I could argue for Davey once a day for a year, and I still would be lacking compared to Andy's arguments against the Metrodome and for the Detroit Bat Boy from 1987 being enshrined in Cooperstown :smilewinkgrin:

 

We got off Lee Smith, but I'd like to revisit him. A host tonight said he was deserving of the hall, easily. As I have said, I'm not convinced hard one direction or the other. But he does have 81 more saves than anyone in his era, 2nd most all time. 5th most Ks among all time relievers. 7th best K/BB ratio. Has a good HOF monitor (I cannot find his MHOF). I suspect he's hurt by lack of black ink. Very weak WHIP. Can't crack the top 25 all time in ER among relievers. (It appears he only picked off one BR in his career - so all you Smith haters, there's your plank)

The reality is that the saves number is exalted (perhaps too highly) and Smith's number is gaudy. But I just don't see a lot of other good evidence to bolster his candidacy. I don't think the Hall would disintegrate if Smith were in, but I can't say Smith is the most deserving guy on the block, despite my affection for his time with the Cubbies.

 

You mentioned picking off runners. I wonder if there is a stat that tells how many bases were stolen against particular pitchers, and how many against "relievers" vs. "starters"? How about "caught stealing" against various pitchers? I do tend to think more far left handers pick-off runners than do righthanders.

Not exactly sure about your "ER" statement, either. From what I see, only about three or four relievers among some fairly good pitchers I checked, had better ERA vs. League ERA, when "park adjusted" (whatever that actually means) according to 'baseball.reference.com statistics', with three being Dan Quisenberry who was the best at a 1.27 differential; Hoyt Wilhelm at a 1.16, and Bruce Sutter at 1.02. No starters I checked beat him in this stat, FTR, and I checked six HOF types, whom I would have suspected might well have, including Carlton, Seaver, Gibson, and Koufax. None of them were even close in this stat, nor far ahead in overall ERA.

Rich Gossage came in at a .77 diff; Rollie Fingers at .57; and Eck at .55 for some perspective.

Lee Smith trails Gossage by exactly .02 in career ERA and by .02 in WHIP. Not exactly a great difference, given that the ERA vs. league figure favors Smith by .17 - Smith @ .94; Goose @ .77. If the Goose definitely deserved to get there (and he did), then Lee Smith should certainly not be far behind.

So I'll say it:

Lee Smith definitely belongs in the HOF, as also do Dan Quisenberry and Kent Tekulve, and probably Sparky Lyle, as well. Certainly all four of these, along with Rich Gossage, are far more deserving than some pitchers already enshrined, and the addition of these four would help "lift the class of the joint"! Waite Hoyt? Jesse Haines?? Ted Lyons?? C'mon!

Your statement about "hurt by lack of black ink" is dead on the money, for "the hype" is far overshadowing "the reality", IMO.

And yes, "saves" is somewhat (but not ridiculously) overrated as a statistic, as long as "blown saves" is not figured in, as well!

Ed

 

Ed:

I mentioned it in fun. But as far as CS, among relievers who were RPs 80% or more and pitched at least 800 innings, Smith is second all time in runners CS to the Goose. Very interesting.

I did a smiliar analysis just using relievers. That's where Smith ranks outside the top 25 in total ER. Using similar criteria, Smith's ERA is 20th all-time and ERA+ is 12th.

Some things I think stand out: Smith did lead the league in saves four times. He did so in each league at least once. And not only did he do it in his "prime" in the 80s, but he also did so in 1991, 1992, and 1994. I think that's a nod in his favor.

There are a small number of RPs that always made me think "UH OH" when they came and took the mound against the Reds. Sutter was #1. Smith was right behind him. You just knew to go ahead and gather your belongings.

 

I don't know who should be in, but the best answer I ever heard was when someone ask Ted Williams one time about if he thought Dizzy Dean should be in the HOF with so few wins. He said of the players he had talked to who were good hitter and played against Dizzy before Dizzy got hurt, he was the best they had ever seen. That was a lot from a man who didn't care for pitchers. Sandy Koufax is as near to that in my life time, was great but not for long. I had always believed you had to be the best in the eyes of the other players for a good amount of time at the position you played to get in.