Jon Heyman defends his Hall of Fame ballot

33 Comments

Blyleven AP.jpgLast 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.

First American League All-Star voting totals are in, Sal Perez leads in the voting

Kansas City Royals catcher Salvador Perez jokes during batting practice before Game 2 of the Major League Baseball World Series against the New York Mets  Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2015, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)
Leave a comment

It seems early, but this is when it happens: Major League Baseball announcing the early results for All-Star Game voting. Voting started in April which makes it kind of hard to weigh-in with any sort of certainty about how anyone is doing, but it probably doesn’t matter much. It doesn’t matter much for a lot of reason. Among them:

  • There are different schools of thoughts about who should be an All-Star. Some people think the biggest stars should always make it. Others think it’s a reward for a good first half of the season. I really don’t care either way, but if you’re a “biggest stars” person, April is fine for voting. Famous stars are no less famous because they’ve had a bad couple of months.
  • Despite the fact that the All-Star Game “counts” for home field advantage, the way it is played ensures that who starts is not super critical. Starters will be gone after a couple of innings. No matter the vote totals, the same general bunch of players will decided the game one way or the other, early or late. It’s the All-Star Game. It’s kind of a circus regardless.
  • Major League Baseball does not really care about the integrity of voting. They encourage you to vote a gabillion times, and it’s all very clearly aimed at getting people to visit lucratively-sponsored web pages in order to do it. Which, hey, good for them for making money, but that’s not how you run a tight voting operation.

That last bit is sort of key. I don’t want to overstate how important this is because, again, it’s just the All-Star Game, but there is laughably obvious fraud going on with the votes. Over the past few weeks I’ve gotten emails from MLB.com and Royals.com thanking me for my maximum five votes that day. Stuff like this:

Screen Shot 2016-05-31 at 3.33.32 PM

Screen Shot 2016-05-31 at 3.32.59 PM

That was from a while back. Last I checked it thinks I’ve voted, like, 60 times or something. I haven’t voted once and, obviously, I haven’t listed the Royals as my favorite team. Someone is using my email address or ID or whatever. In my case it’s for Royals players. Maybe people from 29 other teams are hacking other people in their team’s favor too, but the point of this isn’t the specific votes. It’s that this isn’t exactly a high-integrity operation.

Because it’s just All-Star votes I sort of don’t care too much, but it’s at least smart to take the vote totals, especially the early ones, with a grain of salt, sit back and wait for the Home Run Derby and just remember that the All-Star Game is kind of a crazy non-serious event, no matter what people say about home field advantage. For now, here are the voting leaders:

Screen Shot 2016-05-31 at 3.55.26 PM

Screen Shot 2016-05-31 at 3.56.05 PM

Screen Shot 2016-05-31 at 3.56.43 PM

Screen Shot 2016-05-31 at 3.57.08 PM

Cubs fan gets a tattoo that assumes a World Series win in the next four seasons

cubs logo
8 Comments

This isn’t quite as risky as that (phony) story about the guy betting his life savings on the Cubs winning the World Series in 2016. But it’s still a gamble, both in objective, statistical terms and in terms of the Cubs and their overall karma and luck and stuff. But you gotta have hope, man. Hope is the best thing. Or at least that’s what an escaped ex-con once said.

This got tweeted out in March, but WGN and other media outlets are just picking it up now. I most appreciate the comma after the indeterminate 201_ year, which assumes they may win more than one.

Tattoo experts: what’s the easiest fix here assuming nothing happens for the Cubbies by 2020?

Mets owners get some breathing room on their Bernie Madoff settlement payments

New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon stands on the field before baseball's Game 3 of the National League Division Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers, Monday, Oct. 12, 2015, in New York. (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)
Associated Press
5 Comments

For years the central fact of life of the New York Mets has been that their owners, the Wilpon family and Saul Katz, lost a ton of money after investing it with friend and business partner Bernard Madoff, perpetrator of the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. It has hampered their payroll and led to huge amounts of borrowing and restructuring that, before last year’s pennant run, seemed like it’d be a millstone on the Mets competitive prospects for years to come.

In addition to losing money, it was later determined that Katz and the Wilpons unfairly gained in some other respects and thus they ended up having their phony earnings clawed back via a settlement with the trustee managing the fallout of the Madoff scandal.  The upshot: the Wilpons and Katz, in addition to their losses, were ordered to pay nearly $60 million dollars back, half payable this week, half payable next year. That’s a lot of money for anyone to fork over and this week’s payment loomed large.

Now, however, Adam Rubin of ESPN New York reports that the Wilpons and Katz will get some breathing room. Specifically, they have modified their agreement with the trustee and some of the owed money has been deferred. Instead of some $29 million payable this week, they will only have to pay $16 million. The remainder will be paid in four installments — from 2017 through 2020 — with an interest rate of 3.5 percent on the unpaid balance, Rubin says.

Now, there obviously was no promise that the $13 million saved this week be invested in the baseball team, but it’s probably a good thing overall for the Mets if their owners’ debt payments are reduced a bit.

Mike Napoli hit a homer for a fan with cancer

CLEVELAND, OH -  MAY 30: Mike Napoli #26 of the Cleveland Indians rounds the bases after hitting a solo home run during the sixth inning against the Texas Rangers at Progressive Field on May 30, 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio. (Photo by Jason Miller/Getty Images)
4 Comments

Last night a fan named Kathi Heintzelman showed up at Progressive Field in Cleveland with a sign asking Indians first baseman Mike Napoli to hit a home run for her and to give her a hug. But there was a reason beyond her love for Mike Napoli. She’s starting chemotherapy today and the hug and homer would be a nice thing.  Hard to disagree with that, even if everyone knows that ballplayers can’t hit homers on demand.

Well, most players can’t. Mike Napoli did the easy part before the game, giving her a hug. Then in the sixth inning, he went yard:

 

Whether you believe that such things can be fated or if you merely acknowledge that Heintzelman asked Napoli for a homer at a good time — he’s on a hot streak right now and has hit bombs in four of his last 11 games — it’s a great story.