I would like to introduce a new rule for Major League Baseball to consider. It's a rule that I'm fairly sure they will implement.
Here it is, rule 823B, subsection 12, "From this point on, no Starting Pitcher will be inducted into the Hall of Fame until we get our heads out of our a*ses and put Smokey Joe Wood in the Hall of Fame".
Yeah, I like that rule.
There can and will not be any exceptions to this rule unless they fall under subcategory 14c, which states: "unless their first name starts with the letters P-E-D-R-O (not necessarily in that order) and their last name starts with the letters M-A-R-T-I-N-E-Z (not necessarily in that order). Both first and last name 'must' start with these letters for the exception to apply."
I like that rule, too.
What made me want to write this article is all the talk about Mike Mussina and his retirement. The Mussina Hall of Fame talk has already started.
First of all, Mussina was a great Starting Pitcher, don't get me wrong. He's in the "great" category. You know, the category that is right under the "great/elite" category that Starting Pitchers like Smokey Joe Wood, Walter Johnson, Ed Walsh and Pedro Martinez are in. We remember that category, right?
Some of the Hall of Famers are actually in that category.
Surely, no one is pretending that Mussina was better than Smokey Joe Wood. Mussina had a longer career, but wasn't nearly as good. Hell, Mussina was great and still wasn't nearly as good as Smokey Joe, that's how good he was.
Back in the day when they both Pitched at the same time, the tough question was (and still is), "was Smokey Joe Wood as good as Walter Johnson". The question never was (and still isn't), "was he as good as Mike Mussina". It's not a problem with Mussina, again he's great, it's a problem with the Hall of Fame.
Many assume that the Hall of Fame is filled with the best players ever, it's really not true. They should rename the Hall of Fame. It should be called "Extremely Good Players that had Really Long Careers". That name fits it better, that's 90 percent of who's in.
I'm being a bit hard on the Hall of Fame. They do the right thing sometimes. They did put Addie Joss in the Hall and he had a short career, and there are other players we could bring up. But one of them that we bring up "should" be Smokey Joe Wood, maybe Bill Lange.
Anyway, it's a rule that I'm sure will be implemented. I don't mind when it's implemented, as long as it's before 2013.
Can someone do me a favor, forward this to MLB, The Hall of Fame Voting Committee, The Hall of Fame Veterans Committee, Your Local Congressman and The President of The United States. I hate to get Congress involved, but it's a rule that's pretty much as important as steroids and I think they must be notified, as a civic duty and stuff.
Can't wait for the comments and this one, should be fun.
comments (17) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Forget about Wood, first we have to get the "Louisville Slugger" in there, Pete Browning. And better yet, the first superstar of the game, Ross Barnes. Check out what he did from 1871 through 1876.
Barnes was the best player in the game in its first professional league, the National Association from 1871 to 1875, and was still the best player in the game in the National League's first season, 1876. He was an awesome fielder at 2B, and was the game's best hitter too.
In Ross Barnes 5 seasons in the NA he batted .391 in 1359 at bats, scoring 459 runs in 265 games with 235 RBIs. He is rated by TPR (total player rating) as the best poistion player in baseball for 6 straight years (1871 to 1876).
It's a disgrace that this awesome pioneer superstar is forgotten now.
from about 1 month ago
bruce, please read my new comment, really a question for you. I accidentally put it as a "new" comment istead of a reply. Hopefully talk to you soon.
about 1 month ago
Bruce, I'm requesting a response comment from you on the Smokey Joe Wood question I'm posing.
SMOKEY JOE WOOD- I know you didn't "really" mean--forget Smokey Joe. Unfortunately, it seems most already have. You know that when they both Pitched many argued about weather Wood or Johnson was better, it was a discussion that caused heated arguments at the time, you know all of this. I'm big enough to admit that you won the Corcoran/Clarkson argument and I'll admit that you have caused me to re-evaluate both of them, though Corcoran was still great, maybe not as great as Clarkson, I'll admit. Here's my request from you. Evaluate Wood and let me know, not the career value of course, we know he threw his arm out fairly early in his career. What Im requesting is for you to compare the season to season with the same seasons that he pitched with Johnson, like you did with Corcoran/Clarkson, and let me know please. I still hold that Wood was the same caliber player as Johnson, if he falls short then I'll bet that it's damn close and let's not forget, this is a comparison to a "top tier" HOFer. Sorry, I can't forget Wood. The best Starting Pitcher in the history of MLB that is not in the HOF, I know you'll disagree because of his short career so let me rephrase it. He's the highest "caliber" Starting Pitcher in history that is not in the HOF? If not, throw 1 out there for me. thanks Bruce.
PETE BROWNING- Browning was the best Center Fielder from the 1880s, I'm sure you think so too. Don't get me started on that American Association 1880s crap. No player from the 1880s American Association is in the HOF, except for Comiskey who's in as a pioneer, not really as a player. Browning should definitely be considered from that league, I agree. Tip O'Neill should be considered too. Harry Stovey takes the cake for me, I think he's the best non-pitcher from the American Association from the 1880s that is not in. A logical argument could be made that he was the best First Baseman from the 1880s. Better than the National League HOF First Basemen, Cap Anson and Roger Connor. Don't get me wrong, Anson and Connor belong in, but it's "at least" arguable that Stovey was as good or better, he was certainly that caliber of a player. Browning and his .341 BA still ranks in the top 15 all time, the only player in the top 15 all time in BA that is not in the HOF, other than Lefty O'Doul. But I still hold that Bill Lange is the best non-pitcher in the history of MLB that is not in the Hall of Fame. I know he had a fairly short career, but he was incredible.
ROSS BARNES- I agree, he was one hell of a player. I kind of stopped rating most of the non-pitchers from the 1870s because all I would do was argue with people because they would tell me that the 1870s National Association numbers were bogus, I got so tired of hearing it that I kind of stopped bringing them up. So good for you for bringing them up, Barnes was one hell of a player.
As always, great talking to you, please, let me know about the Wood/Johnson comparison, can't wait.
about 1 month ago
Mike, first off, there is one AA player who was finally enshrined in 2000, and that was Bid McPhee, who was the last major leaguer to still play defense with no glove, which he was doing into the 1890s. Tim Keefe is in, and he played two seasons in the AA in between his NL career with the Giants.
If it was up to me, Stovey, Browning, Childs, Tony Mullane and Bob Caruthers would also be in, for starters, with Denny Lyons next in line.
Comiskey certainly deserves to be in as a manger with four straight pennants and also the only win for the AA in the "world series" of the day as they knocked off Anson's Chicago team in 1886.
I don't see how Stovey can possibly be better than Connor or Anson, although I garee he was a great player.
As for Wood, he was awesome for one year and excellent for a couple of more, but that is not a hall of famer. If not for the injury perhpas he could have been, but that's the way it goes. Do you think that we should put Herb Score in too? Maybe you want to put Len Bias in the NBA hall of fame?
Here's Wood's 1912 season compared to some other great years around that time.
PLAYER YEAR WIN LOSS INN ERA ERA+ Opp Avg
Wood 1912 34 5 344 1.91 178 .216
Johnson 1913 36 7 346 1.14 258 .190
No comparison here as Johnson destroyed him in all of the categories that he could control, and was very close in wins and losses even though Wood had a much better team behind him. The 1913 Johnson season is the greatest pitching season since the 19th century.
PLAYER YEAR WIN LOSS INN ERA ERA+ Opp Avg
Wood 1912 34 5 344 1.91 178 .216
Mathewson 1905 31 9 339 1.28 230 .205
Closer here as Matty did somehow take 9 losses, but his overall pitching was better as he allowed less to the other team than Wood did.
PLAYER YEAR WIN LOSS INN ERA ERA+ Opp Avg
Wood 1912 34 5 344 1.91 178 .216
Alexander 1915 31 10 376 1.22 225 .191
The 1912 Red Sox scored 799 runs. The 1915 Phillies only scored 589 runs, which explains the difference in winning pct. here. The Red Sox score 1.4 more runs per game, which was huge in this low scoring era. If Alexander had been on the Red Sox he could have gone 38-3 or 39-2 in 1912 if he pitched like he did in 1915.
1912 Wood is a great season for sure, but really the only stat he had that is super impressive is the 34-5 record, which had a lot to do with his teammates. There's been plenty of picthers with a 1.91 ERA and a 178 ERA+. Those numbers are nowhere near the sub 1.30 ERA's of the other seasons I listed, and all thee pitchers had an ERA+ of well over 200, which means they were more than twice as good as the average pitcher in the league at preventing runs in those years.
Look through Wood's season without considering the won loss record as part of it and it's just a great year, not an all time great year. It's a proven fact that won loss record is not a very good indicator of how well a pitcher did his job. The pitcher's run support from his teammates has as much to do with his won-loss record as his own pitching.
NO WAY would i put Wood in the hall of fame.
Bruce
from about 1 month ago
Bruce, thanks. You're kind of proving my point for me though. He doesn't quite match up, it's true. But he's close, damn close--and you're comparing him to some of the best Starting Pitchers ever, and their best seasons ever. Wood was the caliber Pitcher of those guys or right near it. And I think W-L record is important, I agree, not as important as some think, but it's important, I will never look at any Starting Pitcher without at least looking at their W-L record. The great Starting Pitchers all have that in common--they win. They save the shutout for the games their team scores 1 run, they allow 4 runs in the games their team scores 6 runs, you know that, it's almost an intangible thing. Winning % is very important and the great Starting Pitchers Pitch "that" game. If it's a 1 run game, that's when they pitch their shutout, I know you know this.
You gotta give me a break with that Herb Score stuff. No, I don't think Score should be in. But, if Score had the 3rd best ERA in the history of MLB with a 2.03 and he had the 6th best winning % in the history of MLB with .672 and Pitched 70 more games than he did to get to how many Wood pitched, then I might think Score should be in. That's what Smokey Joe Wood did, 3rd all time in ERA and 6th all time in winning %.
Plus, Wood pitched mostly as a Starter, but he pitched 1908, 1910, 1917, 1918 and 1920 mainly as a Relief Pitcher and he never had a winning season as a Relief Pitcher. By the way, that's when winning % doesn't matter as much--Relief Pitchers. So, he was mainly a Starting Pitcher in 1909, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915. His record as a Starter in those seasons was 104-42, a .712 winning %---That would be the best winning % in the history of MLB. If he never Pitched in Relief, he'd have THE best winning % of all time.
Bruce, you gotta be kiddin me with this NOT HOF caliber stuff, he had HOF caliber #'s, just had a short career. Here are all 6 of his seasons that he was a Starting Pitcher:
1909- 2.18 ERA, .209 OBA, .270 OOB% and .611 W% (all better than Johnson in 1909, by the way)
1911- 2.02 ERA, .223 OBA, .284 OOB% and .575 W%
1912- 1.91 ERA, .216 OBA, .272 OOB% and .872 W%
1913- 2.29 ERA, .232 OBA, .323 OOB% and .688 W% (might be his worst season as Starter)
1914- 2.62 ERA, .229 OBA, .288 OOB% and .769 W%
1915- 1.49 ERA, .216 OBA, .275 OOB% and .750 W%
Bruce, THOSE ARE HALL OF FAME NUMBERS, for sure, I don't care what era they're in. Come on, Bruce. Maybe they're not Johnson #s, but nobody's are, and they're close. Hell that's every season for him as a Starter, his 1913 season sucks for him, it's still extremely good for most Starting Pitchers in the 1910s. You're stubborn, let's don't act like those aren't HOF #'s. If he would have Pitched 150 more games, he'd be in. Even if he would have remained "slightly under" the numbers of Johnson, he'd be in if he would have Pitched 150 more games. You know it's true. During those 6 seasons, if you look it up you'll notice that Johnson and Wood had a better W% than their team in all 6 of those seasons, that's what the great ones do. By the way, Washington was better than Boston during the 1913 season. Actually Washington had over a .525 W% in 4 of those 6 seasons, they sucked during the first 2 of those seasons, but were good the other 4, very good. Of course, Boston had a winning season in all 6.
With all the knowledge of the game that I know you possess, I must admit, I have trouble actually believing that you don't think those are HOF caliber #'s. The problem is there are only 6 seasons there, if there were 11 or 12, I think you'd think he should be in, I still think it's length of career. Plus, we don't compare him to Johnson who's one of the best ever, let's compare him to Chief Bender, another Starting Pitcher from the 1910 that's in the HOF, then he matches up, for sure, he was better than Bender, except for his length of career, at least as good as.
COMISKEY- I agree, he could be in just as a Manager and I'd be fine with that.
McPHEE- I know and love that story Bruce, glad you brought it up. You know why he started wearing a glove. He broke a finger, used the glove as padding, still hated it, but thought he needed it for the padding. So he switched to a glove against his own will, basically. McPhee played more seasons in the National League than he did in the American Association, so I don't count him. I want a player that played "most" of his career in the American Association in the HOF, then I'll start to be satisfied. You're right though, for now, McPhee is as close as we get.
STOVEY- I still think it's at least "arguable" with Anson and Connor. Let's compare the 2 of them with Stovey, I love this kind of stuff. Now, we'll keep in mind that we're comparing American Association numbers against National League numbers and I'll make no adjustments to save time. We'll compare 10 stat categories that most consider the "major" categories--BA, OB%, SLG%, SB, R, 2B, 3B, HR, RBI and FA. Actually, scratch FA since most of Stovey's published FA numbers are for Left Field. They were all good defensively at First Base. So there's 9 categories and to even out the length of career we'll do SB, R, 2B, 3B, HR and RBI per AB. Here we go.
We'll start with STOVEY vs. CONNOR (3B are basically a tie, so that leaves 8 categories):
Connor wins 4 of the 8--BA, OB%, SLG% and RBI
Stovey wins 4 of the 8--SB, R, 2B and HR
Amazingly close.
STOVEY vs. ANSON (2B are basically a tie, so that again leaves 8 categories)
Anson wins 3 of the 8--BA, OB% and RBI
Stovey wins 5 of the 8--SLG%, SB, R, 3B and HR
Stovey actually looks a bit better, I know it's American Association vs. National League, but that's still impressive, I mean we're talking about 2 respected HOFers here, he matches up with them and they're basically from the same decade.
Did you know that Harry Stovey is 1st all time in the history of MLB in R per AB for a First Baseman--yes, ahead of Gehrig, Brouthers, Foxx. He's 2nd all time in the history of MLB in 3B per AB for a First Baseman and he's 3rd all time in SB per AB for a First Baseman. Stovey could flat out play.
As always, had a great one on this one, it was fun. You won the Clarkson/Corcoran debate. We'll have to call the Wood/HOF debate a toss up, I still think he was a HOF caliber player, for sure. He just didn't have a HOF length career, if he wouldn't have thrown his arm out, he'd be in--I believe that with all the honesty in my heart. Thanks for looking that stuff up, you're awesome with that stuff.
about 1 month ago
Mike, your method of compariing players is fatally flawed. You can't just take 8 categories and see who wins what. Your system is saying that stolen bases are just as important and OBP and slugging percentage, which is ludicrous. Once again I implore you to start using OPS+. That stat ALONE tells us pretty clearly which player is the best hitter.
Stovey - 141
Connor - 154
Anson - 139 (146 in the NA)
So Connor is clearly a better hitter than Stovey, and Anson is right around as good as Stovey, but in 50% more at bats. Stovey was done by 37 years old. When Anson was 37 years old he was just starting three staright 100 RBI seasons. The fact that Stovey was not good enough to keep playing into his forties like Anson is the only reason that his OPS+ stayed ahead of Anson's. He didn't have as long of a decline phase. I've already said that I would put Stovey into the HOF if it were upo to me, so we really have nothing to debate here.
As for Wood, Smokey Joe Wood was tremendous, but we're not putting any starting pitcher in the hall of fame with just 1400 innings pitched and 117 career wins.
Why don't you look up John Paciorek's stats. Maybe you'd like to put him in the hall of fame too. Based on your system he's the greatest hitter of all time.
from about 1 month ago
damit Bruce, you know me better than that, give me a break with that John Paciorek stuff.
I think we agree with eachother on Stovey, I said the comparison wasn't making adjustments, I said it's "arguable", didn't say he would win the argument, though it's closer than most imagine, I knew you'd pull out that OPS+ stuff, I love that stuff, you always make a great argument. You have to admit that being 1st all time in history for a First Baseman in R per AB is quite impressive, and unlike a lot of others that were being knocked in, we KNOW that Stovey "created" a lot of his R. I'm with you, I think we generally agree with eachother on Stovey, I get the feeling that I think he's a bit closer to those 2 than you do, but I generally agree with you. Not to keep the argument going, and not to say Stovey was better, but Connor and Anson both played 8 seasons in the 1890s and Stovey only played 4, the 1890s helped Connor and Ansons numbers, just another thing we would have to throw in there if we started making adjustments. Hey, I know that adjusting for that doesn't make up all of the ground between them, but it would lessen the gap, even if ever so slightly.
Smokey Joe--of course I get your point, but I think they should put 1 Starting Pitcher in with only 200 games and 1,400 innings--and it should be Wood, let's make 1 exception, I'm sure it will never happen, but I wish it would.
Great as always, you know you really p.o. me for being my favorite historian on this site, you still remind me of Bill James, he p.o.'s me too, but I still love and respect his thought process like you.
I'll make you a deal, I do take OPS+ into account a bit. Here's the deal, I'll put slightly more weight on OPS+, if you put slightly less weight on length of career. I'm sure you're not going to take this deal, But hey, maybe we shouldn't change a thing, we're actually pretty damn close to eachother with our differences. Great as always.
from about 1 month ago
Bruce you know that Stovey/Anson/Connor comparison was a quick no adjustments comparison, I said that before I compared them.
I hope you don't think my method of comparing players is "fatally flawed". Don't forget, we have the same 1800s team exactly, except for 1 Starting Pitcher and we have 7 of 9 the same on our Center Field list. I hope you really don't think I'm that flawed since we're so close with our lists, I don't think you are flawed because of your length of career stuff. We just have a slightly different approach, but we come up with nearly the same results. Come on now, you're hurtin me now, love this stuff, great as always.
Al right, now I mean it, I've got to get to your new article. Talk to you later.
about 1 month ago
Mike, I also don't agree with you at all that winning percentage is all that reflective of a great pitcher. Bert Blyleven only hs a .534 winning percentage (287-250) but he was way better than lost of picthers who have way better winning percentages, like Bruce Hurst (145-113 .562) and Dennis Leonard (144-106 .576).
How about Nolan Ryan in 1987, when he led the league in ERA, ERA+, strikeouts and batting average allowed (.199) and still went 8-16. That's 8 wins and 16 losses even though he did his job on the mound better than anybody else in the league. That crap you posted about pitchers pitching a shutout when they need to is nothing more than a myth, unsupported by any facts. Pitcher's wins and losses have more to do with their run support and their bullpen than with their own performance.
from about 1 month ago
Bruce, I think you have to look at that teams record for a season, relative to the Pitchers record, it is important, like Wood and Johnson both had better records than their team in all 6 of those seasons, even though Johnson had a losing record, he still had a better record than his team, but I get your point. Still, at the end of the day, a Pitcher has to win, that's part of their job, if you have 11 K's and lose 3-2, that Pitcher kind of did their job, kind of didn't.
about 1 month ago
Mike, I don't agree at all with you that a pitcher who loses 3-2 "kinda didn't" do his job, anymore than a hitter who hits three home runs in a 10-8 loss but grounds out to ends the game "kinda didn't" do his job.
Pitchers should not even be assigned wins and losses. Teams win and lose, pitchers don't.
from about 1 month ago
I see your point Bruce, it's a team sport, but generally the Starting Pitcher is the most important player on the team, you're cerainly not going to argue that are you?
It's not the same as a hitter who hits 3 HRs and loses 10-8. The fault of that game could be better argued that it was the Pitching staff on the other team that gave up the 10 Runs. Defense and Pitching wins games more than offense, hell, you know that. Again, I'm not saying that winning % is the most important stat for a Starting Pitcher, but I believe it is of some importance, again at least often relative to that teams winning %.
A .500 winning % would obviously be the average winning % in history, but we would "both" be hard pressed to find a Starting Pitcher in the history of MLB that we would call a great Starting Pitcher that had under a .500 winning %, if we could find some, it would be a damn short list and you know it. That's not an accident Bruce, the great Pitchers win. I still get your point, but winning % is definitely of some importance.
Great as always, good job, we have to stop the stuff so I can get to the article you just wrote, can't wait to read it, excited you wrote, I know it'll be good. Talk to you in the comments of your new article.
about 1 month ago
No Mike, I would not argue that the starting pitcher is the most important player on his team that day, but I don't agree at all that pitching and defense wins more games than offense. Teams don't win vbery often when they don't get more offense (runs) than their opponent does.
from about 1 month ago
OK, you know what I mean, you're as stubborn as I am. You take winning % into account less than I do, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, I respect that, though I'm sure that I take it into account less than most, just not as less as you.
I'm off to read your new article, this time I mean it. Great job.
about 1 month ago
Mike, as for finding great starting pitchers who are under .500, no you won't find many great or even very good starters who are under .500 FOR THEIR CAREER but you will find MANY very good and even great starters (Ryan in 1981) who are under .500 FOR ONE SEASON. This is a another good example of why a long career is important. You can get statistical anomolies over a short sample of numbers, but those things tend to even out over a long period of games.
There is even the reverse out there, picthers with real good winning percentages for one season when they did not even pitch well.
Who do you think was better, Ryan in 1981 (8-16 with a league leading ERA), or Ray Kremer for the 1930 Pirates who was 20-12 with a 5.02 ERA.
from about 1 month ago
Great point, we can find single seasons for sure, but it's hard to find careers.
about 1 month ago
By the way, that blonde is the Russian beauty ad is very tempting. :-)
write a new comment