2014 will be the fifteenth and final time Jack Morris will be eligible for the Hall of Fame; Andy Pettitte won't even make his first appearance on the ballot until 2019. But despite the time lapse between their careers, they have remarkably similar Cooperstown candidacies. Both pitched for a long time; both had the good fortune of pitching for good teams; and both have essentially two statistics working in their favor:
1. Wins.
2. Playoff wins.
Morris had the most wins in baseball between 1980 and 1989; Pettitte had the most between 2000 and 2009. Both pitched in high-profile playoff games and won multiple championships. Both won more than 250 career games (but not 300) and both struck out more than 2,400 hitters (but not 3,000). Given the parallels, Morris could serve as a something of a trial balloon for Pettitte's Hall of Fame chances. And because Morris accumulated 67.7% of the vote last year (tantalizingly close to the required 75% mark with one more year of balloting to come), Pettitte's odds might be better than you think.
On top of that, it isn't hard to argue that Pettitte was simply better than Morris. Their career ERAs are almost identical, but Pettitte pitched in a significantly tougher environment, which is why his WAR and ERA+ are both significantly better than Morris'. He also has about the same number of wins and strikeouts as Morris despite 500 fewer innings. As for the postseason: their ERAs are again virtually identical, but Pettitte has a huge lead in innings (276.2 to 92.1). If Morris is on the cusp of induction, and Pettitte was just a better version of Morris, then Pettitte would appear to be on a surefire Hall of Fame trajectory.
That's not how it works, though. This is a perfect example of how letting Jack Morris into the Hall would lower the institution's standards to open the floodgates for good-but-not-great pitchers. Pettitte, like Morris, was one of those good-but-not-great pitchers.
Pettitte will retire with 18 seasons under his belt. Six of those seasons were significantly better than the other twelve. Six times, he had an ERA+ of 129 or better, which is very good. But in his other twelve seasons, his ERA+ was never better than 112. For some perspective, Adam Wainwright's career ERA+ is 129, and Frank Viola's career ERA+ is 112. For a third of his career, Andy Pettitte was Adam Wainwright -- a Cy Young contender. For the other two-thirds, though, he was just Frank Viola -- decent, above average. That shouldn't strike anyone as an obvious Hall of Fame career.
There's another big problem. Of Pettitte's six great seasons, only three were complete and healthy. In 2002, 2010, and 2012, his performance was elite, but he failed to reach even 140 innings in any of them. So, he actually had just three seasons (1996, 1997, 2005) in which he was a Cy Young-caliber pitcher for at least 220 innings. That's simply not enough.
It's not surprising, then, that Pettitte had only three seasons in which he accumulated at least 4 Wins Above Replacement (that's more or less the threshold for an All-Star pitcher). Those three seasons were, again, 1996, 1997, and 2005. To repeat: that's not enough. By comparison, Kevin Brown (who never even sniffed the Hall of Fame) had nine seasons with at least 4 WAR. Mike Mussina had twelve. Pettitte: three. Not enough.
And remember that stat about him having the most wins in baseball between 2000 and 2009? He also had the 50th-best ERA during that span among qualified pitchers, worse than Al Leiter and Mark Buehrle and A.J. Burnett. So, take that with a giant grain of salt.
Then, we come to all the starting pitchers who rank ahead of Pettitte (in terms of Hall of Fame worthiness) from his era. And there's a fairly long line. In no particular order: Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Mike Mussina, and Roy Halladay. It's clear, to me at least, that Pettitte trails those nine by a margin that's wide enough to justify keeping him off of that Hall of Fame tier. In fact, you could even make a not-crazy argument that he ranks behind the likes of Kevin Brown and David Cone, too. Regardless -- he's far closer to Brown and Cone than he is to Mussina or Glavine.
There is certainly something to be said for his accomplishments in the playoffs. Nobody in baseball history has made more starts, pitched more innings, or won more games in the playoffs than Andy Pettitte. His 3.81 ERA in 276.2 postseason innings is his most impressive career achievement. Maybe if he had done a little more in the regular season, his October records could've served as a tie-breaker to push him over the top. As it stands, his regular season career -- three elite years, three elite-but-incomplete years, and twelve decent years -- doesn't cut it.
Basically, the only way Pettitte can be considered a Hall of Famer is if you place seriously heavy weight on postseason performance, which is something the Hall of Fame voters have virtually never done (at least until they needed to find an excuse to vote for Jack Morris, that is). As for what will actually happen? There are two fascinating variables in play: whether or not Morris gets in this year (he could be a crucial bar-setting precedent), and how the voters will treat Pettitte's dalliance with human growth hormone. Either way, it's important to remember (just as it is with Morris) that there's no need to pretend like Pettitte needs a plaque in Cooperstown or else his career won't be validated. He retires as a five-time World Series champion, the franchise leader in strikeouts for the New York Yankees, and the most prolific postseason pitcher in baseball history. Good stuff.
Showing posts with label Andy Pettitte. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andy Pettitte. Show all posts
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Monday, May 7, 2012
Just Wrong On So Many Levels
Andy Pettitte has been in the news a lot recently, thanks to his high-profile testimony for the government in the Roger Clemens case, during his attempt at a major league comeback. Much has been made of Pettitte's admission that he may have misunderstood Clemens when the embattled former ace supposedly told Pettitte he used Human Growth Hormone. And if there's some controversial baseball news that also happens to include future Hall of Fame candidates, you can bet Jon Heyman of CBS Sports has something ignorant to say. He actually manages to be spectacularly wrong on a variety of different layers in his article entitled, "Pettitte's under-oath about-face costs him one Hall of Fame vote -- this one."
Heyman's words are quoted and in bold font:
The above statement shatters all previously-held records for total number of false premises stuffed into two sentences.
The voters aren't only taking Pettitte at his word. They're taking the word of everyone who played in the steroid era. Did Jeff Bagwell take PEDs? Mike Piazza? Jeff Kent? Ivan Rodriguez? Pettitte? Who knows? Nobody, really. So we're giving all of them the benefit of the doubt.
"The second claim is suddenly hard to swallow.
Pettitte lied for years when it came to his PED use, denying he ever took any such drugs right up until the day things got serious and baseball-appointed drug czar George Mitchell and the feds got involved. Then Pettitte changed his story to include two instances of HGH use, but only for recovery purposes.
We who knew Pettitte as an exceeedingly pleasant and God-fearing man nodded right along with him. But now, how can we be so sure he was telling the truth then?"
But more importantly, how can we be so sure he isn't an alien spy from Neptune? I for one am horrified that the government is wasting resources on a steroid investigation while embedded space invaders walk amongst our children.
"Suddenly on the stand in federal court last week, Pettitte changed his story about Clemens. And remarkably, he changed it from one day to the next. It is fair to assume he wasn't being completely truthful one of those two days."
There is no way to say this except: You are wrong. Just, like, ignorant of the facts. But rather than explain why, I'll first allow Heyman to present the entirety of his misguided, hyperbole-laden rant:
"Under questioning by government lawyers, Pettitte, who's trying for a baseball comeback with the Yankees, said Clemens told him about Clemens' own HGH use while the pair were working out together back in 1999 or 2000. That was a powerful point against Clemens.
Then only one day later, under questioning by Clemens' lawyers, Pettitte said he may have misunderstood the key HGH conversation. In fact, it's now 50-50 he misunderstood, he answered to Clemens attorney Michael Attanasio. "I'd say that's fair,'' Pettitte lamely answered to Attanasio.
Pettitte's under-oath changeup is so pathetic, Clemens' defense team is arguing Monday to strike his entire testimony, and I won't blame Judge Walton if he agrees. Pettitte's testimony was viewed by many as the key to the government's case, and now it can be thrown out.
While Pettitte won't face charges for his lame, less-then-honest performance (the government is understandably done with the steroids-in-baseball cases after Clemens), Pettitte may have torpedoed a worthwhile yet expensive case of perjury against Clemens with his sudden case of amnesia regarding a conversation he's been testifying consistently about for nearly five years.
I get that Pettitte is conflicted and doesn't want to help send his idol, Clemens, to the slammer. But if Pettitte is willing to bend the truth under oath to aid someone else, why should we believe his own story of two usages of HGH only for recovery and no usages of steroids?"
Okay, so, that was a fun little fantasy. But Heyman completely disregards a crucial fact. Pettitte did admit that there was a 50-50 chance he misunderstood Clemens. But he never suggested otherwise. The story has never changed.
Pettitte has always allowed for the possibility of misinterpretation. Not just throughout this recent testimony. Since 2008.
Pettitte's deposition in 2008 is public record. According to Pettitte, he had a conversation with Clemens in 1999 from which he got the impression Clemens was using PEDs. They had another conversation in 2005, during which Pettitte asked Clemens about his usage. Clemens responded with confusion, claiming Pettitte must have misunderstood the 1999 conversation. In his 2008 testimony, Pettitte was asked about his reaction to Clemens' apparent flip-flop. His recorded answer:
"Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him."
The follow-up question:
"Do you think it's likely that you did misunderstand what Clemens had told you then?"
And again, Pettitte's answer:
"I'm saying that I was under the impression that he told me that he had taken it. And then when Roger told me that he didn't take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him."
So since '08, Pettitte has allowed for the possibility of misinterpretation. Yet Heyman writes as if Pettitte changed his story from one day of last week's testimony to the next. Some of the phrases that appear in the Heyman quotes above:
under-oath about-face
changed his story
wasn't being completely truthful
lamely answered
Pettitte's under-oath changeup is so pathetic
lame, less than-honest performance
sudden case of amnesia
willing to bend the truth under oath
Now, it's not like Pettitte is being 100% clear or helpful. It's fair to call him wishy-washy. But essentially accusing him of changing his story from Day 1 to Day 2 (aka, perjury) when in fact his story has been consistent from Year 1 to Year 5, is bordering on slander.
"There are people who are going to say Pettitte isn't a Hall of Famer anyway, that he didn't win enough games, strike out enough batters or make enough All-Star teams."
Wait--an actual baseball argument being made? Hurrah! Relevant facts stick out like a sore thumb in this article.
Anyway, I agree with the "people" Heyman generally references above. Pettitte really isn't a Hall of Famer based on the numbers, and I didn't need false claims of perjury to sway my opinion on that.
"But Pettitte is the only pitcher to begin his career with 16 seasons without a single losing season (Tom Seaver and Grover Alexander started with 15), his 19 career postseason victories is the most in history (and makes it 259 total victories), and he's one of 26 pitchers who are at least 100 games over .500, with 18 of those pitchers in the Hall of Fame and six more not yet eligible (according to YESNetwork.com)."
And after being wrong about the facts of Pettitte's legal history, Heyman is also wrong about Pettitte's worthiness of Cooperstown consideration. All three of those pro-Pettitte arguments are based on wins. Regular season wins are a reflection of run support, bullpen strength, and luck. Postseason wins are a reflection of all of those things, plus sheer bulk of opportunity. Neither statistic is adequate to evaluate Hall of Fame candidacy. In fact, I scoff at using individual victories to make a Cooperstown case.
"Some from the stat set may scoff at individual victories making a Cooperstown case."
Hey, that's me!
"But there's more. Five times Pettitte finished in the top six in Cy Young voting."
Fair enough. But arguably, he only deserved two of those five finishes. In the other three, his ERAs were 3.87, 4.02, and 4.35. Hardly elite. A lot of those Cy Young votes were based on the success of the Yankees' dynasty at the time, plus his gaudy win totals and the New York media.
"The most similar pitcher to him is Mike Mussina, a clear Hall-of-Fame candidate by most accounts, according to Baseball-Reference.com. So Pettitte is at least a serious Cooperstown candidate based on on-field merit."
I don't know what Heyman is looking at, but Baseball-Reference.com has Mike Mussina listed as the fourth-most similar pitcher to Pettitte. The top three are David Wells, Kevin Brown, and Bob Welch. That seems like the perfect tier for Pettitte--a very good pitcher, and one who will receive some Hall consideration, but ultimately not worthy. Again, this is because his career ERA is pushing towards 4.00 and his career strikeout and WHIP numbers are 'meh' and his peak wasn't very high. Not because of some random testimony against Roger Clemens.
"Some may say still his career comes up short, and that's fine if they do. Others may reflexively rule him out based on using HGH at all, and that's up to them."
Hey, look at that, rational thinking is fun.
"But I was of a belief that his impact via big October wins might earn him my vote..."
Ah yes, Pettitte is a frequent recipient of the Jack Morris Award in the Big October Wins Category. But here's a quick quiz: identify the following Mystery Pitchers.
Mystery Pitcher A: 3.88 ERA, 6.6 K/9, 1.35 WHIP
Mystery Pitcher B: 3.83 ERA, 5.9 K/9, 1.30 WHIP
Pitcher A is Andy Pettitte in the regular season. Pitcher B is Andy Pettitte in the playoffs. So yeah, he had some big postseason wins because he pitched for a postseason juggernaut. But he was basically the exact same pitcher in October as he was in May or August. Hardly a playoff hero.
"...and also that I might be able to overlook the two admitted HGH usages as a pair of weak moments for a pitcher with an imperfect elbow."
I don't agree with Heyman's assessment of Pettitte's career, but I like that he's willing to overlook admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs in general when it comes to his Cooperstown ballot. At least that will give worthier-yet-stained candidates like Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire the consideration they deserve.
Oh, wait, I forgot. Heyman is on the record as saying that he won't ever vote for Palmeiro or McGwire. Bit a double-standard there, maybe?
"Now, though, his own sympathetic HGH story comes into serious question. If he's willing to suddenly misremember under oath for a good buddy, it's easy to think now Pettitte only admitted to what he had to admit to. Maybe Pettitte isn't quite the truthteller we gave him credit for, and maybe there is some other explanation for how his fastball velocity increased to 93/94 mph somewhere in the middle of his career.
I'd say the chances are 50-50 (at best) that Pettitte misremembered his own supposedly very limited usage."
Hey, Jon: you've voted for Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, and Don Mattingly for the Hall, while excluding Jeff Bagwell and Edgar Martinez. You may never vote for Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire. And you're throwing out Pettitte's case because of some ridiculous notion you have about some irrelevant testimony. So tell me, why should I ever listen to anything you have to say?
Heyman's words are quoted and in bold font:
"Yankees pitching great Andy Pettitte may have gotten Roger Clemens out of a jail sentence with his misremembering the other day in court. But Pettitte's contradictory testimony cost himself a chance of at least one Hall of Fame vote -- mine."
The above statement shatters all previously-held records for total number of false premises stuffed into two sentences.
"Pettitte's candidacy is a longshot, to be sure, and it depends on at least two factors.
One, a voter probably has to weigh career impact over career statistics (assuming he doesn't stick around for a few more years and dramatically boost those numbers). And two, a voter probably has to take Pettitte at his word that he only used HGH twice, and only then to recover from injuries."
The voters aren't only taking Pettitte at his word. They're taking the word of everyone who played in the steroid era. Did Jeff Bagwell take PEDs? Mike Piazza? Jeff Kent? Ivan Rodriguez? Pettitte? Who knows? Nobody, really. So we're giving all of them the benefit of the doubt.
"The second claim is suddenly hard to swallow.
Pettitte lied for years when it came to his PED use, denying he ever took any such drugs right up until the day things got serious and baseball-appointed drug czar George Mitchell and the feds got involved. Then Pettitte changed his story to include two instances of HGH use, but only for recovery purposes.
We who knew Pettitte as an exceeedingly pleasant and God-fearing man nodded right along with him. But now, how can we be so sure he was telling the truth then?"
But more importantly, how can we be so sure he isn't an alien spy from Neptune? I for one am horrified that the government is wasting resources on a steroid investigation while embedded space invaders walk amongst our children.
"Suddenly on the stand in federal court last week, Pettitte changed his story about Clemens. And remarkably, he changed it from one day to the next. It is fair to assume he wasn't being completely truthful one of those two days."
There is no way to say this except: You are wrong. Just, like, ignorant of the facts. But rather than explain why, I'll first allow Heyman to present the entirety of his misguided, hyperbole-laden rant:
"Under questioning by government lawyers, Pettitte, who's trying for a baseball comeback with the Yankees, said Clemens told him about Clemens' own HGH use while the pair were working out together back in 1999 or 2000. That was a powerful point against Clemens.
Then only one day later, under questioning by Clemens' lawyers, Pettitte said he may have misunderstood the key HGH conversation. In fact, it's now 50-50 he misunderstood, he answered to Clemens attorney Michael Attanasio. "I'd say that's fair,'' Pettitte lamely answered to Attanasio.
Pettitte's under-oath changeup is so pathetic, Clemens' defense team is arguing Monday to strike his entire testimony, and I won't blame Judge Walton if he agrees. Pettitte's testimony was viewed by many as the key to the government's case, and now it can be thrown out.
While Pettitte won't face charges for his lame, less-then-honest performance (the government is understandably done with the steroids-in-baseball cases after Clemens), Pettitte may have torpedoed a worthwhile yet expensive case of perjury against Clemens with his sudden case of amnesia regarding a conversation he's been testifying consistently about for nearly five years.
I get that Pettitte is conflicted and doesn't want to help send his idol, Clemens, to the slammer. But if Pettitte is willing to bend the truth under oath to aid someone else, why should we believe his own story of two usages of HGH only for recovery and no usages of steroids?"
Okay, so, that was a fun little fantasy. But Heyman completely disregards a crucial fact. Pettitte did admit that there was a 50-50 chance he misunderstood Clemens. But he never suggested otherwise. The story has never changed.
Pettitte has always allowed for the possibility of misinterpretation. Not just throughout this recent testimony. Since 2008.
Pettitte's deposition in 2008 is public record. According to Pettitte, he had a conversation with Clemens in 1999 from which he got the impression Clemens was using PEDs. They had another conversation in 2005, during which Pettitte asked Clemens about his usage. Clemens responded with confusion, claiming Pettitte must have misunderstood the 1999 conversation. In his 2008 testimony, Pettitte was asked about his reaction to Clemens' apparent flip-flop. His recorded answer:
"Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him."
The follow-up question:
"Do you think it's likely that you did misunderstand what Clemens had told you then?"
And again, Pettitte's answer:
"I'm saying that I was under the impression that he told me that he had taken it. And then when Roger told me that he didn't take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him."
So since '08, Pettitte has allowed for the possibility of misinterpretation. Yet Heyman writes as if Pettitte changed his story from one day of last week's testimony to the next. Some of the phrases that appear in the Heyman quotes above:
under-oath about-face
changed his story
wasn't being completely truthful
lamely answered
Pettitte's under-oath changeup is so pathetic
lame, less than-honest performance
sudden case of amnesia
willing to bend the truth under oath
Now, it's not like Pettitte is being 100% clear or helpful. It's fair to call him wishy-washy. But essentially accusing him of changing his story from Day 1 to Day 2 (aka, perjury) when in fact his story has been consistent from Year 1 to Year 5, is bordering on slander.
"There are people who are going to say Pettitte isn't a Hall of Famer anyway, that he didn't win enough games, strike out enough batters or make enough All-Star teams."
Wait--an actual baseball argument being made? Hurrah! Relevant facts stick out like a sore thumb in this article.
Anyway, I agree with the "people" Heyman generally references above. Pettitte really isn't a Hall of Famer based on the numbers, and I didn't need false claims of perjury to sway my opinion on that.
"But Pettitte is the only pitcher to begin his career with 16 seasons without a single losing season (Tom Seaver and Grover Alexander started with 15), his 19 career postseason victories is the most in history (and makes it 259 total victories), and he's one of 26 pitchers who are at least 100 games over .500, with 18 of those pitchers in the Hall of Fame and six more not yet eligible (according to YESNetwork.com)."
And after being wrong about the facts of Pettitte's legal history, Heyman is also wrong about Pettitte's worthiness of Cooperstown consideration. All three of those pro-Pettitte arguments are based on wins. Regular season wins are a reflection of run support, bullpen strength, and luck. Postseason wins are a reflection of all of those things, plus sheer bulk of opportunity. Neither statistic is adequate to evaluate Hall of Fame candidacy. In fact, I scoff at using individual victories to make a Cooperstown case.
"Some from the stat set may scoff at individual victories making a Cooperstown case."
Hey, that's me!
"But there's more. Five times Pettitte finished in the top six in Cy Young voting."
Fair enough. But arguably, he only deserved two of those five finishes. In the other three, his ERAs were 3.87, 4.02, and 4.35. Hardly elite. A lot of those Cy Young votes were based on the success of the Yankees' dynasty at the time, plus his gaudy win totals and the New York media.
"The most similar pitcher to him is Mike Mussina, a clear Hall-of-Fame candidate by most accounts, according to Baseball-Reference.com. So Pettitte is at least a serious Cooperstown candidate based on on-field merit."
I don't know what Heyman is looking at, but Baseball-Reference.com has Mike Mussina listed as the fourth-most similar pitcher to Pettitte. The top three are David Wells, Kevin Brown, and Bob Welch. That seems like the perfect tier for Pettitte--a very good pitcher, and one who will receive some Hall consideration, but ultimately not worthy. Again, this is because his career ERA is pushing towards 4.00 and his career strikeout and WHIP numbers are 'meh' and his peak wasn't very high. Not because of some random testimony against Roger Clemens.
"Some may say still his career comes up short, and that's fine if they do. Others may reflexively rule him out based on using HGH at all, and that's up to them."
Hey, look at that, rational thinking is fun.
"But I was of a belief that his impact via big October wins might earn him my vote..."
Ah yes, Pettitte is a frequent recipient of the Jack Morris Award in the Big October Wins Category. But here's a quick quiz: identify the following Mystery Pitchers.
Mystery Pitcher A: 3.88 ERA, 6.6 K/9, 1.35 WHIP
Mystery Pitcher B: 3.83 ERA, 5.9 K/9, 1.30 WHIP
Pitcher A is Andy Pettitte in the regular season. Pitcher B is Andy Pettitte in the playoffs. So yeah, he had some big postseason wins because he pitched for a postseason juggernaut. But he was basically the exact same pitcher in October as he was in May or August. Hardly a playoff hero.
"...and also that I might be able to overlook the two admitted HGH usages as a pair of weak moments for a pitcher with an imperfect elbow."
I don't agree with Heyman's assessment of Pettitte's career, but I like that he's willing to overlook admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs in general when it comes to his Cooperstown ballot. At least that will give worthier-yet-stained candidates like Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire the consideration they deserve.
Oh, wait, I forgot. Heyman is on the record as saying that he won't ever vote for Palmeiro or McGwire. Bit a double-standard there, maybe?
"Now, though, his own sympathetic HGH story comes into serious question. If he's willing to suddenly misremember under oath for a good buddy, it's easy to think now Pettitte only admitted to what he had to admit to. Maybe Pettitte isn't quite the truthteller we gave him credit for, and maybe there is some other explanation for how his fastball velocity increased to 93/94 mph somewhere in the middle of his career.
I'd say the chances are 50-50 (at best) that Pettitte misremembered his own supposedly very limited usage."
Hey, Jon: you've voted for Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, and Don Mattingly for the Hall, while excluding Jeff Bagwell and Edgar Martinez. You may never vote for Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire. And you're throwing out Pettitte's case because of some ridiculous notion you have about some irrelevant testimony. So tell me, why should I ever listen to anything you have to say?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)