A sabermatic argument for Jack Morris's Hall of Fame case

As sabermatics* fanbois carry on with their vendetta against the Magnificent Mustachioed Magician, besmirching both the good name and Hall of Fame case of one Jack Morris, we, the defenders of tradition and the eye test and true grit, deem it worthwhile to respond. Although his case as one of the greatest pitchers of all time--and without peer in his ability to pitch to the score and perform in the clutch--should and can stand on its own, we nonetheless here advance an argument based on statistical analysis. In deigning to approach the question from this perspective, we in no way acknowledge any superiority in that approach despite its alleged objectivity and the fact that it can further build a case in favor of Mr. Morris.

Cutting-edge techniques allow us to quantify the uncountable contributions Jack made to the winning culture of his teams, encapsulating them in one easy-to-understand number that we can easily compare across eras. INTAN+ is a virtual rubicon of information:

I: Intelligence. Baseball intelligence, not that cognitive ability crap; being in the right place at the right time is a matter of baseball intelligence, not just chance.

N: Notable single-game performances. If you can recall a single game, it counts in this metric.

T: Team success. Because nothing says more about one guy's worthiness than the ability of a 27-man roster's success across 162 regular-season and some other post-season games.

A: Attitude. It can be positive, it can be negative; all that matters here is that it helps a guy's team win.

N: Narcissism. A real star/Hall of Famer knows he belongs; many will tell you so.

+: Indicates that this is a measure of comparison with the INTANs of a player's contemporaries, rather than just a raw number with no context. Thus, a 100 INTAN+ indicates a league-average player, while a 150 INTAN+ would indicate a player worth 150% of the league average player.

We start with the assumption that the average player is average: he begins at 100. The player is then assigned a score for each category, on a -20 to 20 scale, with a total of 100 points that may therefore be added to--or, let's not forget, deducted from--the player's starting point of 100. Several categories are complicated to evaluate, and deserve special consideration here. (1) Notable single-game performances come in two varieties, and should be weighted differently. For each Notable single-game performance turned in during the regular season, add one point; if, however, a Notable single-game performance happens to have occurred during the post-season or an All Star game, assign two points. (2) Team success may be defined in multiple ways, but some matter far more than others. For each time the player's team reached the playoffs (even if he was hurt, or useless that year), whether as league champion, division champion, wild card, or one-game wild-card participant (because all of those playoff positions are equally glorious), add one point. A player shall earn zero points if his team does not reach the playoffs, regardless of his individual merit/accomplishments or the team's overall record. Playoff series wins earn a player half a point, but a World Series earns him 3 points. (3) The player who knows he belongs and tells you can earn a maximum of 18 points, because if it's that obvious he shouldn't have to tell you. Since the player who doesn't have to tell you doesn't tell you, he's obviously even more obvious and so may be assigned 20 points.

The Captain, Derek Jeter, is of course the standard-bearer for INTAN+, the all-time leader by a fair margin. If Morris suffers by comparison, it is only as all mere mortals suffer by comparison to the awe-inspiring stature of the gods. A breakdown:

I: 20 points. Has he ever not been in the right place at the right time? He was intelligent enough to get drafted by the Yankees, who could afford to surround him with highly paid, exceptional talent. He knew he'd need to be in that particular spot to cut off a ball and backhand-flip it to Jorge Posada in 2001. He knew he'd want to lead off his final All-Star game in 2014 so he could double off Adam Wainwright before the Cardinals ace warmed up enough to not groove a mistake fastball down the middle of the plate.

N: 20 points. As any Yankee fan will tell you, these are numerous. Every single 4-for-4 was magically memorable and unforgettable, because each one came in a game the Yankees absolutely had to win. Why is this score artificially capped at 20? It's so Jeter can't break the stat.

T: 20 points. Modern-day dynasty, captained by--who else?--The Captain.

A: 20 points. Some may criticize him as milquetoast, even boring, but Jeter was inevitably steady, calm, and confident, and never openly criticized his teammates or his opponents. Set the tone perfectly for his veteran teammates to continue going about their business professionally, just like they'd always done.

N: 20 points. It's obvious, and he doesn't need to tell you. So much so in fact that everyone else did it for him in 2014's farewell tour.

Jeter's INTAN+ therefore clocks in at a mind-boggling 206. Where did the extra 6 come from? Glad you asked.

Jeter has always been the foil to Alex Rodriguez, the guy whose other stats would seem to suggest he should be revered above the Yankee, but INTAN+ exists to show us the error of those ways. A breakdown:

I: -20 points. Made the mistake of getting drafted by the Mariners and playing for them, then choosing the Rangers to sign his first quarter-million dollar contract, then forcing a trade to a Yankees team that didn't need him because it was already legendary and all he could do was get lost in the shuffle. Willingly moved from the most important defensive position to a less important one. Of his 654 career home runs, 612 came with no one on base or his team already in the lead. Used PEDs or was dumb enough to get caught.

N: 0 points. Do you remember any?

T: 9 points. His team won the World Series in 2009, but his 5 home runs and 12 RBI in the first two rounds were empty stats. Yanks clearly should have won in '04, '05, '06, '07, and '10-'12, but he held them back.

A: -20 points.

N: -20 points. Will spend lots of time telling anyone who will listen that he is a star and belongs in the Hall of Fame. Too much time. Especially for someone who used PEDs, and therefore should forever be ineligible for special All-Star cards in packs of Topps, the Hall, compassion, or free Slurpees at 7-11 on July 11.

Rodriguez's total: 41, the Mendoza Line of INTAN+

All of which brings us back to Jack Morris, who presumably falls somewhere between. Let's see where.

I: 16 points. His mustache has a mind of its own, and two brains are better than one. At least one of them always knew the score, and exactly how many runs he could still give up to get the win. 

N: 14 points. That World Series Game 7. Limited legs on this one. Were there others, too?

T: 14 points. Lots of competent teams. One World Series title.

A: 18 points. Gritty. Business like. Feared by opponents, apparently.

N: 16 points. Keeps telling us about it.

A total of 178, indicating his intangibles were precisely 78% more valuable than the average major league player during the course of his career. Explain to me how that is not a Hall of Fame career right there?

If Charlie Kelly can count gasoline, we can count these contributions from an individual winner to a winning team.

*That's on purpose.

Frustration

When did pro athletes begin to make ungodly amounts of money? I don't remember hearing about massive contracts when I was younger. The best players in their respective league made huge gobs of money, but i never remember recall so over the top amounts that they are now. Chris Bosh is making 118 million over the course of 5 years which over 82 games, comes out to $287,805 dollars. Seriously? Chris Bosh is worth paying almost 300,000 K a game to? I know it's a cynical train of thought that goes through my brain but i sometimes get giddy when i read of a player playing through 100 million and is now poor on the street. Antoine Walker comes to mind. Sports Illustrated recently did an article highlighting post career retirement for these players. And while some of it makes sense most of it is just plain bull. granted i've never been making 10 million dollars to play the sport that i love, i'd think i'd be able to learn some coping skills to deal with my money and fame. If any of us would be fortunate enough to be able to retire in our 30's with millions of dollars and name/face recognition that the common man doesn't have we would be ecstatic. a suprising percentage of baseball, football, basketball players are broke within 5 years of retirement and though that may sadden many i take it and say, "f you for ruining your life that 99% of people would do just about anything to have had." i might be way offbase, which im sure i am, but having a kid i hope he chooses someone besides an athlete to idolize. A humanitarian, a city serveant, a homeless politician that worked through and made a life of himself. When a ex player like Jose Canseco who for 10 years cheated his way through baseball to make millions of dollars, and can barely freaking play baseball!!!!! is making millions of dollars because many people still recognize him and are willing to pay him money for appearances and other irrational dealings it's very frustrating. I love sports, i just really wish we as fans would all just get up and leave, and stop paying so much goddamn money to see them play and buy their jerseys and maybe than will the contracts come down again. Mic drop.

Cleveland Cavaliers What-If

LeBron James is going to Cleveland.  The roster currently has a lot of young talent.  Namely, Kyrie Irving is a rising star, although wildly inconsistent as a distributor of the ball.  Andrew Wiggins has through the roof potential, and is one of the best prospects since LeBron James.  And, for anybody who paid attention, Anthony Bennett is a really talented kid who needs to get his weight and sleep apnea under control.  That roster alone is not impressive.  It's looking more and more like it is not what the roster will look like when the season starts.

Scenario 1:  The roster stays the same.  If this is the case, expect this team to immediately become the favorite in the East.  LeBron James alone creates that, and Kyrie Irving and Dion Waiters are very good. If I had to put 50 bucks down, I would say the Cavs with LeBron win the East pretty handily next year unless Roy Hibbert decides to start playing like he is 7'2" instead of 4'2".

Scenario 2:  The Cavs trade for Kevin Love.  These discussions have apparently occurred.  The current thought is that Love for Wiggins, Varajao, and maybe another player or a pick would be the trade.  My guess is that both teams would be happy if the trade included Wiggins, Varajao, and Bennett, but that might be too much young talent to give up.  Regardless, the Wolves would get a top talent to build around and a couple other pieces, while the Cavs would get the best power forward in the league (Duncan is not in his prime).  In my mind, the only way a team with James, Irving, and Love doesn't win the NBA title is if the Spurs keep the magic going or the Rockets sign Bosh and Dwight Howard goes back to being dominant in the paint.

Scenario 3:  None of the above.  I won't speculate on what other options might be, as trade rules in the NBA are a little bit weird.  Perhaps they find a way to pick up another piece or two, or make a more minor trade for role players.  In this scenario, the team would very much look like Scenario 1.

The real story/question here is how good would this team be in scenario 2?  A direct comparison of pieces between the Heat teams of the last 4 years vs. what the Cavs would look like with LeBron, Kevin Love, and Kyrie Irving.  LeBron is a wash.  He is the same player and is in the middle of his prime.  He probably won't get any better, but won't get any worse either if he doesn't get injured.  Chris Bosh is a really great player, but he is not Kevin Love.  Kevin Love does everything Bosh does except he is a much better rebounder.  Kyrie Irving is not the player Dwyane Wade is, but Wade has been hampered by knees the past two years.  As such, if you package Irving and Waiters and compare to Wade and Mario Chalmers, I would again give the advantage to Cleveland.  One issue is that Waiters and Irving don't get along.  James won't tolerate that crap.  He will be the glue guy as well as the superstar.

In terms of starting lineup, I really think the Cavs with Kevin Love would be a better team than the Heat teams of the past four years.  Only time will tell, and Love hasn't been traded, so this may never happen.  Either way, this is going to be fun to watch, and hopefully this all results in Wiggins ending up in Minnesota, because he will be fun to watch.

The LeBron James Return to Cleveland Essay

It is official.  LeBron James is returning to Cleveland.  The essay that LeBron James submitted to announce his decision this time around was as impressive as "The Decision" was unimpressive.  It is clear that LeBron James has grown up in the past few years.  He carries himself as an ambassador for the NBA.  He is the epitome of what is right with the league.  He is a team player, knows the history of the game, and has become very likable despite the amount of vitriole generated by "The Decision."

I think the thing I liked most about the essay was that he was able to address a number of factors in his decision, and able to really explain his reasons in an eloquent and concise fashion.  Least surprising was his desire to go home.  He maintains a home in Ohio, and has not been shy about stating that Ohio is home. While most athletes avoid Cleveland like the plague, LeBron James has always seemed to gravitate to home, and relish the opportunity to play in his own backyard.

The most interesting part of the essay was when he addressed Dan Gilbert and Cleveland fans who burned jerseys when he left.  The phrase "who am I to judge" was extremely interesting especially when he placed it in the context of how he would have felt if his sports hero left in his prime.  This was a pretty serene and sage view of the previous situation, and again illustrates how much this man has grown up in the past few years.

The only thing I really wish he would have done was to address "The Decision" as less of a bullet point on a timeline, but as the debacle it really was.  Something along the lines of it raising a lot of money, but was really handled inappopriately and was probably not the best decision.  Instead, he alludes to having made mistakes. Regardless, I wouldn't really want to talk about it if I had done something that ridiculous either.  And shame on ESPN for their role as well (I'm guessing it wasn't LeBron's idea in the first place, but who knows).

Wishing there was a little more on "The Decision" is nitpicking, especially considering that the overall tone was one of coming home because it is home.  The essay was very direct and sincere in this regard.

Since I'm so warm, fuzzy, and happy, I'll do another post on why this Cavs team is going to be significantly better immediately than the teams James was on in Miami, so as not to suggest that winning was the only reason for leaving Miami.

LeBron to Cleveland = Timberwolves make playoffs in next couple of years?

This is obviously speculative and the title is misleading, but as of 2:17 pm on July 10, 2014 it looks as if LeBron James will either stay with the heat or go to the Cavaliers.  If he goes to the Cavs, it is widely believed they will trade significant assets to obtain Kevin Love to team with James and Kyrie Irving.  The Wolves will apparently demand Andrew Wiggins, who has been characterized as one of the better prospects in recent drafts.  Could it be that the ability of the Wolves to get something good in return for Kevin Love (who hates the organization, and doesn't like Minneapolis, and is gone, despite what homer-boy Paul Allen would have people believe) depends entirely on LeBron James? As a Minneapolis/St. Paul resident, I sure am intrigued!  Hurry up and decide the fate of the Wolves LeBron!

Politics, power, and consent in the "redskins" nickname debate

With the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently canceling the Washington Redskins' trademark, and burgeoning opposition from prominent and well-funded groups like the Oneida Indian Nation, I've been back into following a topic that one of my thesis students wrote on last semester. Perusing reader comments on some of the recent news reports and columns (which I generally try not to do online because they're so often just so awful and unhelpful), I've noticed a few patterns I want to address, beyond simply affirming my predictable stance that the team should change its name.

Though I have talked about this issue with students in classes, I've been reluctant to weigh in on it publicly in part because I'm not an Indian, and I believe it's the voices of those who are that should be privileged in this discussion. Identifying those voices, however, can be tricky. Anyone paying attention to this issue is aware of several polls--cited frequently by Dan Snyder and others affiliated with the organization, and many of the team's supporters--that purport to represent a sampling of Native Americans, and that find that the majority of those polled don't oppose the nickname. But who exactly constitutes those samples isn't always clear--after all, who determined that these respondents were American Indian? 2010 census data showed "American Indian" to be one of the nation's fastest-growing demographic groups. While this may be positive--an ethnic population recovering numbers, or a growing awareness of cultural heritage among existing biological populations--it may also reflect growing numbers of Americans who simply choose to define themselves as such for their own reasons. Some may be misguided opportunists hoping to lay claim to what they see as the benefits of Indian identity, some may be claiming for themselves some sort of romanticized heritage; some may be biological descendants of Native Americans who nonetheless aren't particularly entrenched in native communities and cultures; others, of course, are active members of long-standing native communities. Heck, one defense of the name is that it's meant to honor Lone Star Dietz, the team's coach 80 years ago--whose claims to Sioux ancestry are contested. My point here is just that these self-definitions can be hard to parse, but that the nuances here matter significantly for how someone experiences the "Redskins" name.

Opponents of a name-change frequently suggest that this effort is only recent, and that it's a white liberal cause. It strikes me that both concerns work together to displace the very people who are--in theory--central to the question, Native Americans/American Indians, from the debate.

First, I'm never quite sure why it would only be white liberals supporting attempts to treat segments of the population with greater respect--that seems like a universal project. And why should white liberals be particularly concerned about the nickname? My own personal experience is purely anecdotal, but plenty of Indians describe themselves as conservative and vote Republican--in my admittedly somewhat limited experience, those with transparent political affiliations are more often conservative than liberal, so it's not like liberal politicians are just trying to secure their appeal to a large and vocal constituency. I suspect this perception is linked to the idea that being an Indian somehow secures a person with special, undeserved privileges--fishing and hunting rights, state-tax exemptions, casino permits, etc.--akin to social welfare programs ("entitlements").* The fact that prominent media organizations--the supposedly liberal "mainstream media," another conservative bugaboo--have come out in favor of a name-change, and in some cases have stopped using the nickname in favor of awkward substitutes, no doubt reinforces this perception. I also have to think that the idea the federal government is driving this--the Patent Office canceling a trademark in the midst of a presidential administration many people fear is abusing executive power (the IRS flagging non-profits, etc.)--also plays to conservative concerns about the size and power of the federal government, and in this case a government pitted against private business. Again, though, this makes Obama, Democrats, and other liberals the main agents of this push, rather than Native Americans, and shifts the conversation into the realm of contemporary political contests rather than the arena of racial identities and civil rights.

And for the second, the question of timing. Let's be clear: it's not just recent. Native American organizations protested the Redskins specifically as early as the late 1980s, and certainly through the 1990s. The American Indian Movement and other efforts targeted mascots and logos on commercial products, and those used by high schools and colleges, during the 1960s and 1970s. This is not new. Many of those other targets of protest, however, have been more responsive to the concerns voiced than the NFL team has been. What does strike me as newish, as more recent, is the unprecedented platform from which Native Americans can now launch those criticisms, and force their perspectives into public awareness. In part this is a product of their growing numbers, as I noted with the census numbers. In part it's also a product of an increasing ability across the 20th and 21st centuries to define themselves as a community united by a common heritage, and shared cultural practices and concerns. As outright oppression and legal discrimination have diminished, as forcible assimilation efforts have ended, as technological resources have allowed more in-depth study of genealogical records and archaeological sites, and as procedures for recognizing people as American Indians have been updated, growing numbers of cohesive and active American Indian communities have been able to coordinate financial and human resources and direct them toward shared projects.

This is one reason state and federal recognition matter to tribes--they officially acknowledge the existence of these groups in ways that facilitate collective actions, including the ability to voice concerns about social issues they face. In some cases, tribes do seek recognition at least in part to again exercise treaty rights, including those with economic import. I'm perfectly aware some Americans resent economic endeavors like casinos, and gas stations that charge lower prices because they're exempt from certain fuel taxes, and I can at least sympathize with people who find that troubling. At the same time, those are activities that help support these communities--providing employment in some cases, cash payments in others. More importantly, though, are the resources they provide these communities to bolster infrastructure (schools, roads, libraries, etc.), and to reinforce cultural identities (through research, through supporting powwows and language reconstruction projects, etc.). And, pertinent to our discussion here, to support projects like challenging the Redskins nickname, an effort in which the Oneida Indian Nation is currently engaged as a central player (if you follow only one link from this post, that's the one to check out).

To reiterate, then: native communities' opposition to the name Redskins is not new. What is new is the ability of Native American individuals and groups to collectively mobilize in effective ways.

Many of these assertions that pressures for a name change are only recent, and originate with white liberals, seem to me to reflect a tendency to read everything in terms of today's polarized American politics, rather than approaching the issue as one involving a minority population's historical trauma and battle against ongoing colonialism. They attempt to displace from the conversation about the Redskins nickname the very people who are central to it, who may experience it as racist and a homogenization of diverse and distinct identities. In effect, these assertions deny native peoples' agency in the matter, deny them the ability to consent or not to popular, public, and prominent representations of their past and present experiences and identities.

Whatever the outcome of this dispute/conversation, whatever the prevailing opinion of the majority of Native Americans is, the attempt to deny them the central role in the discussion is an exercise of power that, now more than ever, Native Americans can effectively challenge.

*In Rez Life, Ojibwe author David Treuer points makes a distinction that people often forget. Treaty rights aren't extra rights given to Native Americans, but rather, traditional rights native peoples had that they reserved for themselves when negotiating the sale or cession of parts of their territories to the United States. They may have lost the ability to make use of those rights at various points in the past, but that didn't terminate those rights. Different discussion.

my rant on soccer, america and the world

First off, let me say over the course of the last 12 plus years i've increasingly become more and more of a fan of soccer and less so of basketball, including both pro and college. I think mostly because i've gotten older, hate the way the game is played now-a-days and the fact that morons like Carmelo Anthony are making 20 plus million a year and says that defense is something that he doesn't need to improve on. Here are my point:

1. So apparently the US just played 3 teams in the top 5 in the FIFA world rankings (Germany, Portugal and Belgium). I believe we are around 22 ish in those same rankings (right before the cup started). We lost to Germany 1-0 (we played defense the whole game knowing we had to give up 5 goals or so not to advance out of group stage), tied Portugal 2-2 (we dominated and held their douchey superstar to nothing until the last 30 seconds when he had a cross over the middle for the goal that tied it) and lost to Belgium in 15 minute extra period 2-1 (they domintated us). Here's my point if these countries were so great  why the hell were the games so close!!! Imagine a number 2 ranked Ohio State football team taking on a number 23 Idaho State....99 out of 100 times ohio state DOMINATES and destroys them. There's that 1 game that the breaks go the other way and an upset happens. I just can't comprehend how little the score and the game play is reflected in these games. Basically these FIFA country ranking are the biggest farce of all, or I just don't understand apparently how soccer has no difference in skill level, or very little, from 1-30 or so. Explain please.

2. What the F**K do soccer coaches do? They set a lineup...and manage 3 subs. Do they call plays? Most of the time I see them sitting on the bench not doing anything, and occasionaly getting up to yell at the refs who are most likely calling a foul when someone flops to the ground. I mean they do something, they decide the attack or defensive strategies against an opponent and who they guard more tightly but I can't see them doing anything else...

3. There are 220 or so countries that compete for world cup spots...the top 32 make it, 1 is automatic (host country) and so 31 spots are left. United States has qualified for something like 6 in a row.  A lot of the world thinks the united states as a horrible soccer country, but really, we are now in the upper echelon in the soccer world. We have gotten out of the group stage in 2 of the last 3 (Portugal, spain, england, etc etc) all didn't this year, england and portugual the last 3 world cups. We have gotten to the quarterfinals once in the last 3 (2002) and we have players from the us making significant contributions for some powerhouse european clubs (howard, altidore, etc). We have some dominant players coming up in the system that by the 2018 world cup they may be superstars. My point is this: they shouldn't be laughing, especially england, at the us anymore. I have no doubt we will continue this world cup streak and hopefully we continue to improve.

4. The united states dominates the rest of the world when it comes to producing top level athletic talent. We produce the best baseball, basketball and football talent than all the other countries. While the Japanese Baseball League does have some nice talent, it's no where close to MLB. We have a countries best players play in our leagues and that's very few. Baseball does have the most foreign talent than the other leagues but it's still a low number in the whole league. Germany's best basketball player is Nowitski...that's it. why haven't they produced another talent, because there busy playing soccer i guess. England- where's your 7 foot tall basketball stud, or baseball talent, oh wait you're too busy being idiots and drinking tea and watching the queen continue to be a piece of shit. Hey Russia- you've produced like 3 pro basketball players and the best one (Arbynis Sabonis) was pretty horrible and most can't cut it in the talented leagues. So the united states is producing athletes that not only dominate our leagues (which outside of the mls are all better talent wise) we are sending athletes to play in yours.

5. Was listening to a rant by a caller on a sports talk show and he said the only way that the US will ever break through in soccer is that we have to convince our best athletes to play soccer rather than baseball, basketball, football, etc. Not going to happen. Soccer players are all average size people, there aren't any of them that we would think of as freakishly athletic (ie Lebron James). Lionel Messi is 5'8 and weighs like 175...oh my god that's so intimidating. So would James dominate on the soccer pitching. Most likely...but he'd get yellow card after yellow card because he's touch one of those skinny nerds and they'd fly 10 feet and skid on the ground. This concludes my rant. Talent disparity in soccer is not so different between the top and the middle, US is no longer a joke in soccer, coaches don't do anything, and we produce by far the most talented athletes.

lincecum hof?

With tim lincecums second career no hitter last night it got me asking myself if he was a hall of famer. With only 95 career wins and a .600 winning percentage those dont seem like hof numbers. But in this new era of statiscal analysis i believe he is. If he has 6 more years and averages 13 wins thats around 80 wins and throw in Random wins hes likely to finish his career with 200 wins. His era will be in the low to mid 3s and his strikeouts high. But you cant compare him to a generation ago pitcher. He dominated baaeball for 3 years. He has had an above average career after that. His whip is above average and for the 6th time hes on pace for 200ks. In an era when we look at a players wins and losses a pitcher has many more credible stats. Quality starts, innings pitched, era in no decisions, whips, war etc etc. All stats that lincecum has above average numbers. Look at a guy like verlander, his numbers have fallen off as well but he doeant have two titles under his belt. When hes all done lincecum should be a first or second ballot hal of famer