Soon the Hall of Fame will announce the 2009 inductees. Hype always goes to the players who are on the ballot for the first time: Ricky Henderson this year, or players who are on the "brink" of getting in: Jim Rice for the longest time. But year after year, one of the greatest players of all time is widely ignored: Tommy John.
The Hall of Fame, and those who vote, must realize one thing. Namely, that stats are not the only thing that determines whether or not one should be inducted. The person's importance to the game is incredibly important. Recent examples of players who were inducted thanks in part to there importance to the game were Effa Manley, the first woman ever elected to the Hall, and Ray Brown, a great Negro Leagues player.
The legacy that Tommy John left is as clear as day: Tommy John surgery. Needless to say, but Tommy John was one of the first persons ever to have this surgery. John had the surgery after pitching 11 and a half seasons in the majors. The chances of success were low, and after the surgery, medical experts thought John would never pitch again. But he did, with great results. After coming back to the majors, John won 20 or more games in three of the next five seasons.
However his importance to the game is not the only thing, of course. Stats-wise, John clearly deserves to get in:
-John won 288 games, the most for any pitcher during the modern era (post 1900) not to get into the Hall of Fame.
-John had 2245 strikeouts, 48th all time.
-He missed half of the 1974 season and missed all of the 1975 season to have his surgery, which was in the prime of his career. With this time, almost undoubtedly he would have won 300 games in his career.
-His career E.R.A. was 3.34, which is less than Hall of Famers Phil Niekro, Early Wynn, and Dennis Eckersley, amongst others.
5 comments:
Well, all right, but the part about his stats are all very context-free.
• When you're 48th on the strikeout leaderboard, that's a LONG way down. What it says about his ability is that he acquired those K's via durability rather than dominance — that is, the exact charge frequently and incorrectly leveled at Bert Blyleven. John never had a K/9 as high as even 7.00 in any full major league season of his career!
• Similarly, 288 wins isn't really a compelling figure by itself; neither is his career 3.34 ERA, as you can tell by the fact that he never had a very high peak ERA+ (161 with the 1968 White Sox, the Year of the Pitcher in which every pitcher did well, but surpassing 130 only five times).
• Tommy John never pitched for a World Series winner, which caused some to abstain from voting for him.
• His comps include some borderline Hall of Famers, including Don Sutton, many of whose careers were predicated on durability rather than dominance. (Again, I don't think these last two issues are necessarily a problem, but many voters do.)
• As Jay Jaffe pointed out today, John had excellent run support to pad his win totals.
On the balance, I don't see it.
Some good points, but let me disagree back:
- First, although he did not have more than 7k/9 innings, the fact that he had so many points to durability and longevity. Namely, it's hard to be good for a long time, especially after a drastic surgery, but Tommy John was able to do so.
- Second, although he never had a high peak ERA+, he was at or surpassed 100 17 years in a row.
- Pitching or hitting on a World Series team is meaningless. Ted Williams, for example.
- Forth, you're right, it's a non-issue, but if they got in, why not Tommy John?
- Fifth, him having "excellent run support" is simply incorrect. I mean, look at John's ERA and winning record his first few years:
10 and 13 with a 2.47 ERA in '67
10 and 5 with a 1.98 ERA in '68
9 and 11 with a 3.25 ERA in '69
12 and 17 with a 3.27 ERA in '70
13 and 16 with a 3.61 ERA in '71
If he had good run support, he easily should have won 15 games most of his first years. But he didn't have good run support.
But for those rate stats, you're not giving context again:
1967 (AL): 121 ERA+, 7th
1968 (AL): 161 ERA+, 2nd
1969 (AL): 119 ERA+, not in top 10
1970 (AL): 116 ERA+, not in top 10
1971 (AL): 100 ERA+, not in top 10
In fact, the next time John had an ERA+ high enough to crack the top ten -- his injury year of 1974 with 132 -- he didn't have enough innings pitched to make the leaderboard. That is to say, over three of those years, the ERAs he accumulated just weren't all that great, and in the other two, you're in the peak of the modern deadball era with the enormous strike zone.
John finally made it back to the ERA+ leaderboard in 1977, the second year after his comeback, with a 136 ERA+, good enough for sixth; he returned again in 1981 with a 131 ERA+, second in the AL. But that was the last time he made it, as he pitched fewer innings than needed to crack the leaderboard and/or didn't pitch well enough to make it.
Other than '71, John was above average with his ERA+. I was just making the point that, if he had "excellent run support," that he wouldn't have had such a bad win/loss record. If run support was there, regardless of being something like 14th in ERA+, he would have had a good record. Instead, the support was not there. Heck, if it was he might have 300 wins today.
Mike, good article. Unfortunately, Tommy John is not going into the Hall this year without a ticket.
Post a Comment