Hall of Fame Voting: This Year, Next Year, and Beyond

[nymr83]

="seawolf17"] ="Nymr83"]if Chuck Finley is "1 & done" i don't see how Morris gets in, they had pretty similiar careers with Finley having a 10 point advantage in ERA+ and Morris having 800 more innings. neither really ever had a great peak. Blyleven had 1000 innings more than Morris (1800 on Finley) and 13 pts of ERA+ (3 on Finley) and HE is borderline (but i'd put him in) Finley and Morris are only similar in that they're pitchers who have six letters in their last name. Finley only got Cy Young votes ONCE in his career: one point, in 1990. Finley's not even close. Morris has three WS rings, five AS games (including two starts), seven years appearing on Cy ballots, five years appearing on MVP ballots.

WS rings say zero about the player so i won't bother with that one. Finley has the same 5 all-star appearences.

Morris was just never great, he topped a 130 ERA+ just once in his career. Finley did so on 4 occassions. it's not Finley's fault that the idiots who vote for awards look at team stats like Wins more than they look at park-adjusted individual stats.

[seawolf17]

I'm not going all Paul O'Neill here. I'm talking about Jack Morris. He won the 1984 and 1991 Serieses practically by himself: 5 starts, 4-0, 3 CGs, including this. Dude was dominant. Finley was never dominant.

[nymr83]

seawolf17 wrote: I'm not going all Paul O'Neill here. I'm talking about Jack Morris. He won the 1984 and 1991 Serieses practically by himself: 5 starts, 4-0, 3 CGs, including this. Dude was dominant. Finley was never dominant.

his name is morris not o'neil so he's a hall of famer? got it.
5 postseason starts makes you a hall of famer? i'll get Beckett's plack ready.

how bout arguing numbers instead of claiming "he's jack friggin morris" or "he was dominant"

[seawolf17]

No, I'm agreeing with you that rings, in and of themselves, do not make a player Hall-worthy. (See O'Neill, Paul.) And Beckett's not a comparison yet, because he obviously doesn't have the career length that Morris had.

You want numbers? Morris has numbers. During his prime (1979-1992 -- throw out his 45 IP in 78, and his end-of-career years in 93-94), he won 233 games... 41 MORE than any other pitcher. He completed 169 games... 62 MORE than any other pitcher. Even past his prime, in 1993, he went 21-6 for a championship Blue Jays team. Plus the rings, plus Game 7 in 1991, plus the AS games, plus thirteen straight Opening Day starts, plus the no-hitter, .

On the Keltner list, Morris has an easy seven or eight of the items on the list, and probably more than that. He's a poor man's Bob Gibson.

[nymr83]

]You want numbers? Morris has numbers. During his prime (1979-1992 -- throw out his 45 IP in 78, and his end-of-career years in 93-94), he won 233 games... 41 MORE than any other pitcher.

first of all wins are a team stat more than an individual one.
second you are cherrypicking his prime, which is unlikely to have coincided exactly with other good pitchers primes, i would expect that if you took a list of good (but not great) pitchers and made a list starting and ending with their primes they'd rank pretty well, its like saying someone had the best AVG in the 90's, its an artificial time period.
and 3rd he has 162 losses in that timeframe, i doubt many people had more though i'm not about to look since i already said i think the entire frame for the argument is wrong.

] He completed 169 games... 62 MORE than any other pitcher.

i admit that 169 complete games are impressive, but again with the artificial time frame. how does this rank all time? how does it compare to other good pitchers? if another guy's career ran 1970-1985 instead of 1979-1994 he shouldnt have what he did between 70 and 79 thrown out while's morris' 85-94 counts

]Even past his prime, in 1993, he went 21-6 for a championship Blue Jays team. Plus the rings, plus Game 7 in 1991, plus the AS games, plus thirteen straight Opening Day starts, plus the no-hitter, .

again with wins and losses, they arent that good a measure. neither are the rings. i already said he had the same # of AS games as finley...it tells me that you were good not great. opening day starts make you a hall of famer? at most it tells us the manager's opinion of you.

[Fman99]

Rice, Gossage, Blyleven and Morris should all be in the Hall. I'm on the fence regarding Raines and to me Justice is a no-go.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I like Rice and Blyleven, and my first instinct is to say yes to Raines.

I never made up my mind about relievers, though it seems to me Gossage was about as good as they came. I especially don't like McGwire despite his qualififications.

I could be tempted to say yes to Dawson and Trammell too.

[Frayed Knot]

With no overwhelming 1st-timer on the ballot it's probably the best time for those recent near-misses (even though the one really shouldn't affect the other).

As a result, I predict Gossage & Blyleven get in.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm going with Blyleven, Gossage, and Raines.

I can be talked into Trammell (which also sounds dirty), but I'm really having trouble figuring out how to respond to Lou Whitaker's immediate disappearance from consideration.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Shawon Dunston is notable as the only Met on the ballot.

Rod Beck is, I think, the first guy since Darryl Kile to make the ballot early on the death exception.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Edgy DC wrote: I'm going with Blyleven, Gossage, and Raines. I can be talked into Trammell (which also sounds dirty), but I'm really having trouble figuring out how to respond to Lou Whitaker's immediate disappearance from consideration.

I see where you're coming from, but you shouldn't hold it against Tram because the writers screwed up with Whitaker.

[nymr83]

looking at Whitaker i think i'd have put him in, but i think he's at the very very bottom of what i'd put in.
I like Trammell, but i think if you put Trammell in you need to put in Barry Larkin as well, are we ready to do that? I am.

[Vic Sage]

Edgy DC wrote: I don't necessarily get the "deserving of votes" tier. If you think they deserve votes, give them your votes..

]I can be talked into Trammell (which also sounds dirty), but I'm really having trouble figuring out how to respond to Lou Whitaker's immediate disappearance from consideration

You don't get the "deserving" tier, yet you're perplexed by the immediate disappearance of Lou Whitaker?

Pick a confusion and stick with it.

[Vic Sage]

Nymr83 wrote: rather then drawing the "in/out" line, would anyone like to rank the eligible players (all the holdovers and first-timers) in terms of how deserving you feel they are (even if you feel all or none are deserving)?

I think i already did that, using Bill James' 2 HOF metrics, plus some adjustments based on my own observations.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Vic Sage wrote: You don't get the "deserving" tier, yet you're perplexed by the immediate disappearance of Lou Whitaker? Pick a confusion and stick with it.

I'm not perplexed by his immediate disappearance. I'm uncertain how a voter* should respond to it. Should one accept that standard of his colleagues and then say, "Then neither shall Trammell get support"?

Or should one revolt and vote for Trammell, correcting the standard in a small way.

*Theorietical voter that considers their candidacies about equal.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Nymr83 wrote: looking at Whitaker i think i'd have put him in, but i think he's at the very very bottom of what i'd put in. I like Trammell, but i think if you put Trammell in you need to put in Barry Larkin as well, are we ready to do that? I am.

Absolutely. Larkin's going in.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

With the Whitaker thing, one of my buddies who writes about baseball has a "door-blocker" theory, where if a worthy player is not enshrined (for other than Rose-type reasons) then a player who is not as good as that player should not get voter for. For example, he thinks Dwight Evans was screwed over. And there are players he deems not as good as Evans who are eligble, but won't vote for.

And he views Whitaker as the door-blocker at second base.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at.

Whitaker obviously didn't block the door for Ryne Sandberg with too many voters, but maybe the doorman is white.

[nymr83]

i'd be inclined to take Whitaker over Sandberg as well.

[G-Fafif]

Nymr83 wrote: the "big red machine" already has the undeserving Tony Perez in the hall. lets not add to the stupidity by inducting a no-bat speed guy with a .322 OBP

Concepcion was the top all-around shortstop in the N.L. for most of his lengthy career. He was a key member of one of the best teams in modern baseball history, and there is something to be said for context. He pioneered the artificial turf one-bounce throw to first. It's probably an unpopular statistical argument since it delves into "if he's in, then he should be in," but his candidacy strikes me as in the mold of Reese's and Rizzuto's: mainstays at a crucial position for a powerhouse club who by all accounts played it very well (I saw Concepcion, not the other two).

He's going to suffer by comparison to latter-day middle infielders who could hit homers as a matter of course and isn't going to make it anyway, but I don't think it's outlandish to suggest Davey Concepcion had a Hall of Fame-caliber career at his position in his time.

I was never hot for Perez in the Hall, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it stupidity that he's in. Phrases like that when applied to a player who drove in 90 or more runs in nine consecutive seasons when hitting wasn't at its peak diminishes the appraisal of actual acts of stupidity.

[nymr83]

i think its stupidity to put a guy when there are literally 50 un-inducted players as good or better than him.

[G-Fafif]

Fifty, Gracie? Contemporary or all-time?

[nymr83]

G-Fafif wrote: Fifty, Gracie? Contemporary or all-time?

there are 50 players not in the hall (and already retired of course) equal to or better than him. that, to me, means he shouldnt be in the hall by any stretch of the imagination.

[Valadius]

I'd like to know who the 50 are.

[nymr83]

Seeing as how answering your question will help me procrastinate for another half hour so, sure.

heres a bunch of guys as good or better than Tony Perez who are not in the hall of fame (but are or were once eligible):
Hitters:
Dick Allen, Harold Baines, Albert Belle, Bobby Bonds, Brett Butler, Jose Canseco, Norm Cash, Ron Cey, Jack Clark, Will Clark, Rocky Collavito.
Cecil Cooper, Andre Dawson, Brian Downing, Dwight Evans,George Foster
Kirk Gibson, Pedro Guerrero,Keith Hernandez, Gil Hodges, Frank Howard.
David Justice, Dave Kingman, Fred Lynn,Roger Maris, Don Mattingly,Mark McGwire, Kevin Mitchell, Dale Murphy, Graig Nettles, Tony Oliva, Paul O'Neil.
Dave Parker, Lance Parrish, Boog Powell, Tim Raines, Jim Rice, Ron Santo, Ted Simmons, Ken Singleton, Reggie Smith, Rusty Staub, Daryl Strawberry.
Joe Torre, Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Jimmy Wynn

thats 47 guys right there and i havent even gone into pitchers.

I don't expect anyone to agree with the whole list and I'm sure upon careful study there'd be a handful that I'd be willing to get rid of but I think I've made my point.

[seawolf17]

And for probably 25-30 of those guys, if you told me -- while they were still active -- that they weren't HOFers, I'd say you were full of crap.

[HahnSolo]

Sorry to cherrypick one name from your list, but Brett Butler? I'll need some convincing that he's as good as or better than Tony Perez.

[Valadius]

Jack Clark? Brian Downing? Please.

Although I do agree with you that some of those players deserve to get in.

Dick Allen
Harold Baines
Albert Belle
Rocky Colavito
Andre Dawson
Dwight Evans
Gil Hodges
Mark McGwire
Dale Murphy
Tony Oliva
Dave Parker
Lance Parrish
Tim Raines
Jim Rice
Ron Santo
Ted Simmons
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker

[Guest Edgy DC]

The thing about Tony Perez is that, as hard as new statitisticians have worked to dispel the notion of clutchness applying to a single guy throughout his career, it doesn't work on Mr. RBI. He was pretty damn clutch throughout his career.

[Vic Sage]

Edgy DC wrote: ="Vic Sage"]You don't get the "deserving" tier, yet you're perplexed by the immediate disappearance of Lou Whitaker? Pick a confusion and stick with it. I'm not perplexed by his immediate disappearance. I'm uncertain how a voter* should respond to it. Should one accept that standard of his colleagues and then say, "Then neither shall Trammell get support"? Or should one revolt and vote for Trammell, correcting the standard in a small way. *Theorietical voter that considers their candidacies about equal.

In answer to your objections to my designation of a deserving tier:

I wasn't saying who i would vote for. I was trying to present a list of who i felt deserved and didnt' deserve votes for enshrinement from those who DO vote, based on their past voting history (i.e., the HOF Monitor metric). It is a quantitative analysis. In the aggregate, i think those in the "deserving" category will get just enough votes to stick on the ballot for a few years, but aren't really (or shouldn't be) even borderline candidates.

Those in the borderline category could go either way. Some I'd personally vote for, others not.

I think this is the year for Rice, Blyleven and Gossage to finally get the recognition that the stats (and my personal observations) deem appropriate.

I like Raines, but his sub 100 HOFM ranking indicates that his cumulative career accomplishments are not of a level generally voted in to the HOF, and certainly not voted in on their 1st ballot. My own view is that he's a borderline HOFer, but i wouldn't be unhappy if he were enshrined eventually. In fact, i might even smile and say "You rock, Roc!"