Whitaker one and done is a travesty.

I was born in the mid 80s, so I did not follow Morris during his prime; but I did come to baseball sentience during the twilight of his career (and I was keenly aware of him as a young Braves fan in 1991), and I can't remember anyone ever treating him like a HOF'er there at the end. He was just a guy; one of those random old-guy pitcher baseball cards that filled out the collection, like Tom Candiotti, Charlie Liebrandt, or Dennis Martinez.

That's what gets me about the recollections about Morris; I was raptly assimilating all the baseball knowledge I could when his career should have been receiving his end-of-career hagiographies. I'm pretty sure I would have remembered him being thought of as a this kind of guy back then. It never happened. He's had the greatest PR campaign ever, or something.

Gibson can make the HOF...if he wins a couple of rings as a manager.

1981 Dodgers have Reggie Smith - who is in the Hall of Merit. Their best player was probably Ron Cey, who is borderline but out.

On the other hand, the '81 Dodgers also have Scioscia and Dusty Baker, and it wouldn't surprise me if one of them (much more likely Scioscia) eventually went in as a manager.

There's a strong desire among many to have an 80s era starter in the Hall, and there's no longer a possibility of pushing for Stieb (or Martinez) as an alternative. Many of the others had abortive runs - Stewart, Gooden, Saberhagen. I'm not sure if Morris makes it, but it would at least be comprehensible to me, though he doesn't stack up well to much of anyone else in the Hall.

There's a strong desire among many to have an 80s era starter in the Hall,

Nolan Ryan and Bert Blyleven both played every year of the 80's. Clemens and Carlton each won 2 CYAs in the 80's. It may be a little light, but it's certainly not lacking.

On the other hand, the '81 Dodgers also have Scioscia and Dusty Baker, and it wouldn't surprise me if one of them (much more likely Scioscia) eventually went in as a manager.

And the '81 Dodgers, like the '84 Tigers, are represented in the Hall by their skippers.

The 84 Tigers have two obvious, qualified choices - Trammell and Whitaker. They also have HoM player Darrell Evans. Lance Parrish and Chet Lemon are on the wrong side of the line but in the next 150 players. They weren't lacking talent.

Whitaker one and done is a travesty.

It's a traveshamockery.

The only other pre-1995 champion without a player in the Hall of Fame is the 1981 Dodgers

Thinking about this:

1995 Braves: Chipper, Maddux, Glavine
1996, 1998, 1999, 2000 2009 Yankees: Jeter, Rivera
1997 Marlins: ???
2001 Diamondbacks: R. Johnson
2002 Angels: ???
2003 Marlins: I. Rodriguez
2004, 2007 Red Sox: Pedro
2005 White Sox: ???
2006, 2011 Cards: Pujols
2008 Phillies: ???
2010, 2012 Giants: TBD

That's just naming guys I am extremely confident will be elected. Obviously someone like Schilling or Tim Raines could make it in and give some of those more HOFers, but I'm just naming the obvious ones.

The best candidate on the '97 Marlins is Sheffield, who has some PED and personality issues. Kevin Brown, though he has both of those as well, the latter in spades. (He's also already dropped off the ballot, of course.) It doesn't look like the 2002 Angels are going to have someone, unless you think Scioscia gets in as a manager. If Frank Thomas gets in, that's the guy for the '05 White Sox, no one has a real chance unless Buehrle wins 300 games or something. Similiarly, I don't think anyone on the '08 Phillies is getting in. A lot of guys on the most recent Giants teams aren't getting in, but enough of them (Posey, Cain, even Sandoval and Lincecum) are young enough that they could do it.

Interesting that pre-1995 there's only two teams without a Hall of Famer, whereas we could easily have 3 since.

2003 Marlins: I. Rodriguez

He may (or may not) have a PED issue -- if so, that's presumably the kiss of death for his HoF chances.

So we're not counting managers?


Anyway, I think Thomas makes it, and Scioscia might eventually make it, since he started young and they just love him over there (enough to let him stay foreeeever and rack up the win total).

08 Phillies, no idea. Lots of talent. But Rollins, Utley, Howard aren't going to make it I don't think. Hamels would have to take a leap forward and/or stay at his absolute best for the next decade.

If I-Rod doesn't make it because of silly PED stuff, I bet Miggy Cabrera does.

1995 Braves, Smoltz is making it.

Taking the long term view, all of the PED guys, the guys who are obviously qualified Hall of Famers but won't be voted in by the BBRAA because PEDs, will go into the Hall of Famer eventually. Maybe not before they're dead, but 100 years from now they will all be in. So calling Ivan Rodriguez a Hall of Famer for that exercise is fine. So that gives the 2005 White Sox Frank Thomas, and Gary Sheffield will almost certainly represent the 1997 Marlins eventually.

Nobody on the 2002 Angels or 2008 Phillies is going into the Hall of Fame, however (Cole Hamels is the 2008 Phillies' last chance; good luck with that). And as for the 1984 Tigers, look, it's not our fault most BBRAA members are dimwitted or juvenile and refused to vote their two obviously qualified players in.

(edit: I'm stupid and typed '2005 Sox' instead of '2002 Angels')

He may (or may not) have a PED issue -- if so, that's presumably the kiss of death for his HoF chances.

I think if you review these teams 40 years hence (as we are for every World Series winner through 1972), some guys that don't look like Hall of Famers now (Sheffield, Brown) may become Hall of Famers through some future Vet's Committee or newfangled mechanism used by Cooperstown. It's not really an adequate comparison if you simply look at how the BBWAA is treating the current guys vs. how the BBWAA and Vets committees judged the players of older teams.

Granted, the 2002 Angels still won't have a Hall of Fame player, but that's an entirelly (absence of) merit-based distinction.

If Frank Thomas gets in, that's the guy for the '05 White Sox

If?!?!?!

Is this a common thought, that Thomas isn't likely to make the Hall of Fame? Wouldn't any of the arguments against him (steroid suspicion) also go against Pujols?

I tend to agree, too. Pudge, Thomas, Smoltz, Sheff probably eventually make it. Even a Kevin Brown might go in from the VC way down the line. After all, Whitaker is up for it within a few years.

The only PED guy who might just never make it is a Manny because he kept getting caught later on.

Frank Thomas was a very loud PED denouncer and offered to be tested every day and meant it, right? I can see no way he can be tossed in the "suspected user" bin, other than for the loonies who categorically reject everyone who played in the 1990s.

Is this a common thought, that Thomas isn't likely to make the Hall of Fame? Wouldn't any of the arguments against him (steroid suspicion) also go against Pujols?

Obviously, I would vote for Thomas in a second. And I know his PED credentials are as clean as anyone's can be. But I think he's going to suffer from the PED-era taint in general, and that he spent many, many years as a DH. I suppose he and Pudge are probably about the same amount of likely.

That's a good call by #13, by the way, Miggy Cabrera seems a pretty good bet to make it in. I don't see Brown ever getting in though, he won "only" 211 games, never won a Cy Young award, won 20 games only once, etc. etc. That doesn't seem like a guy the VC is going to put in.

Pudge, Thomas, Smoltz, Sheff probably eventually make it

Thomas will go in first ballot. Second ballot in a worst-case scenario. Smoltz goes in within his first few years. I'm not sure about Pudge, but I'm guessing he's a relatively quick induction barring any new PED revelations.

Sheffield's probably screwed for BBWAA induction. It's funny that Sheffield and Brown are deserving Hall of Famers from the '97 Marlins, but they're both likely to get overlooked due to a combination of PEDs and being big jerks.

I'm pretty sure Miggy Cabrera would go in even if his career ended now. All of the toy measurements on b-ref score him as already qualified, certainly.

being big jerks

So who's the best MLB player ever who didn't have some personality issues (from what we know)? Musial?

I'm pretty sure Miggy Cabrera would go in even if his career ended now.

Yeah, he just made it to ten years, too. He has done everything a person needs for the BBWAA standards aside from longevity pretty much. MVP, Triple Crown, and a ring. Locked.

Willie Mays became kind of a bitter old man after his career, but was pretty squeaky-clean by ballplayer standards during his playing days as far as I know.

So who's the best MLB player ever who didn't have some personality issues (from what we know)?

Gehrig and Mathewson are the two names that jump at me. Of more recent vintage the guy who I don't recall reading anything to derogatory about is Seaver. Those are names just off the top of my head.

Not in the class of Stan the Man as a ballplayer, but my own experience (a 90-minute, one-on-one interview that remains one of my most treasured professional opportunities), plus everything I've read from others, would put Brooks Robinson at the top of the heap of any great guy conversations.

Nobody I've ever heard of is in Stan Musial's class as a nice guy, either. Nobody's life has ever produced more boring biographies.

Of more recent vintage the guy who I don't recall reading anything to derogatory about is Seaver.

I remember hearing Seaver was an attention whore, but nothing really bad. That applies to Gary Carter too.

Class is like batting averages and brains. The higher your batting average the smarter you are and it can be the same way for virtually any other trait as well.

I don't know, I don't think Rogers Hornsby was ever accused of having any class.

27 - Harmon Killebrew and Joe Mauer are also both nice, boring guys though neither one was as good as Musial.

Or Cobb.

Now I wonder, is there a higher percentage of nice, terrible players or superstar jerks?

The nice/average selfish/####### distribution among professional athletes is exactly the same as the distribution among the population at large, in my experience.

Thinking about this:

1995 Braves: Chipper, Maddux, Glavine
1996, 1998, 1999, 2000 2009 Yankees: Jeter, Rivera
1997 Marlins: ???
2001 Diamondbacks: R. Johnson
2002 Angels: ???
2003 Marlins: I. Rodriguez
2004, 2007 Red Sox: Pedro
2005 White Sox: ???
2006, 2011 Cards: Pujols
2008 Phillies: ???
2010, 2012 Giants: TBD

Also:

1995 Braves - Smoltz will make it, and McGriff probably has a VC shot decades down the road

Yankees - Boggs is already in for the '96 squad, and Raines has a shot for the '96 and '98 teams. Clemens is too good not to eventually make it for the '99 and '00 teams, ditto A-Rod for '09. TBD for Cano and Sabathia for '09. Bernie and Posada have an outside shot at being VC selections, right?

2001 D-Backs (I accidentally typed D-Bags before I corrected myself!) - Schilling will make it

2003 Marlins - As noted above, Miggy C is looking very likely

2004 Red Sox - Schilling again, plus Manny might be too good to keep out forever. Papi has a chance

2005 White Sox - Yes, Thomas is a lock. Please not Konerko

2006 Cards - Don't Edmonds and/or Rolen have shots at being possible VC choices, depending on how far SABR recognition has advanced by the time they're eligible?

2007 Red Sox - Didn't have Pedro like you listed, but still had Schilling, Manny, and Papi

2011 Cards - Possible VC candidate in Berkman?

The nice/average selfish/####### distribution among professional athletes is exactly the same as the distribution among the population at large, in my experience.

I'd be surprised by that. I think tremendous success at anything, not just baseball but any endeavor, often requires certain traits that don't really lend themselves to geniality or other characteristics we apply to nice guys. It's not automatic, as Stan the Man shows, but I do think there's probably a tradeoff more often than not.

I'm pretty sure Miggy Cabrera would go in even if his career ended now. All of the toy measurements on b-ref score him as already qualified, certainly.

Sad but true. Hes 6th in wRC+ since 1980.... among First Basemen, most with decline years. By the time Miggys career ends and he has his decline phase, he wont be top ten among his eras first basemen in wOBA, wRC+, any useful rate stats. He will also be one of the worst defenders and baserunners from that group.

Miggy HOF case is built entirely around the precise placement of accomplishments. Value in BA/SLG, not walks, or baserunning, or avoiding double plays, or defense. Hitting more HRs than anyone else in a year he had a ton of baserunners in front of him and gullible MVP voters hungry for a mythical triple crown. Being in right place, right time on good teams. Being great at things voters can see and remember, being awful at things they ignore or forget. Doing it all in an era where much better first basemen have been disqualified due to, or tainted by, PEDs.

i think Miggys induction should be used to open the halls first beer league softball wing.

Interesting that pre-1995 there's only two teams without a Hall of Famer, whereas we could easily have 3 since

Partly it's that champions are somewhat more random now thanks to the expanded playoffs. Partly it's a matter of definition, though. As we remember less about a player, the fact that he played on champions becomes a self-defining part of his case, as with Lombardi, Lazzeri, Rizzuto, Fox, Gordon. So players from these long-ago champions keep getting added ...

So who's the best MLB player ever who didn't have some personality issues (from what we know)?

Gehrig and Mathewson are the two names that jump at me.

It's hard to be an old fogey when you never get old.

Papi has a chance

Not in a fair world.

I'd be surprised by that. I think tremendous success at anything, not just baseball but any endeavor, often requires certain traits that don't really lend themselves to geniality or other characteristics we apply to nice guys. It's not automatic, as Stan the Man shows, but I do think there's probably a tradeoff more often than not.

I used to think this way, and it still seems logical to me. But the more athletes I've gotten the chance to talk to and spend time around, the less experience seems to bear that out.

But athletes, especially professional athletes, live in a different, very small and very insulated world from ours. Within that world I think they're jerks, normal and nice guys in about the same percentages as people in general are here in the real world. Much of their interaction with the outside world, however (media, fans) comes as an intrusion to them and they tend to react to it with varying degrees of hostility. Which makes them seem to us like jerks.

Papi has a chance

Not in a fair world.

Rice went in a few years ago. Morris is going in next month.

The world ain't fair.

Good point about the outside world placing more demands on an athlete than it does on me. Nobody asks me for an autograph when I use a public bathroom or check into a hotel.

But athletes, especially professional athletes, live in a different, very small and very insulated world from ours. Within that world I think they're jerks, normal and nice guys in about the same percentages as people in general are here in the real world. Much of their interaction with the outside world, however (media, fans) comes as an intrusion to them and they tend to react to it with varying degrees of hostility. Which makes them seem to us like jerks.

Possibly. I can't help but think the focus on self necessary to become a top-level anything, on top of the way we enable bad behavior from the gifted from such an early age, wouldn't lend itself to strong character development.

OTOH, during my days as a sportswriter, most of my interactions with high-level athletes were pretty positive, so my personal experience matches yours. (For the record, most of the beat writers were also really nice fellas. Columnists were much more likely to be ########).

Don't Edmonds and/or Rolen have shots at being possible VC choices, depending on how far SABR recognition has advanced by the time they're eligible?

I wouldn't 100% rule out either Edmonds or Rolen from BBWAA consideration. Edmonds isn't on the ballot until 2016, and Rolen still isn't retired, so as long as they survives the first couple years, they'll be on the ballot until 2030 or so. That's a lot of time for old BBWAA voters to die off and new, better-informed ones to take their place.

Miggy HOF case is built entirely around the precise placement of accomplishments. Value in BA/SLG, not walks, or baserunning, or avoiding double plays, or defense. Hitting more HRs than anyone else in a year he had a ton of baserunners in front of him and gullible MVP voters hungry for a mythical triple crown. Being in right place, right time on good teams. Being great at things voters can see and remember, being awful at things they ignore or forget. Doing it all in an era where much better first basemen have been disqualified due to, or tainted by, PEDs.

Miguel Cabrera as a Hall of Famer tomorrow would be pretty bad. Miguel Cabrera, however, is only 29 years old. He's very likely to do enough with his bat alone in the next five years to be a perfectly worthy HoFer.

A comparison, first nine full seasons in the league, listed best to worst by B-Ref WAR:

7.3, 6.9, 6.1, 5.5, 4.9, 4.7, 3.2, 3.0, 2.3 - Cabrera (43.9 total)
7.9, 6.9, 6.2, 6.0, 5.7, 5.5, 4.9, 2.4, -0.3 - Willie McCovey (45.2 total)

Cabrera wasn't quite as good as McCovey, but we're comparing McCovey's age 25-33 seasons to Cabrera age 21-29. Willie McCovey, like Miggy, was a poor fielder and a poor baserunner with a whomping power bat that could cover all his deficiencies. I don't think there's anything wrong with McCovey as a Hall of Famer, and I expect Cabrera will get there, too.

Cabrera never should have driven in those runners in front of him.

2007 Red Sox - Didn't have Pedro like you listed, but still had Schilling, Manny, and Papi

Oops. If Manny really gets slammed for PED use--he will--and Schilling gets caught in the ballot shuffle--unlikely, but possible--the '07 Sox could end up without a player. I tend to think that's really unlikely, but I'm surprised that it is at least plausible.

Incidentally, I had also forgotten Coco Crisp was on that Red Sox team. For a team that won a World Series relatively recently, they're awfully forgettable for me.

If Cabrera has any sort of "rest of his career", I'd say he's an easy HOFer. If you look at the top hitters through age 29, it's a Who's Who of inner-circle guys; Cabrera shows up rarely but his numbers are often just below the top-10.

Incidentally, I had also forgotten Coco Crisp was on that Red Sox team. For a team that won a World Series relatively recently, they're awfully forgettable for me.

The Red Sox got him as part of the Andy Marte shuffle before 2006. I remember Red Sox fans being excited by the acquisition of Marte and then puzzled by what they traded him for. Of course, everyone knows Marte turned into a star.