Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 30, 2018

Detroit Tigers’ Jack Morris’ Hall of Fame speech

It must be done.

“I believe in the human heart and human spirit, and no analytics can define them.”

Lest we forget Posted: July 30, 2018 at 08:22 AM | 155 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: analytics, hall of fame, jack morris

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 02, 2018 at 05:29 PM (#5719902)
flip
   102. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: August 02, 2018 at 05:36 PM (#5719910)
That was an amazing team. The 1983 Phillies gave 660 PA at first base to 42-year-old Pete Rose and 41-year old Tony Perez. They hit .240/.308/.310. Only 3 regulars on the team had over a 100 ops+. Somehow, they came in 3rd in the league in runs scored.


At least 39-year-old Joe Morgan and 38-year-old Steve Carlton pulled their weight (though John Denny was the real ace).

They got to the World Series and according to bWAR their 3rd and 4th most valuable position players were Bo Diaz and Joe Lefebvre.
   103. Cooper Nielson Posted: August 02, 2018 at 11:29 PM (#5720113)
I'd be curious about the worst teams with the most career WAR. I.e. which sub-.500 team had the most career WAR? Which sub-.400 team had the most?

Another interesting question.

If we're focusing on sub-.400 (or 100-loss) teams, as pointed out above, the last-gasp 1988 Tigers turned into the absolutely wretched 1989 Tigers (59-103, .364), and they still had most of those 50-WAR guys. Here are the 10+ WAR players from that horrible team:

75.1 - Lou Whitaker
70.7 - Alan Trammell
57.6 - Frank Tanana
55.6 - Chet Lemon
50.2 - Fred Lynn
44.0 - Jack Morris
34.7 - Doyle Alexander
22.0 - Gary Pettis
17.7 - Gary Ward
16.6 - Willie Hernandez
13.4 - Mike Heath
12.9 - Mike Henneman
11.0 - David Palmer

That's 481.5 total WAR right there, and with other non-trivial bits and pieces (Dave Bergman, Charles Hudson, Kevin Ritz, Chris Brown, etc.) they're comfortably over 500 WAR, maybe around 520 career WAR for the whole roster. I doubt that's the record for a sub-.400 team, but it might be in the top 10. Waiting for DavidFoss to give us the answer...

Incidentally, among the 10+ WAR guys listed above, every single one of them except Mike Henneman was at least 31 years old in 1989.
   104. Cooper Nielson Posted: August 02, 2018 at 11:41 PM (#5720116)
Hmmm... bachslunch touched on it, but the 1966 Cubs, also 59-103, had five HOFers:

83.1 - Robin Roberts (bet you don't think of him when you think of the '60s Cubs)
82.4 - Fergie Jenkins
70.5 - Ron Santo
67.5 - Ernie Banks
63.7 - Billy Williams

They also had some HOVGers:

52.7 - Larry Jackson
42.7 - Curt Simmons
28.1 - Bob Buhl
27.3 - Ken Holtzman
26.0 - Harvey Kuenn

I guess DavidFoss already calculated this -- total of 771.29 career WAR for the roster. They're the only team on his sub-.500 list that was also sub-.400. (Most of the others were very close to .500.)
   105. Howie Menckel Posted: August 02, 2018 at 11:50 PM (#5720119)
83.1 - Robin Roberts (bet you don't think of him when you think of the '60s Cubs)

Roberts also pitched for the 1965-66 Astros, which was weird as well.

he was actually 177 ERA+ good in 10 late-season starts for the '65 Astros (77 IP, 5-2 record)
   106. DavidFoss Posted: August 03, 2018 at 08:16 AM (#5720151)
I guess DavidFoss already calculated this -- total of 771.29 career WAR for the roster. They're the only team on his sub-.500 list that was also sub-.400. (Most of the others were very close to .500.)

Roster Career WAR for WPct <=.400

CHN1966771.29
LAN
1992725.11
TOR
1995713.72
BOS
1907662.04
NY1
1946589.04
BAL
1988578.14
SEA
1992576.52
ATL
1988572.49
CLE
1987566.43
DET
1931559.35 


For HOF count, the record is 5 and the 1966 Cubs share it with the 1932-33 Reds and the 1902 Orioles.

That Orioles team was near .500 (26-31) when McGraw got banned by the American League. When he jumped back to the NL, he took two other HOF-ers (Bresnahan & McGinnity) with him and a 4th (Kelley) then gave up on the team and jumped to the Reds leaving only Wilbert Robinson. The team tanked and ended up folding at the end of the year and were replaced by the Highlanders in 1903.
   107. DavidFoss Posted: August 03, 2018 at 08:51 AM (#5720161)
I like flipping these questions upside down.

Roster Career WAR for WPct >=.600

The answer is the 1871 Chicago White Stockings. A roster filled literal question marks as bb-ref & Lahman do not know much about most of these guys. Somehow they played a few home games after the fire, but the team took two years off while the city rebuilt. The roster's career WAR consists almost entirely of George Zettelin's career value. Somehow they managed to win more than twice as many as they lost (19-9) that year.

Because of shorter seasons and short-lived leagues, I applied a post-1900 filter:

CHA, 1901, 274.42
BSN, 1914, 304.11
CLE, 2017, 353.12
PIT, 2015, 360.21
BRO, 1920, 370.4
SLN, 1945, 373.55
WAS, 2012, 374.19
CHN, 1945, 380.65
SLA, 1922, 390.86
CHA, 1906, 393.64
NYA, 1943, 394.14
CHN, 1904, 402.12
CHN, 1918, 405.01
CIN, 1919, 410.72
NY1, 1917, 414.98

The 2010s teams will disappear from the list soon, but there were not too many of them so I left them in.

A fun list. Miracle Braves, Hitless Wonders, the Reds team the Black Sox threw the series to, the 1917 Giants who won the pennant halfway between their two pennant streaks (1911-13 & 1921-24), the Browns team the year before Sisler got sick, a couple of war teams, etc.
   108. Cooper Nielson Posted: August 03, 2018 at 09:47 AM (#5720184)
Again, thank you very much for the research, DavidFoss!

a couple of war teams, etc.

It certainly makes sense that teams from 1943 and 1945 would have low career WAR totals (resisting the urge to make a "war" pun out of respect to veterans), but I wonder if those 1917, 1918, and 1919 teams were also affected by war?

I don't know much about WWI history in terms of MLB. Did many players go to fight?
   109. BDC Posted: August 03, 2018 at 09:59 AM (#5720192)
I don't know much about WWI history in terms of MLB. Did many players go to fight?


Quite a few served, and several more major-leaguers died in the service in WWI than in WW2. But it was a shorter war, in terms of American involvement, so many of the WWI baseball veterans never got farther than training. Christy Mathewson, probably the most famous of them, was gassed in training, and never fully recovered, contracting TB and dying a few years later.
   110. DavidFoss Posted: August 03, 2018 at 10:24 AM (#5720197)
The 1918 season was shortened. They wrapped it up on September 2nd and the WS was held from Sept 5-11. The whole war itself ended just two months later (Nov 11).
   111. Ziggy's screen name Posted: August 03, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5720279)
This is my favorite bit from Robin Roberts' career:

October 16, 1961: Purchased by the New York Yankees from the Philadelphia Phillies.
May 21, 1962: Released by the New York Yankees.
May 21, 1962: Signed as a Free Agent with the Baltimore Orioles.


The Phillies figured that he was done and sold him to the Yankees. Maybe he was injured that spring? In any case, he didn't appear in a game for the Yankees. They sold him to the Orioles on May 21st. He throws two innings in Cleveland that day (they must have had the sale worked out in advance so he could get to Ohio in time for the game). Posts a 133 ERA+ for the season.


Roberts' 1962 Topps card has a picture of him in his Phillies uniform (a team he didn't play for any more) and lists him as a Yankee (a team that he never did play for).
   112. DavidFoss Posted: August 03, 2018 at 02:26 PM (#5720368)
Roberts' 1962 Topps card has a picture of him in his Phillies uniform (a team he didn't play for any more) and lists him as a Yankee (a team that he never did play for).

Here is the card.

Did Topps have the photographer take the photo with and without the hat on for this reason? I remember all the the 1961 Twins cards featured players with their caps off because they had just moved from Washington. You can see how much hair the 25-year-old Killebrew had lost already.

   113. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: August 03, 2018 at 02:31 PM (#5720373)
Did Topps have the photographer take the photo with and without the hat on for this reason? I remember all the the 1961 Twins cards featured players with their caps off because they had just moved from Washington. You can see how much hair the 25-year-old Killebrew had lost already.
Yeah, it was standard practice to take hatless photos of all players in those days in case they got traded. Had to be painful for Killebrew. "OK, now take off your hat for the next few shots." "Say what now??"
   114. Moeball Posted: August 05, 2018 at 07:13 PM (#5721424)
A couple of thoughts on the HOF, especially re: Lou Whitaker:

1)I got a brief chance to talk to Whitaker on Saturday of HOF weekend before the Bob Costas ceremony, and he was in a cautious, but kind of upbeat mood. Apparently, not only had many fans come up to him that weekend and told him that he deserves to be in the HOF, but, more important, several HOFers had come up to him and told him his day on the Cooperstown stage is coming. If I recall correctly, he mentioned pitchers such as Sutton and Eckersley and others he competed against BITD such as Brett, Carew and Winfield. They had all told him that there's a lot more people advocating for him than he realizes, especially coming from his contemporaries that played with and against him, and they are confident he'll get into the HOF in another couple of years, especially with Trammell now in the HOF and a very vocal advocate on Lou's behalf. I was glad to hear that and I hope Lou keeps his spirits up.

2)I know we have some Phillies fans amongst the Primates here at the Factory, and fortunately you are all significantly smarter than, well, most Phillies fans that people hear about. The Phillies had the best third baseman of all time playing for them in Mike Schmidt, and yet he got mercilessly booed for much of his career by fans who weren't real bright. Well, I met one of these fans in Cooperstown, and not only did he think that Schmidt was overrated, but he also felt that Howard and Rollins were better players than Utley and deserving of their MVPs, thus making it obvious that he doesn't see Utley as HOF material. In fact, he actually told me he didn't think Joe Morgan belonged in the HOF, either.

Seriously.
   115. dlf Posted: August 05, 2018 at 07:29 PM (#5721428)
If I recall correctly, he mentioned pitchers such as Sutton and Eckersley and others he competed against BITD such as Brett, Carew and Winfield.


As a huge fan when I was a kid, I'm thrilled Carew was able to make it back to Cooperstown after his double Kidney / Heart transplant a little while back. The only memorabilia that I have is a poster sized blow up of a framed late 70s Topps Carew card. And a couple years before Carew's surgery, I had my own transplant, albeit just kidney rather than the more risky multi-organ version ... but I should have known he get a double.
   116. Dennis Eclairskey, closer Posted: August 05, 2018 at 10:13 PM (#5721479)
Knowing about Carew's health problems, I was glad to see him make the induction ceremony

Sutton and Eckersley and others he competed against BITD such as Brett, Carew and Winfield

This is great since these are some of the players who have already and will serve on future VC panels
   117. DavidFoss Posted: August 06, 2018 at 09:21 AM (#5721604)
Knowing about Carew's health problems, I was glad to see him make the induction ceremony

Carew was at Target Field over the weekend along with for a pre-game ceremony to honor Johan Santana. A bunch of other ex-Twins from many different eras were in attendance. He looked great. He was walking around without assistance and shaking people's hands.
   118. Rally Posted: August 06, 2018 at 12:01 PM (#5721712)
Apparently, not only had many fans come up to him that weekend and told him that he deserves to be in the HOF, but, more important, several HOFers had come up to him and told him his day on the Cooperstown stage is coming. If I recall correctly, he mentioned pitchers such as Sutton and Eckersley and others he competed against BITD such as Brett, Carew and Winfield. They had all told him that there's a lot more people advocating for him than he realizes, especially coming from his contemporaries that played with and against him, and they are confident he'll get into the HOF in another couple of years, especially with Trammell now in the HOF and a very vocal advocate on Lou's behalf. I was glad to hear that and I hope Lou keeps his spirits up.


Best news I could read about Lou. The HOF players who voted on the Morris/Trammell ballot included Brett, Carew, Eckersley, Sutton, Winfield, and Yount. It's sounding like the biggest part of the battle is getting Lou's name on the ballot in the first place. Hopefully they won't leave him off because he got less than 5%, an excuse that has been used before.

It won't be until 2021 for the next Today's game (1988+) comes up. Next year is the Modern Baseball 1970-1987 committee. While it seems like Lou could be on that one (11 of his 19 seasons came before 1988) I guess he has to be on Today's game since he Morris and Trammell were there, and they are exact contemporaries.

Or maybe it's close enough they put him in the 1970-87 group. He retired one year before Trammell, and was drafted one year before Trammell and Morris.
   119. SoSH U at work Posted: August 06, 2018 at 12:11 PM (#5721721)
Or maybe it's close enough they put him in the 1970-87 group. He retired one year before Trammell, and was drafted one year before Trammell and Morris.


And, like Lou, Trammell and Morris should have been in the 1970-87 group anyway.
   120. DanG Posted: August 06, 2018 at 12:20 PM (#5721726)
And, like Lou, Trammell and Morris should have been in the 1970-87 group anyway.
They were. All three are under the Modern Baseball group.

The Today's Game committee meets this December. The only player they might elect is Lee Smith. Here are the top 20 player candidates for the TG committee in the upcoming election:

Harold Baines
Albert Belle
Brett Butler
Will Clark
David Cone
Lenny Dykstra
Chuck Finley
Dwight Gooden
Tom Henke
Orel Hershiser
Jimmy Key
Mark Langston
Dennis Martinez
Mark McGwire
Tony Phillips
Bret Saberhagen
Lee Smith
Frank Viola
Devon White
Matt Williams
   121. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 06, 2018 at 12:33 PM (#5721739)
Did Topps have the photographer take the photo with and without the hat on for this reason? I remember all the the 1961 Twins cards featured players with their caps off because they had just moved from Washington. You can see how much hair the 25-year-old Killebrew had lost already.

Yeah, it was standard practice to take hatless photos of all players in those days in case they got traded. Had to be painful for Killebrew. "OK, now take off your hat for the next few shots." "Say what now??"

When the Nats played the Orioles before they moved to Minny, it was like there was a Baldness competition going on between Killebrew and Brooks Robinson. It was just about a draw.
   122. SoSH U at work Posted: August 06, 2018 at 12:36 PM (#5721740)
They were. All three are under the Modern Baseball group.


Thanks. That makes sense.

And pickings are indeed slim for the Today's Game Group. McGwire's the only obvious candidate. It will be interesting to see how he fares.
   123. DanG Posted: August 06, 2018 at 12:55 PM (#5721752)
McGwire's the only obvious candidate.
Two years ago (Dec 2016), none of the five player candidates (McGwire, Baines, Belle, Clark, Hershiser) received even half of the 12 votes needed for election.

Hall of Merit members here are McGwire, Clark, Cone and Saberhagen.
   124. Rally Posted: August 06, 2018 at 01:27 PM (#5721767)
They were. All three are under the Modern Baseball group.


My bad. I went to Wikipedia and saw Today's game 2018, 2021, 2023. I thought that meant that Today's game was electing players who went in for 2018, I see it means they vote in 2018 for 2019 induction.

Looking a bit further, some of the guys on the ballot were Tommy John, Steve Garvey, Luis Tiant. Of the 3, only John played after 1987 - his age 45 and 46 seasons.
   125. SoSH U at work Posted: August 06, 2018 at 01:39 PM (#5721775)
Hall of Merit members here are McGwire, Clark, Cone and Saberhagen.


Sure, but McGwire's the only obvious HoF candidate (absent the juice). Those other guys are HoMers because the bylaws demanded somebody serve as the institutions' equivalent to Cooperstown's Hunter and Marquard.
   126. Voodoo Posted: August 06, 2018 at 01:44 PM (#5721778)
Quite a few served, and several more major-leaguers died in the service in WWI than in WW2. But it was a shorter war, in terms of American involvement, so many of the WWI baseball veterans never got farther than training. Christy Mathewson, probably the most famous of them, was gassed in training, and never fully recovered, contracting TB and dying a few years later.


And as the story goes, Grover Cleveland Alexander didn't take to the bottle until after returning from WWI, as he supposedly used the sauce to deal with the horrors he had witnessed in Europe.

I've always thought that story was an overblown narrative and Ol' Pete had a predilection for potent potables before, during and after the war.
   127. Howie Menckel Posted: August 06, 2018 at 01:50 PM (#5721784)
Those other guys are HoMers because the bylaws demanded somebody serve as the institutions' equivalent to Cooperstown's Hunter and Marquard.

can confirm

none received full-throated support. there are about 20-25 "Oscars seat fillers" in the HOM - meaning, ok they're not all that, but they ARE better than the 20-25 joke electees.

those 3 also benefited from their era. we haven't elected a "seat filler" in the last several years, iirc
   128. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: August 06, 2018 at 02:37 PM (#5721807)
When the Nats played the Orioles before they moved to Minny, it was like there was a Baldness competition going on between Killebrew and Brooks Robinson. It was just about a draw.
At least until ol' Brooksie found a "solution" in recent years.
   129. Dennis Eclairskey, closer Posted: August 06, 2018 at 02:44 PM (#5721810)
I think Whitaker and Simmons will have the best shot on the next Modern Baseball Era ballot.
And in a perfect world if Whitaker gets elected then focus turns to another second baseman, Bobby Grich

I think a lot of why Whitaker wasn’t on the recent ballot was because with Morris & Trammell that would have made three Tiger teammates on one ballot
   130. DanG Posted: August 06, 2018 at 02:46 PM (#5721811)
we haven't elected a "seat filler" in the last several years
The last time the HoM filled the swamp was in 2012, when Reuschel and Cone were elected. Prior to that, we saw John McGraw and Reggie Smith elected in 2009 and Lundy and Saberhagen in 2008.
   131. Howie Menckel Posted: August 06, 2018 at 03:03 PM (#5721821)
128: that one's not bad at all, actually, at a casual glance
   132. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: August 06, 2018 at 03:10 PM (#5721832)
128: that one's not bad at all, actually, at a casual glance
Eh, that one is the highlight. Must be his go-to for big events. And then there's also this one.
   133. QLE Posted: August 06, 2018 at 04:03 PM (#5721859)
In terms of the HOM, I'd also argue that the methodology of elections has played a role- there were a lot of slots to fill in a period when the actual pickings weren't especially strong, and it seems that quite a few of the more questionable picks (regardless of when they played) are ones that got elected in that period.

As for the VC committees, it helps to remember that they meet in December, while the BBWAA results are released in January of the next year, resulting in different calendar years for results that are only released weeks apart.
   134. Ithaca2323 Posted: August 06, 2018 at 04:52 PM (#5721880)
I know this isn't how it's going to go, but I wonder if someone's going to start advocating for Cone and Saberhagen in light of Morris' induction. I mean, in a logical world, he'd open the door for them at the very least
   135. DanG Posted: August 06, 2018 at 05:03 PM (#5721882)
I wonder if someone's going to start advocating for Cone and Saberhagen in light of Morris' induction. I mean, in a logical world, he'd open the door for them at the very least
Yeah, that would be a hard sell. The confluence of factors that led to Morris' election are unique and can't be used to justify anyone else's election.
   136. DanG Posted: August 06, 2018 at 05:15 PM (#5721886)
I'd also argue that the methodology of elections has played a role- there were a lot of slots to fill in a period when the actual pickings weren't especially strong, and it seems that quite a few of the more questionable picks (regardless of when they played) are ones that got elected in that period.
I'm not quite sure what "period" you have in mind, and I don't quite agree that this was the issue.

Yes, the mandated number of electees means that the HoM might dip into a quality that you personally don't see as deserving. But the structure of the elections was to backload the elections, to avoid electing too many players too quickly in order to avoid the very problem you're seeing. So the early elections had only one or two players per year, while later elections, from 2000+, were electing at least three per year.

So IMO, the elections from 2000+ brought the weakest HoM electees. And that was exactly how it was designed - that as we reached the present day is when we would be filling up the bottom, to reach the same number enshrined as the Hall in Cooperstown.
   137. John DiFool2 Posted: August 06, 2018 at 06:40 PM (#5721927)
I do think it is a flaw in the HoM. The institution itself shouldn't decide on how big it gets, the voters should. If the HoMers decide that an average of only 1 (2/3) get in per year, so be it. I'd like to know some more about the rationale used there when the HoM was 1st conceived and designed (as hinted at in 136).
   138. Voodoo Posted: August 06, 2018 at 09:08 PM (#5721999)
I shouldn't speak for them, because I've only observed over the years, but I think the rationale was that the HOM was designed to create an alternative HOF of the same size and to select the appropriate players to fill out those X number of slots. So from the get-go they weren't taking any stance on Big/Small HOFs, they were supposing that the size of the HOF was appropriate and that they could do a better job of determining which players deserved to be among a Hall of that size.
   139. cardsfanboy Posted: August 06, 2018 at 09:30 PM (#5722012)
I shouldn't speak for them, because I've only observed over the years, but I think the rationale was that the HOM was designed to create an alternative HOF of the same size and to select the appropriate players to fill out those X number of slots. So from the get-go they weren't taking any stance on Big/Small HOFs, they were supposing that the size of the HOF was appropriate and that they could do a better job of determining which players deserved to be among a Hall of that size.


That was their viewpoint. The only problem is that then you might be creating a blurred line, they really should have an option of "no one" or something like that to maybe help ensure that there is potentially a clear line of in and out type of players.
   140. Voodoo Posted: August 06, 2018 at 11:39 PM (#5722086)
The only problem is that then you might be creating a blurred line, they really should have an option of "no one" or something like that to maybe help ensure that there is potentially a clear line of in and out type of players.


I'm not seeing that as a flaw. First, the way it was set up, it's not they HAVE to select a certain number of players from a certain year, there's plenty of guys in the backlog to chose from as the years progress, and I also don't see how you could have a clear, not blurry line, short of just drawing a WAR line in the sand (60+ you're in, etc) and that would have serious and obvious limitations. If there's a "flaw" to the HOM, it seems to me, it's that participation hasn't been steady throughout, so in many votes its just a handful of people casting ballots. However, for those of us that have been around here for a long time and aren't HOM voters, it's not really fair to ##### about that, because we could/should have been participating all these years.
   141. DanG Posted: August 06, 2018 at 11:55 PM (#5722103)
The only problem is that then you might be creating a blurred line, they really should have an option of "no one" or something like that to maybe help ensure that there is potentially a clear line of in and out type of players.
Well, wherever you draw the in/out line there will be no discernible difference in quality between the weakest ten elected and the best ten not elected. You'll always have that blurred line.

Having said that, there WAS a subtle flaw in the HoM voting structure. Bill James termed it the problem of an "unconstrained plurality". This means (1) “a voter can vote for anybody” and (2) “If the top vote-getter gets 15 percent of the vote, he wins, the same as if he had received 80 percent.” James called that voting structure “an open invitation to an eccentric outcome.” The Hall of Merit never did anything to address this problem, and some eccentric outcomes did result.

The worst example of this at the HoM, IMO, was the election of Pete Browning in the 2005 election. After over a hundred elections, a small faction of staunch supporters finally got Browning elected. Only 10 of the 54 voters named him as one of the top five candidates on that ballot; only 22 even had him on their 15-man ballot. Many voters noted that Browning was not among their top 30 or 40 candidates, but the system had no way to weigh that in the group assessment. Nobody seemed to think it might be symptomatic of a problem that 109 different players received votes in that election.

   142. Cooper Nielson Posted: August 07, 2018 at 07:14 AM (#5722140)
I know this isn't how it's going to go, but I wonder if someone's going to start advocating for Cone and Saberhagen in light of Morris' induction. I mean, in a logical world, he'd open the door for them at the very least

Or, more logically, he could open the door for Dennis Martinez. If Morris is in the HOF, it's hard to argue that Martinez shouldn't be. With Cone and Saberhagen you can at least point to their somewhat lackluster career totals.

Martinez
245-193, 3999.2 IP, 3.70 ERA, 106 ERA+, 1.266 WHIP, 49.5 WAR, 14.9 WAA, 4 All-Star Games
Morris
254-186, 3824 IP, 3.90 ERA, 105 ERA+, 1.296 WHIP, 44.0 WAR, 9.7 WAA, 5 All-Star Games

They're practically twins, except Martinez is better! Also, Martinez deserves a bit of "pioneer" credit for being the first MLB player from Nicaragua.
   143. Cooper Nielson Posted: August 07, 2018 at 07:30 AM (#5722144)
Martinez doesn't have Morris's signature World Series performance, but he does have a 3.32 ERA in the postseason (43.1 IP). Morris's postseason ERA is 3.80 in 92.1 innings.

Morris was the "winningest pitcher of the 1980s," with 162 wins. Martinez had only 107 -- it wasn't a good decade for him (drug problem, as I recall). From 1985-94, however, the gap drops to 147-124 in favor of Morris. And from 1987 to 1996, Martinez out-wins Morris 129 to 110. Of course, Morris didn't play in 1995 or 1996, but I'll still give Martinez credit for those extra years, as he was still a viable pitcher despite being a year older than Morris.

Morris's other main claim to fame is his 14 opening day starts. Martinez can't match that, but he did have 11 -- top 20 all-time.

Morris threw a no-hitter, Martinez threw a perfect game.
   144. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: August 07, 2018 at 09:40 AM (#5722199)
The worst example of this at the HoM, IMO, was the election of Pete Browning in the 2005 election.


But without Pete Browning, nobody would be in the HoM representing the Louisville Colonels!
   145. Ithaca2323 Posted: August 07, 2018 at 10:15 AM (#5722237)
Or, more logically, he could open the door for Dennis Martinez. If Morris is in the HOF, it's hard to argue that Martinez shouldn't be. With Cone and Saberhagen you can at least point to their somewhat lackluster career totals.


IMO Morris' election was about narrative, not numbers. Martinez is statistically a better match to Morris, but he lacks the rings, and has no hardware Morris doesn't. Cone and Saberhagen had Cys Morris didn't, and both got rings by being the ace of a staff, (arguably more than once for Cone).
   146. DanG Posted: August 07, 2018 at 10:53 AM (#5722269)
But without Pete Browning, nobody would be in the HoM representing the Louisville Colonels!
Fred Clarke, Honus Wagner, Hughie Jennings and Jimmy Collins got it covered.
   147. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: August 07, 2018 at 10:57 AM (#5722272)
Morris had a better mustache than Martinez, but it wasn't THAT much better.
   148. DanG Posted: August 07, 2018 at 11:22 AM (#5722296)
IMO Morris' election was about narrative, not numbers.
Their respective Hall of Fame Monitor totals reflect this perfectly:

The Jack - 122
El Presidente 67
   149. QLE Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:27 PM (#5722405)
#136- The period I had in mind is the one from roughly the mid-1990s until the glut hit in 2013.

I also should note that my perspective is not a "small Hall" one- there's a cluster of 1970s players (Bando, Bell, Bobby Bonds, and Munson, to name four) who strike me as meriting induction, so I don't think it was just a case of being out of good candidates by any means.

#138- This reminds me- counting the Negro Leaguers, how many inductees do the HOF and the HOM have in comparison to one another? I know the HOM is somewhat bigger that many of the similar alternative Halls online, but those tend to be MLB-only.

#140- Agreed that a clear line is impossible, and personally regard career WAR (unless you want a really small Hall) as a bad place to draw it- it overrates players who accumulated without being necessarily ever great, and underrates catchers, nineteenth-century players, players caught by the color line or by WWII, or others who were great but had short careers.
   150. SoSH U at work Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:30 PM (#5722408)
This reminds me- counting the Negro Leaguers, how many inductees do the HOF and the HOM have in comparison to one another


They were designed to be the identical size. I believe the HoM has grown at a faster rate since its inception than Cooperstown.
   151. DavidFoss Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:43 PM (#5722420)
They were designed to be the identical size. I believe the HoM has grown at a faster rate since its inception than Cooperstown.

Yes. The HOM scaled its induction rate by league size. The HOF has inducted fewer modern-era players, not more.
   152. DanG Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:46 PM (#5722423)
how many inductees do the HOF and the HOM have in comparison to one another?
The HoM now has 267 players. The official HOF list has 255 players.

However, there are 12 players in the HoM who are not in the HOF's consideration set as players.

These six HoMers are classified as non-players in the HOF:

George Wright
Al Spalding
Clark Griffith
John McGraw
Rube Foster
Joe Torre

These two HoMers are banned from the HOF:

Joe Jackson
Pete Rose

These four HoMers played less than ten years in MLB from 1876+, so the HOF would classify them as Pioneers:

Dickey Pearce
Ross Barnes
Cal McVey
Lip Pike

So after the 2018 elections the HoM and HOF are actually even, with 255 players from the same pool of candidates.
   153. DanG Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:09 PM (#5722501)
The HOF has inducted fewer modern-era players, not more.
With Trammell's election, there are now 11 players in the HoM who are eligible for the Modern Baseball era committee elections:

Lou Whitaker
Bobby Grich
Dwight Evans
Ted Simmons
Keith Hernandez
Reggie Smith
Graig Nettles
Dave Stieb
Willie Randolph
Darrell Evans
Rick Reuschel

And some others with strong resumes:

Luis Tiant
Thurman Munson
Bobby Bonds
Tommy John
Dale Murphy
Sal Bando
Buddy Bell
Bert Campaneris

The HOF has also inducted fewer 19th century players. And, of course, the HOF has inducted way too many players from the 1920's and 30's.
   154. QLE Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5722557)
Thanks, DanG, and rather interesting (to me, at least) that the lists sync in number right now- wonder how long that will last.....
   155. cardsfanboy Posted: August 07, 2018 at 07:39 PM (#5722727)
#140- Agreed that a clear line is impossible, and personally regard career WAR (unless you want a really small Hall) as a bad place to draw it- it overrates players who accumulated without being necessarily ever great, and underrates catchers, nineteenth-century players, players caught by the color line or by WWII, or others who were great but had short careers.


I agree that the clear line is impossible, but as you move the standards down more, the line gets blurrier.

I don't support a war line in the slightest, just that the induction of guys that were never really considered "future/potential" hofers, and that require contortions to justify, is just as bad as votes for Morris/Rice. Dang does a good job of describing the flaw with the process that the hom decided to go with, my point was that the voters should have had a chance to 'overwrite' the rules and say that no one is clearly deserving among the group. Imagine if the voters are allowed to vote exactly as the rules are set up, but based upon the number of players going in that year, they are able to vote for "no one A" , "No one B" etc. and when the final tally is lined up, and if No One is in the group to get inducted, then they induct no one in that spot.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Darren
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(1256 - 5:57am, Sep 20)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogRed Sox division title banner falls off truck; its return may cost them - The Boston Globe
(21 - 4:25am, Sep 20)
Last: manchestermets

NewsblogIt's not a tantrum, it's a cry for OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 19, 2018
(89 - 1:55am, Sep 20)
Last: Bote Man the walk-off king

NewsblogOrioles match club record with 107th loss, 5-0 to Blue Jays before tiny home crowd
(33 - 1:13am, Sep 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

Gonfalon CubsThe Final Push
(129 - 11:49pm, Sep 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Sox Therapy11 Days Later
(65 - 11:25pm, Sep 19)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(414 - 10:56pm, Sep 19)
Last: Der-K: at 10% emotional investment

NewsblogGoin' to Carolina in OMNICHATTER's mind, for September 18, 2018
(105 - 10:28pm, Sep 19)
Last: puck

NewsblogSnell wins 20th, ties Rays record in 4-0 victory over Texas
(12 - 10:18pm, Sep 19)
Last: Mike Emeigh

NewsblogWillians Astudillo Should Be Your New Favorite Player
(13 - 10:13pm, Sep 19)
Last: Srul Itza

Sox Therapy6,036 Days
(11 - 10:08pm, Sep 19)
Last: dave h

NewsblogThe Orioles became the first professional sports team to wear Braille jerseys
(49 - 10:06pm, Sep 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogCain stars in Directional Outs Above Average
(13 - 9:46pm, Sep 19)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-19-2018
(41 - 8:44pm, Sep 19)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogBaseball Image of the Day: Warning Sign at Fenway
(5 - 8:39pm, Sep 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Page rendered in 0.4887 seconds
46 querie(s) executed