User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6761 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
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.
Hey, he's hitting .333. That's good, right?
Wow, this is a bad ballot, which makes me a little surprised at the (correct) Larkin vote.
It's a tweet, not an article.
-- MWE
Grrr.
No Blyleven. Sigh.
Dawson, Porker, Morris and Donnie6years? Really? Are those his choices or did Boras dictate those to him?
How else can that be explained?
:(
Blyleven was better than Morris in the regular season, better in the postseason, and better head to head.
What else is left?
See? I hate this. BTF groupthink on the Hall has calcified to the piont where many people think it's reasonable to calmly list which picks are "right" and which are "wrong." This is really annoying to me.
Stud Jack Morris had an amazing, whopping, incredible 13 opening-day starts.
Crappy ol Blyleven only had twelve.
Yeah, it's a little annoying, but given that Dawson is in the HoM, I wouldn't call his position "groupthink."
My least favorite kind of 'groupthink' is when people have decided that it's acceptable and reasonable to label every consensus a form of 'groupthink.'
Groupthink doesn't just mean a lot of people who agree on the same thing. It doesn't even mean a situation where those people agree quite strongly and find other opinions to be wrong, rather than just subjective.
Groupthink is when the process by which decisions are made is constrained by the format of collective thinking. If you think that's happening then explain what is missing in the analysis which judges these four guys to not be HOFers. It's not like people here don't regularly attempt to make cases for them. It's just that the majority have found (and will continue to find) those cases unpersuasive (edit: with the possible exception of Dawson who pretty much defines the 'in' side of the borderline in the HOM).
Put more simply: it's not groupthink when a bunch of people independently notice that Don Mattingly was basically finished as an All-Star quality player at 28. Or that Jack Morris had the same career as Dennis Martinez.
You prefer to defend Morris, Mattingly, or Parker as reasonable HoF picks?
Is Mattingly gaining traction?!
If Mattingly, Parker, etc. are going to gain any traction, it's now and the next couple of years. Following Rice's election, a whole lot of voters have to be giving these guys a second look (how can you not?). And there isn't a big swell of no-doubt HoFers over the next few years. But I can't imagine any of these guys in the sub-30s are going to gain enough traction to make it by 2012. Then the wave begins and I assume they'll have no chance at that point. In terms of saber-faves, I think this means Raines has to make a big push this year. He might have a chance even if not elected by 2012 as he'll still have 11 elections left so if he can make a push now then hold on through the big wave, he's got a shot.
I could get sent back to join the Spanish Armada in an Aegis cruiser and not throw crap as out of whack as Skates did that night.
I dunno, a whole lot more Spanish porn would have reached British shores.
Parker was better than Jim Rice, in both the Era of Fear(TM) and overall.
Morris won a lot of games, had an iconic postseason performance, was the ace of excellent teams for over a decade, was considered an ace of excellent teams for well over a decade, was an excellent postseason pitcher, and ranked highly in several pitching categories for a sustained period of time. In an era ending 10 years before, he likely wins 300 games.(**)
(**) I wouldn't vote for either of them, but the idea that voting for them is per se unreasonable or wrong is preposterous. The snarky threads on Morris are paradigmatic examples of groupthink, whereby a starting pitcher win is reduced to a nullity in favor of Isaac Evans hypotheticals ("We've come to understand the real meaning of wins"), and his iconic postseason moment is reduced to nothing more than Lonnie Smith's "brain fart."
Just pretend that I didn't use that word.
I don't sweat Parker or Dale Murphy; Mattingly is dumb but at least he was truly a great all-around player for a few years.
"Morris..... was an excellent postseason pitcher."
Was he? How does he stack up against Blyleven?
I'll grant you "an iconic postseason performance."
Morris was an excellent postseason pitcher for a single game. He was merely okay during his entire postseason career.
I don't consider Mattingly to be reasonable. Parker has always been HoVG, probably as good or better than several VC selections and, given the elections of Rice, Perez and Puckett, close to if not over the writers' current borderline. He is a "reasonable" choice.
Morris is also "reasonable." He'd probably be the worst-ever writer starter selection but somebody has to be. The joke about Morris is there isn't a reasonable case for him but not Blyleven, John, Kaat ... and, unless you weight post-season performance VERY heavily, Martinez, Tanana, Reuschel, etc. have "reasonable" claims. Similarly, it's hard if not impossible to make a case for Parker but not Raines and Dawson (and Dwight Evans and Darrell Evans and ...).
I always point this out but it is simply endemic to any multiple-rater measurement system -- you'll have widespread agreement on who's clearly in, widespread (and rarely unjustified) agreement on who's clearly not, and a whole lot of "reasonableness" in between where things are just pretty damn arbitrary. Looking at the HoF voting history, the real head-scratcher isn't Parker, Mattingly, Morris et al but rather how so many very, very good players fall completely off the list, often without even a sniff.
"Merely okay" -- now there's a term of rigor. Yeah, just a "single game" -- his 1984 postseason flat out stunk.
By the 1992 postseason, he was running on fumes (as shown by his 1993 and 1994 performance) and it hurt his record. Before that, he was an outstanding postseason pitcher. I understand the groupthink finds it difficult to be reasonable and objective when scripture and faith are involved, so what you should do now is say something like, "Well, how clutch could he really have been if he couldn't pitch through his ability winding down?" and laugh at or shout down people who suggest otherwise.
I am repelled by the attitude that suggests there is one "correct" ballot and that all others can be simply graded against it.
LOL.
Can't you find some other site to troll?
Can't you find some other site to troll?
Want to come say that to my face? Name the place.
Somebody writes something somebody doesn't like, in response to a factually ridiculous comment that Morris was an excellent postseason pitcher for a "single game" ... therefore, that person's a troll.
No groupthink there.
But:
What? Seriously? Is your dad going to beat up my dad?
No, but you should be prepared to back up name-calling, rather than hiding behind a computer. Are you? Me and you, no dads.
That is the definition of "Troll:" You are posting with the sole intent of riling up your audience. I'm sure you will find other audiences more fun than us.
If you think the entirety of what I wrote was done with the "sole intent" of riling people up, and was free of substance, you're completely clueless. The remark your tender sensibilities find so offensive was an effort to put some meat on the bones of the definition of groupthink -- a phrase I didn't even introduce into the conversation. Conceits amongst groups involved in groupthink closely resemble, in my opinion, faith and scripture. The words had nothing to do with riling anybody up, much less that being the sole motivation behind them. If you were in fact riled up, take a breath and maybe try reading again.
You aren't making any attempt at discussion.
######## and horseshit from top to bottom, beginning and end.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
Pretty simple: I don't care for being called a troll. Nor do I care for being addressed with, "LOL, go away, you're a troll."
Okay, so someone on the internet called you a name (troll). Who cares? Pretty much anyone who can turn on a computer can post here. Why would you be upset to the point of wanting to get in a childish fight over someone you don't even know calling you a name? Don't give him (or me, or anyone else) control of your happiness. Lighten up.
Have a happy New Year.
Bill
So despite going 21-6 and pitching 240+ innings (for which undoubtedly you would give him great credit when looking at his HOF credentials) he shouldn't be held responsible for going 0-3 with a 7.43 ERA in 4 postseason starts?
Good idea.
Have a happy New Year.
Bill
Thanks. Same to you.
Sabres at dawn in Evony? Loser dies, winner gets the chick with the enormous breasts?
It is reasonable to vote for Parker for the HOF. It is not reasonable to vote for Parker and not Raines.
It is reasonable to vote for Mattingly for the HOF. It is not reasonable to vote for Mattingly and not McGriff.
Alomar and Larkin are clear HOFers, it is obviously reasonable to vote for them.
There is no directly comparable and clearly superior candidate to Dawson, who is perhaps *the* personification of the HOF in/out line. It is reasonable to go either way on Dawson, regardless of your other choices.
Another way of looking at it is that the postseason comes at the end of the year -- six months closer to what he was in 1993 and 1994 than April 1992 was. At the end of your age 37 year with the big workload he'd had at 35, 36, and 37, it hardly strains credulity to think he was running out of gas. I don't accept that what happened in 1992 has anything to do with 1991 or 1984, other than weakening what would have been an even better record. I think overall, taking all facts and circumstances into account, that he was an "excellent" postseason pitcher and I'll gladly stand by that.
He had more than a single "excellent" postseason game. That claim remains factually absurd.
As I said unambigously upthread, I wouldn't vote for him for the Hall.
Invective and witty bon mots?
Churlish retorts and blasphemous inuendos?
OK my fellow posters what is the "groupthink" about the choice of weapons?
What a load of ####.
It would be barely defensible to think, "My last slot on the ballot is a choice between Morris and Blyleven. I'll hope enough people vote for Bert to put him over the top, while Morris needs my vote more."
No, it's not. That doesn't mean that he didn't pitch some other fine games beyond the regular season, but none come close to the one everyone talks about. Overall, his postseason career was decent, but it wasn't out-of-this-world great like a Lou Brock or Sandy Koufax. That's just revision of his statistical record.
This argument would hold a lot more water if he hadn't gone 9-2, 3.26 over the last 2 months of the regular season.
He had more than a single "excellent" postseason game. That claim remains factually absurd.
This is entirely correct, but it seems like the single excellent postseason game is the only one cited in about 95% of the Hall arguments in his favor.
-- MWE
"He had more than a single "excellent" postseason game. That claim remains factually absurd."
It appears to be invented out of whole cloth.
............
Blyleven finished SECOND in ERA in 1973 to HOFer Jim Palmer, 2.40 to 2.52.
He also finished SECOND in 1977, to Frank Tanana, 2.54 to 2.72.
He also finished THIRD in 1984, to Mike Boddicker and HOMer Dave Stieb, 2.79 to 2.83 to 2.87.
He also finished FOURTH in 1974, to HOFers Catfish Hunter and Gaylord Perry plus Andy Hassler (he in exactly 162 IP), 2.49 to 2.51 to 2.61 to 2.66.
He also finished FOURTH in 1989 at age 38, to HOMer Bret Saberhagen plus Chuck Finley and Mike Moore, 2.16 to 2.57 to 2.61 to 2.73.
He also finished FIFTH in 1971 and 1985, and SIXTH in 1975, and NINTH in 1976, and NINTH in 1981.
10 top 10s? Ok, I guess.
lol
Blyleven led the league in shutouts twice, IP twice, K once and CG once.
The irony here, gentleman, is this is a perfect example of groupthink of the non-sabermetric statistical kind.
I did say he had one excellent game, Howie, but I meant one for the ages, not that Morris didn't pitch some quality innings. Of course he did. I'm pretty sure SBB knew what I meant, but decided to beat me up on it regardless. That's okay. I'm a big boy and can handle it. :-)
What does that make Orel Hershiser?
Exactly my point, OCF. Comparing his postseason record to other pitchers, how can anyone think Morris is in the upper echelon of career postseason hurlers? Again, I didn't say he was a lousy pitcher or even average during the postseason - I said he was okay, which wasn't meant to be a slight. With that said, we're not talking Christy Mathewson here.
Morris in wins twice, CG once, shutouts once, IP once, K once. Also BB once, ER once, and wild pitches six times.
Don Mattingly's sponsorship on b-ref.com:
Fred McGriff's sponsorship:
The Crime Dog wins, QED.
Much better than Jack Morris.
You won't be abused by anybody on this site. You've fallen perfectly in line with the groupthink on Raines. :-)
Gwynn, 10,232 PA, 2,526 R+RBI
Boggs, 10,740 PA, 2,527 R+RBI
Raines, 10,359 PA, 2,552 R+RBI
Anyway, no worries it is just the internet. Hope everyone (Including SBB) had a good 2009, and will have a better 2010 (with less FIGHT! I hope).
With that kind of "logic" no sense considering any player not elected on first year of eligibility. Heyman (if possible) seems to make less sense now that he has attempted to justify his position.
Mike Shalin:
There are plenty of other pitchers who won 250 games who are not in the Hall of Fame. There are plenty of other players who won LCS and WS MVPs who are not in the Hall of Fame. Morris' ERA+ was 105 and Catfish Hunter's was 104. Those two would be your lowest ERA+ among HOF SPs (besides Rube Marquard's 103 ERA+. Electing a guy on the basis of the least-good comps in the Hall of Fame is a vicious circle, I think. (See: Rice, Jim.)
Bill Madden:
Using ERA+ instead of Morris' career 3.90 ERA improves Morris' standing among HOF SPs from "least good" to third "least good." He's 69th on the list of Cy Young shares, and among the top 200 by Cy Young shares, only Drysdale and Ford (each 1 win), Sutton, Niekro and Gossage are Hall of Famers ranked below Morris. There are lots of ace pitchers who aren't in the Hall of Fame. He ranks 91st in pitching black ink (below average HOFer) and 48th in pitching gray ink (just above the average HOFer). 5 All-Star games shows that he was held in some regard by his peers, but not in total awe over an 18-year career.
Bruce Jenkins:
Is the Hall of Fame really about one appearance or clutch performance? (That's the ultimate in being a peak voter.) Maybe this is the only way one votes in Morris, but not Blyleven.
Murray Chass:
Again, it was a great game, but it was one game. Chass finds it "sad" that people with the ability to assess a player's performance with a dispassionate rationale will increase as a proportion of HOF voters. How many people here share that opinion?
In case you were curious, I looked at the list of pitcher and their wins summed across the 3rd through 16th year of their careers that Chass picked. Morris ranks 15th, tied with Tom Glavine, one win ahead of Tom Seaver, two ahead of Roger Clemens and five ahead of Jim Palmer. Are you impressed yet?
Credit to Chass for quoting a writer who gets it. (I presume these are real people and not just strawmen.)
3,800 IP of 105 ERA+.
That's your right.
Hal Bodley:
"Law and Order: HOF" anyone?
Maybe a lot of the NO voters are reacting to the election of Jim Rice as a lowering of the boundary line for Hall of Famers and believe Morris will lead to the same on the pitching side of things. Maybe a lot of the YES voters think that someone from that 1984 Tigers team should be in the Hall of Fame, and if not Trammell or Whitaker or Parrish, then Morris.
Both of these guys spent most or all of their best years in an MLB that only gave out one Cy Young per year, which artificially suppresses their totals.
Heyman is right in the narrow sense that Blyleven's selection to the HOF would be a historic feat in terms of winning over voters, esp. since WWII.
However, Ralph Waldo Emerson had people like Heyman in mind when he said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Drysdale and Ford shouldn't be listed. Though the CYA was around for all or most of their careers, it was one vote per writer back then, and one award for both leagues. That's why Juan Marichal (you forgot him BTW) does so poorly in this metric. Every time he had a big year, Koufax or Gibson or Dean Chance was a no brainer and got all the votes. Drysdale and Ford, (and Marichal) would all easily be ahead of Morris under hte voting rules of Morris's time, and conversely, Morris would probably have 0 award shares under the voting rules of the early 60's.
How much? When Morris played, there were almost as many teams in the AL (14) as in all of MLB when Drysdale and Ford played (16-20), IIRC.
You make an interesting point regarding the 1984 Tigers. They were one heck of a team. Their fast start (35-5? IIRC) was extremely impressive. Law of averages would suggest a team that good would end up with a player or two in the Hall of Fame. I would vote for Trammel and think that if he had managed one or two more very good/borderline great seasons he'd be getting more votes. I was sorry to see Whitaker one and done on the ballot. Their other big hitter Gibson had some great moments but not a great career. Willie Hernandez had a great season in 1984, but not much else. Morris had a good career of decent length and a couple highlight moments thrown in. Bottom line a team is the sum of its parts and for one season can add up to greatness without any of their careers truly being great. There have been last place teams that included multiple Hall of Famers so it shouldn't be too surprising that a team could be WS champ without multiple HoF's just out of dumb luck.
I didn't forget Marichal, but thanks for mentioning him. He's 264th on the list, and not "among the top 200 by Cy Young shares" which I picked for the convenience of using BB-REF's list.
The more important factor, which I mentioned in 71, was one slot per ballot. So when Whitey ford goes 17-6 with a 2.13 ERA in 1964, everybody votes for Dean Chance and ford gets nothing.
As i said, Juan Marichal is the poster Child for this.
In 1963 he went 25-8 and got no votes, as koufax went 25-5 and got all the votes.
In 1966 he went 25-6 and got no votes as Koufax again stole the show.
In 1968 he went 26-9, but there was Bob "1.12" Gibson.
3 years of 25 wins and 0 CYA shares.
He should have been better at pitching to the score.
You won't be abused by anybody on this site. You've fallen perfectly in line with the groupthink on Raines. :-)
Gwynn, 10,232 PA, 2,526 R+RBI
Boggs, 10,740 PA, 2,527 R+RBI
Raines, 10,359 PA, 2,552 R+RBI
Group think has moved on a bit from here to make positional adjustments.
Boggs > Raines
Boggs > Gwynn
Raines = Gwynn
Marichal was probably the 3rd best NL pitcher in 1963, and 2nd best in 1966 and 1968. SWAGS under more recent practice: 0.20 share for 1963, 0.6 share for 1966, and 0.5 share for 1968: total 1.3 shares, roughly 30th on the career Cy Young shares list. (But then you'd have to adjust for all the other pitchers similarly affected and the rank would drop.)
When did the rule change to 3 slots per ballot (before it was changed again this year IIRC)? I wonder what the hypothetical Cy Young shares under 3 slots per ballot would be for Drysdale, Ford, etc.?
Larkin: 116 OPS+ in 9,057 PA, 1 MVP, 3 Gold Gloves (maybe suppressed by competing with Ozzie Smith), 12 time All-Star
Trammell: 110 OPS+ in 9,375 PA, 0 MVP, 4 Gold Gloves, 6 time All-Star
I think that the big difference is the number of times selected as an all-star. It's pretty predictive of BBWAA election, along with 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, etc., according to analysis done by Cy Morong and others. (Gold Gloves seem not to mean very much in the eyes of the voters.)
12 time All-Stars have been pretty much quickly and uniformly inducted into the HOF. 6 time All-Stars who are inducted take over 4 years on average and their induction rate is less than 40%, IIRC.
I can't say why Trammell wasn't an All-Star at least once or twice more. Inconsistency of good years ('80 especially, '83-'84, '88, '93) followed by bad years, maybe?
Year Age G PA OPS+ Awards
1977 19 19 48 21
1978 20 139 504 89 RoY-4
1979 21 142 520 85
1980 22 146 652 113 AS/MVP-20/GG
1981 23 105 463 91 MVP-21/GG
1982 24 157 556 97
1983 25 142 581 138 MVP-15/GG
1984 26 139 626 135 AS/MVP-9/GG
1985 27 149 677 89 AS
1986 28 151 653 120
1987 29 151 668 155 AS/MVP-2/SS
1988 30 128 523 137 AS/MVP-7/SS
1989 31 121 506 85
1990 32 146 637 130 AS/MVP-19/SS
1991 33 101 421 90
1992 34 29 120 114
1993 35 112 447 138
1994 36 76 311 84
1995 37 74 255 82
1996 38 66 207 34
I think some awards vote results (AS/MVP/CY) are a good indicator, all other things being equal, of how BBWAA voters will view a HOF candidacy. However, it's not unreasonable to say that they shouldn't carry significant weight.
I think also that Larkin was regarded as the best NL shortstop of the 1990s (after Ozzie Smith dominated the position in the 1980s), while Trammell was a contemporary of Cal Ripken.
From 1990-1999, Larkin had the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 19th, 24th, and 25th best seasons by OPS+ among 118 SS-seasons playing minimum of 100 games.
From 1980-1993, Trammell's best years, he had the 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 19th, 23rd, 53rd, 68th, 70th, 77th, and 89th best seasons among 185 SS-seasons.
From 1980-1993, Ripken had the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 22nd, 35th, 36th, 50th, and 66th best seasons among the same 185 SS-seasons.
I found this humorous coming from someone posting anonymously as "SugarBear."
That's an extremely impressive argument FOR Trammell. For 13 years, he was in roughly the same range as Cal Ripken, who is an inner-circle guy.
Obviously, he isn't Ripken - 3000 extra plate appearances of offense is a LOT. But that's more about Ripken playing forever than it is about Trammell having an especially short career.
For their peaks, Ripken was clearly better, but by a smaller margin than I expected.
The streak aside, I disagree that Ripken is an inner-circle guy, however. Among shortstops, he's behind Honus Wagner, Arky Vaughan, Lou Boudreau, Joe Cronin, Robin Yount and Ozzie IMO.
In a later tweet, Heyman noted that he had voted "no" for Mattingly eight times before changing his mind, so his consistency is inconsistent...
I was originally rather gung-ho for McGriff earlier this year, but he was an indifferent defensive player at an offensive position, with an early peak (very good, not great) and a long slow decline phase. Murph is probably the guy on the ballot with the saddest career arc-him or Donnie Baseball. But he got a lot of help from his home park, and most defensive metrics fail to see him as a stellar defender. He is closer to Dawson than many, here or in Medialand, want to admit tho.
I'll give you Wagner. I don't see how you can get Vaughan ahead of Ripken, given the playing time difference. And I don't see a good argument for Boudreau, Cronin, or Yount. Finally, Smith's defense can't carry him that far.
Peak seasons for Vaughan tops Ripken, and those for Boudreau and Yount at SS are quite similar, even if they didn't compile as much career value.
Top 5 OPS+ seasons at SS
Vaughan: 190-149-148-146-140
Ripken: 162-145-144-128-124
Boudreau: 164-145-133-131-128
Yount: 166-150-130-126-114
I don't know how to compare Smith's defense to Ripken. You could try to use WAR; it'll probably show Ripken ahead. However, if I had to field a team of HOFers at their peak, I wouldn't mind putting Ozzie at shortstop if Wagner and Vaughan are unavailable, and I make up the offensive deficit elsewhere.
Per [93], Ripken's a no-brainer for me, but not inner-circle.
But isn't career value a big part of this?
Kaat
John
Moyer
Koosman
Hough
Dennis Martinez
Jack Quinn
Tanana
Bobo Newsom
Derringer
Lolich
Bond
Bob Friend
Reuschel
Tiant
Will White
Wilbur Cooper
David Wells
Mel Harder
Charlie Buffington
McCormick
Bobby Mathews from the 1870s and 80s
Mullane
Gus Weyhing
Sam Jones
Jack Powell who went 245-254 in the 1880s
Blyleven * 2 (As in if Bert had retired halfway through his career and then came back under a fake name and continued to pitch, I would have elected him twice before electing Morris)
And that's where I get bored and give up.
I mean Morris is not just undeserving. He's so undeserving, he's not a "Big Hall" candidate, but a "Let's just let anyone who played the game for a long time at a halfway decent level of play sized hall" candidate.
The 80s to the present are getting so bad insofar as HoF electees, that I think the current out team could probably put a hurting on the in group.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main