Oh boy.

voted for alomar, dawson, larkin, parker, morris & mattingly

Hey, he's hitting .333. That's good, right?

Tim Raines isn't getting in until all of these guys die and Neyer, Law, and Foreman get voting privileges. Trammell won't have enough years left. Problem is, too many of these bad voters are relatively young.

Bert?

Bert wasn't a gamer like Morris.

Wow, this is a bad ballot, which makes me a little surprised at the (correct) Larkin vote.

I didn't RTFA but I don't suppose there's any actual justification for giving Morris the nod and omitting Blyleven? Geezus, I must be old, I can remember when 287 wins and more strikeouts than Walter Johnson meant something.

Is Mattingly gaining traction?! He's always gotten some sympathy/stay-on-the-ballot type votes, but he's been around 10-15% for a long-ass time. Sure seems like there are more writers voting for him this year though.

I didn't RTFA but I don't suppose there's any actual justification for giving Morris the nod and omitting Blyleven?

It's a tweet, not an article.

-- MWE

Wow, I almost have to believe Heyman is voting stupidly on purpose to gain notoriety. I can see someone who is a really, really, really big Hall of Fame guy voting for Morris, but can't for the life of me understand anyone voting for Morris and not Blyleven. What a moroon!

It's Twitter. There is no room for justification. Maybe he misread "Morris" as "Boras"? :)

Effing Lonnie Smith changed more history with one damn brain fart than anyone before or since. Seriously, 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.

Grrr.

Yeah, throwing 60 shutouts is just showing off over and over and . .
No Blyleven. Sigh.

Dawson, Porker, Morris and Donnie6years? Really? Are those his choices or did Boras dictate those to him?

I think that Blyleven beating Morris's team twice in the same playoff series while Morris lost his only start in the same series proves that Morris is by far the better big-game pitcher, and thus more deserving of the Hall of Fame.

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?

Hey, he's hitting .333. That's good, right?

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.

With some voters you shake your head and wonder why they have a vote and guys like Vin Scully and Bill James do not. With Heyman I shake my head and wonder why he has a vote and my dog does not.

What else is left?

Stud Jack Morris had an amazing, whopping, incredible 13 opening-day starts.

Crappy ol Blyleven only had twelve.

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.

Yeah, it's a little annoying, but given that Dawson is in the HoM, I wouldn't call his position "groupthink."

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.

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.

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.

You prefer to defend Morris, Mattingly, or Parker as reasonable HoF picks?

Yep, it was groupthink ("didn't feel like an HoFer") that led to Dennis Martinez (3.2% and done) and Frank Tanana (0 votes) getting no HoF love despite having Morris' career. Bob Boone got more love.

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.

You prefer to defend Morris, Mattingly, or Parker as reasonable HoF picks?

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."

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.'

Just pretend that I didn't use that word.

There is a huge difference between voting for both Blyleven and Morris, and voting ONLY for Morris.

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."

was an excellent postseason pitcher,

Morris was an excellent postseason pitcher for a single game. He was merely okay during his entire postseason career.

You prefer to defend Morris, Mattingly, or Parker as reasonable HoF picks?

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.

Morris was an excellent postseason pitcher for a single game. He was merely okay for the entirety of his postseason career.


"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.

You prefer to defend Morris, Mattingly, or Parker as reasonable HoF picks?

I am repelled by the attitude that suggests there is one "correct" ballot and that all others can be simply graded against it.

I understand the groupthink finds it difficult to be reasonable and objective when scripture and faith are involved

LOL.

Can't you find some other site to troll?

LOL.

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.

You aren't making any attempt at discussion. Showing up and yammering about "groupthink" and accusing those that vote against Morris as proponents of "scripture and faith." That is the definition of "troll:" You are posting with the sole intent of riling up your audience. I am sure you can find some other audience that is more fun than us.

But:

Want to come say that to my face?

What? Seriously? Is your dad going to beat up my dad?

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.

Bullshit and horseshit from top to bottom, beginning and end.

Fight!

No, but you should be prepared to back up name-calling, rather than hiding behind a computer. Are you? Me and you, no dads.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Somehow the triple threat of yes on Morris, no on Bert, and yes on Mattingly is particularly galling.

What the #### 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."

Playground at 3:30?

I don't know that the yes on Mattingly is as galling as the one for Morris. While I think Mattingly's peak didn't last long enough to merit election, I can accept someone believing his 5 or 6 year run of greatness was Hall worthy. There was a couple years where he was legitimately considered the best in the game. Maybe it wasn't a universal opinion, but it wasn't a laughable thought. Morris misses (IMO) both as a peak type candidate and as an accumulation type and it doesn't seem close in either regard.

SBB,

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

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.

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?

Lighten up.

Good idea.

Have a happy New Year.

Bill


Thanks. Same to you.

So how do we do this?

Sabres at dawn in Evony? Loser dies, winner gets the chick with the enormous breasts?

It is reasonable to vote for Morris for the HOF. It is not reasonable to vote for Morris and not Blyleven.

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.

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?

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.

What is your choice of weapons, gentlemen?
Invective and witty bon mots?
Churlish retorts and blasphemous inuendos?

OK my fellow posters what is the "groupthink" about the choice of weapons?

It is not reasonable to vote for Mattingly and not McGriff.

What a load of ####.

It is especially not reasonable to vote for Morris and not Blyleven if you're not voting for the maximum ten people.

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."

He had more than a single "excellent" postseason game. That claim remains factually absurd.

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.

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.

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.

New tweet from Heyman explaining Blyleven:

regarding bert, 86% voted "no'' his 2nd yr. unlike others, i'm consistent. he never led league in wins, ERA but led in HRs, earned runs, Ls

-- MWE

I checked, and don't see anyone who claimed this one:
"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.

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.

The irony here, gentleman, is this is a perfect example of groupthink of the non-sabermetric statistical kind.

I checked, and don't see anyone who claimed this one:
"He had more than a single "excellent" postseason game. That claim remains factually absurd."

It appears to be invented out of whole cloth.

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. :-)

Heyman cherry-picking stats makes me want to hit him with a bat.

Aaaaaaaand, with this SBB finally makes my ignore list.

"Morris..... was an excellent postseason pitcher."

What does that make Orel Hershiser?

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.

Blyleven led the league in shutouts twice, IP twice, K once and CG once.

Morris in wins twice, CG once, shutouts once, IP once, K once. Also BB once, ER once, and wild pitches six times.

Between the sportswriters vote, Ford Frick Award, the JG Taylor Spink Award, Veteran's Committee (pre and post-WWII), Executives and Pioneers, the Hall of Fame has become irrelevant. Why should we even care anymore?

It is not reasonable to vote for Mattingly and not McGriff.

What a load of ####.

Don Mattingly's sponsorship on b-ref.com:

Mattingly Sports sponsor(s) this page.

Check out Don's new V-Grip Baseball and Softball bats sure to improve your grip and improve your hitting mechanics. Try the same handle that Don invented to help his own kids help improve their swing.

Fred McGriff's sponsorship:

George Livingstone sponsor(s) this page.

His stats below are wrong. Fred McGriff hit one million home runs in his career. I believe that makes him the all time record holder.

The Crime Dog wins, QED.

What does that make Orel Hershiser?

Much better than Jack Morris.

The omission of Raines continues to baffle me. I was an adult(well sort of...) for all of Raines' career, and to me he was one of the top players of his era. Raines, Boggs, Gwynn are all about the same to me, wi Raines having an edge due to his speed. I am prepared to now be abused by the faithful..:-)

Raines, Boggs, Gwynn are all about the same to me, wi Raines having an edge due to his speed. I am prepared to now be abused by the faithful..:-)

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

One of the things I do is read posts without ever noticing who wrote them. Then if they are especially good, bad, amusing, I will look to see who wrote them. Some folks like Walt Davis and Harvey's show up regularly (in a good way). SugerBear Blanks shows up also ... but not in a good way. I don't know SBB and have nothing against him, but some of those posts define dumb. Seriously dude, everyone can have opinions, but mock internet fighting? Wow.

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).

New tweet from Heyman explaining Blyleven:

regarding bert, 86% voted "no'' his 2nd yr. unlike others, i'm consistent.

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.

Lord Haw-Haw... fail.

There is a strong orthodoxy about Jack Morris here. I think it comes in large part as a response to the unconvincing (IMO) cases made in print by supportive BBWAA voters (and maybe as a response to the reputations of those supportive voters):

Mike Shalin:

Jack Morris [was] The best money guy of his time. Not getting a lot of respect and I don’t know why. If you like numbers, Morris was 254-186, 7-4 in the postseason. Don Drysdale was 209-166, 3-3 in the World Series (that’s all they had then). Catfish Hunter 224-166, 9-6 in the postseason.

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:

Jack Morris - "Black Jack's" disappointing 40-ish% showing each year is presumably reflective of his career 3.90 ERA and the absence of any Cy Young hardware on his mantle. But voters really need to look past that and judge him on the fact that he was the ace of just about every staff he pitched on (as evidenced by his 14 Opening Day starts) and that he was one of the greatest postseason pitchers of all time (4-2, 2.96 in three World Series). He also led the AL in wins twice, was a five-time All-Star and holds the all-time record for putouts by a pitcher.

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:

Jack Morris and Dave Parker: Maybe they don't look worthy on the stat sheet, but they were main men. Asked to name one starter for a big game, or one batter to hit cleanup, you'd eliminate some big names, including Hall of Famers, in favor of these two.

Close, but not quite: Bert Blyleven and Andre Dawson.

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:

Morris won 254 games in an 18-year career, but one win that isn’t included in that regular-season total is the 10-inning 1-0 decision he gained against Atlanta in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.

That game, one of the greatest games ever pitched, epitomized Morris’ pitching style, which I believe overcame what might have been his shortage of victories or his 3.90 earned run average, which some voters think was too high to merit consideration.
Morris was not about to lose that game. He would stay on the mound as long as it took Minnesota to win the game and the World Series. That’s the kind of pitcher he was. His way could not be measured by the statistics that have infested baseball in recent years – FIP, WHIP, VORP and assorted other acronyms.

The purveyors of these statistics ignore the intangibles that enable someone like Morris to win a 10-inning Game 7. Pitchers, not initials, win those games. Sadly, we are heading for the time when voters who are immersed in those numbers and initials will be the preponderant Hall of Fame voters, just as they hijacked the voting for the Cy Young awards this year.

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?

How about a pitcher who duplicates Morris’ performance from 1979 through 1992, 14 years of his 18-year career? Morris won 233 games, 41 more than the next highest total in that period, and pitched 169 complete games, 62 more than the next highest total.

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?

I asked three baseball writers (two retired, one still active), whom I respect more than others, their thoughts of Morris to learn why they have never voted for him. One dismissed the fact that Morris won more games in the 1980s than any other pitcher.
“I know about his leading stats in the 1980s, but that’s a matter of timing,” he wrote in an e-mail. “The prime of his career conveniently fell that way. If his career started in the mid-80s, there wouldn’t be a stat like that.”
But take any period, as I have done here, expanding the ‘80s to a 14-year chunk of his career. Think of those numbers: 41 more victories and 62 more complete games than anyone else. That’s not juggling numbers to create an advantage for Morris. That’s dominant pitching.

Credit to Chass for quoting a writer who gets it. (I presume these are real people and not just strawmen.)

The right-hander also pitched 235 innings or more 11 times and won 20 games three times. The tag “workhorse” would apply to him.
“I view him as a workhorse,” one of the writers wrote, but also a “big-game pitcher who also mixed in a lot of mediocre games. I just got done telling you that he ‘pitched to the score,’ but 3.90 in that era is still too high and while he was usually viewed as being among the best of his era, he wasn’t the best, or probably in the top five in most years. He did not do too well in Cy Young voting.”

3,800 IP of 105 ERA+.

Another of the writers said he has never voted for Morris and isn’t sure about him now but added, “Anyone who is the best – in his case, the winningest – for a decade, has a no-hitter and that postseason resume deserves at least one more look from me. I never dismiss him.”

That's your right.

Hal Bodley:

Jack Morris [will get my vote on the 2010 ballot]. There should be an investigation about why he hasn't gotten more support for Cooperstown. But that's another story.

"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.

The Crime Dog wins, QED.

That immediately becomes my favorite B-Ref sponsorship blurb. Great find, Chief Justice.

Heyman tore Blyleven apart on MLB Network during their Hall of Fame coverage in January, using almost nothing that even slightly resembled a fact. You'd think Bert had killed his dog and served it to his children as meatloaf.

among the top 200 by Cy Young shares... Drysdale and Ford (each 1 win)... are Hall of Famers ranked below 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.

New tweet from Heyman explaining Blyleven:


regarding bert, 86% voted "no'' his 2nd yr. unlike others, i'm consistent. he never led league in wins, ERA but led in HRs, earned runs, Ls

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."

I hate to think I've missed out on both a continued discussion of Bert Blyleven's HOF-worthiness AND internet tough-guy bravado all on one thread. Obviously Bert belongs in the Hall by any honest assessment, and anyone who believes otherwise wouldn't have the sack to make such a ridiculous claim to my ruggedly masculine face.

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.

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.

[68] -

among the top 200 by Cy Young shares... Drysdale and Ford (each 1 win)... are Hall of Famers ranked below 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.

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.

BobM,

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.

[71] Thanks. Koufax would have made it hard for his teammate Drysdale, IMO, even with 1 CY in each league.

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.

among the top 200 by Cy Young shares... Drysdale and Ford (each 1 win)... are Hall of Famers ranked below 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.



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.

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.

3 years of 25 wins and 0 CYA shares.

He should have been better at pitching to the score.

I understand there is a layer of subjectivity that goes into HOF voting; I'm just looking for some consistency. The Morris and Mattingly votes are curious, but what I find even more difficult to understand is how someone votes for Larkin and not Trammell. Statistically, they are very similar. Was there a wide defensive disparity that makes so many people favor Larkin? Is it tied to the MVP? In terms of raw rate statistics, Larkin has a substantial edge, but when you account for offensive era, Trammell's peak compares quite well.

Raines, Boggs, Gwynn are all about the same to me, wi Raines having an edge due to his speed. I am prepared to now be abused by the faithful..:-)

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

[75] There was an NL-only Cy Young in 1968, but your point is taken about 1 slot per ballot.

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.?

Whether there were 16 teams and one CY winner or 30 teams and one winner per league doesn't really matter. Determining a player's worthiness for the Hall of Fame should not be overly influenced by previous votes. All that does is possibly perpetuate a past mistake. I understand the argument that prior votes show what the contemporary opinion may have been. I just don't think it should be given too much weight. Marichal is a great example, but I'm sure there are hundreds of other cases where a player never won an MVP or CY solely due to bad timing or "mistakes" by the voters.

Any ballot that lacks Fred McGriff and/or Dale Murphy makes me sad.

[77]

I understand there is a layer of subjectivity that goes into HOF voting; I'm just looking for some consistency. The Morris and Mattingly votes are curious, but what I find even more difficult to understand is how someone votes for Larkin and not Trammell. Statistically, they are very similar. Was there a wide defensive disparity that makes so many people favor Larkin? Is it tied to the MVP? In terms of raw rate statistics, Larkin has a substantial edge, but when you account for offensive era, Trammell's peak compares quite well.

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 appreciate the analysis, bobm. IMO, if it is widely accepted that Trammell was a solid defensive shortstop, both his longevity and peak seasons [OPS+ of 155 (x1) and >130 (x5)] make him an obvious choice, even for someone like myself who is a relatively "small-hall" person.

[80]

Determining a player's worthiness for the Hall of Fame should not be overly influenced by previous votes. All that does is possibly perpetuate a past mistake. I understand the argument that prior votes show what the contemporary opinion may have been. I just don't think it should be given too much weight.

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.

[83] No problem.

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.

Bruce Jenkins:

Jack Morris and Dave Parker: Maybe they don't look worthy on the stat sheet, but they were main men. Asked to name one starter for a big game, or one batter to hit cleanup, you'd eliminate some big names, including Hall of Famers, in favor of these two.

Well he certainly has me there regarding Parker. I would pick him to bat cleanup over Rick Ferrell, Rabbit Maranville, Pee Wee Reese, Phil Rizzuto, Luis Aparicio, Bill Klem, Ban Johnson, Tom Yawkey...

Can't you find some other site to troll?

Want to come say that to my face? Name the place.

I found this humorous coming from someone posting anonymously as "SugarBear."

Looking at Pee Wee Reese's B-R page, it seems that nobody played like him, at least offensively. His closet comp is Edgar Renteria.

I actually hopped over to Twitter and got in kind of an argument with him about it (I'm @thedlysomething if you were to go to his profile and flip through the carnage). It's just amazing how bizarre his ballot is (and I actually think Parker but not Raines is even worse than Morris over Blyleven, but he didn't want to talk about that one), but I respect him for continuing to reply to me. It was kind of fun. And frustrating. Funstrating.

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.

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.

[90] - I'm not against Trammell. I just think being a contemporary of a fellow shortstop who got 98.5% of the vote makes it hard for Trammell.

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.

regarding bert, 86% voted "no'' his 2nd yr. unlike others, i'm consistent. he never led league in wins, ERA but led in HRs, earned runs, Ls

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 think it would be better to describe Ripken as a "no-brainer" than "inner circle." Everyone has their own definition of inner circle. I think for some people the terms are equivalent ... others have a standard somewhere just south of Willie Mays.

Any ballot that lacks Fred McGriff and/or Dale Murphy makes me sad.

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.

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.

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.

Back in my day, ace pitchers were for ####. I remember Jack "Shitty Pitcher" Morris, who was almost elected into the HoF because he was the least shitty pitcher on the various assemblages of throwers and tossers that his team had the misfortune of running out to the mound each day.

[95] If Vaughan played the three seasons he sat out, IMO he approaches the <u>same</u> career value as Ripken <u>despite</u> the 30% playing time difference that would remain. That's how good Vaughan was.

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.

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.

But isn't career value a big part of this?

[98] Career value is a big part of this, but for me, peak is also very important to being an "inner-circle" HOF. I personally place a larger emphasis on peak for deciding which players I consider "inner-circle" than I do in merely deciding whether a player should be a HOFer or not.

To add to the lack of relevant or interesting content in the last post, I'd add my list of pitchers who I think are more deserving than Morris, about as deserving as Morris and or will easily be more deserving than Morris given a mediocre long finish to their careers:
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.