My formative years were the 1970's. I became a baseball fan in 1975 and lived and breathed it until heading off to college over a decade later. As such, I certainly understand the sentiment regarding Steve Garvey and his perception during his career. I saw him in the same way back then. As a National League fan, I always was proud to have Garvey on the NL All Star team, and cheered him on in the World series every time they played the Yankees.

However.

His stats simply have not held up to the passage of time. His complete lack of plate discipline kills him. He also didn't have a bunch of power for a first baseman and was no better than average defensively (he had a pair of legitimate gold gloves and a pair that were no more than popularity victories...those two legitimate victories were pretty much the only years he was well above average statistically with the glove). In terms of 1B not in the Hall, (not including current or players not yet on the ballot) I would rank them as follows:

1. Rafael Palmeiro
2. Keith Hernandez
3. Will Clark
4. Mark McGwire
5. John Olerud
6. Fred McGriff
7. Norm Cash
8. Carlos Delgado
9. Gil Hodges
10. Don Mattingly
11. Ed Konetchy
12. Mark Grace
13. Joe Judge
14. Steve Garvey
15. Boog Powell

But that still means I would put Garvey in the Hall before I put Jack Morris in there. I could likely list 10-15 players from the Morris era up to the 2000's that I would put in the Hall before I would Morris. And that excludes pitchers from prior to 1977 of whom there are far more who should be there before Morris. As I said, Morris is David Wells. David Wells is Jack Morris.

Tom C

And I agree with Kevin on Murph, but I'm biased... ;)

To the guys knocking Morris' numbers, his post season performance (World Series in particular) performances have to be taken into account to truly appreciate what he accomplished. Those 3 rings with 3 different clubs don't lie. And his 10 inning game 7 shutout against the Braves is absolutely legendary. There are pitchers in the Hall who accomplished less. I understand the induction.

His post season ERA was 3.80. His contribution to the third ring was 0-2 in the WS with an ERA of 8.44.

Seasons OPS+ from best to worst

Smith 168 162 155 151 150 143 142 137 134 129 127 127 116 100
Garvey 138 134 133 130 130 125 124 122 115 110 109 109 101

And Reggie Smith played nearly half his career as an average center fielder and half his career as an average or slightly above right fielder. Both more demanding defensively than first base (center field far more so).

So Reggie Smith was a better hitter and fielder than Steve Garvey. But somehow Garvey is the better player. Nope.

Oh. And Reggie Smith was a seven time all star who deserved to be there nine time. Garvey was a ten time all star who deserved to be there seven times. Smith won a gold glove in center field. Garvey deserved (maybe) two at first base. Smith was a three time NL champion. One time AL champion. 1 time world champion. Smith deserved the MVP in 1977 while Garvey did not deserve the one that he won.

Career OPS+:

Smith 137
Garvey: 117

Career Win Probability Added:

Smith 42.89 (56th from 1930-present)
Garvey 27.2 (144th from 1930-present)

Adjusted Batting Runs

Smith 358 (92nd all time)
Garvey 167 (340th all time)

Adjusted Batting Wins

Smith 36.5 (tied for 89th all time)
Garvey 16.9 (tied for 342nd all time)

David Wells won 2 World Series. 10-5 post season record. 3.17 post season ERA. Pitched a perfect game in Yankee Stadium. 1998 ALCS MVP. morris had three very good post season series and three terrible ones. The year after his 1991 breathtaking game seven performance, he was lit up like a Christmas tree in both the post season series he pitched in. Wells was overall the better postseason pitcher. And he was Morris' equal during the regular season.

According to Reggie Jackson on whether Bert Blyleven should have been elected into the Hall of Fame: “No. No, no, no, no. Blyleven wasn’t even the dominant pitcher of his era, it was Jack Morris.”

Good enough for me. I think.

One problem with that. Reggie's an idiot...

Hell old man version of Nolan Ryan would get my vote for dominant long before Morris.

Morris's career numbers match up pretty well with guys like Denny Martinez, Orel Hershiser, and Fernando Valenzuela, who all had more dominant stretches than Morris's best.

Reggie Smith walked a lot more than Garvey. That wins at fantasy baseball, doesn't really win real games, unless you have Garvey to drive in runs.

Smith wasn't very durable. 3 seasons with 150 games. 7 seasons 140 games. 9 seasons 130 games. 10 seasons 120 games. Garvey 9 seasons with 160 games. 11 seasons with 155 games. From 1974-1986 Garvey played 155+ games every year except the strike year when he led the NL in games and 1983.

Because of that, Smith's highest hit totals were a season of 175 and 176. Garvey had 175 or more hits 10 seasons, 200 or more hits 6 times. As far as power, Smith produced 300+ total bases once, Garvey 6 times. Smith drove on 100 runs 1 time, Garvey 5 times. OPS is fine, but when it doesn't produce in the real world, it isn't the end all.

I will trust Walter Alston, Tommy Lasorda, Vin Scully and the members of veterans committee who think Garvey was better than Smith.

Dave Stieb was a better pitcher than Jack Morris. So were:

Curt Schilling
Rick Reuschel
Kevin Brown
Mike Mussina
David Cone
Bret Saberhagen
Frank Tannana
Chuck Finley
Kevin Appier
Dwight Gooden
Mark Langston
Frank Viola
Kenny Rogers
Jimmy Key

That's just during and after the Jack Morris era

Morris career win% was .577. The win% for his teams when he did not pitch was .538. Thus he didn't make that much of a difference on the outcome for his team overall. He just played on really good teams during his career.

Congratulations to Jack. That makes 3 native sons of St. Paul that have made it to Cooperstown during my lifetime. Now just a few more good seasons and we can wait for Mauer to join them.

One thing about Jack that I believe goes mostly unnoticed is his complete games. In that respect Game 7 from 1991 was a fitting example. He was simply a horse. As for his career, he finished what he started 175 times. Basically 10 per season. That's 57 more than Clemens, more still than Maddux, Pedro and Randy, and 119 better than Glavine. Assuming his productivity tailed off the later he pitched in each game, his ERA is presumably somewhat higher than it otherwise should register. Regardless, it's pretty apparent that he saved a lot of bullpen arms, probably a stat the geeks haven't been able to quantify and rationalize for us yet, so as to tell us we don't know what we saw with our own eyes.

I tend to think the stretch from the late 60s to the early 90s is the most difficult to judge. The mound was lower, the players were baby-boomers, the culture had changed, lots of new stadiums and expansion, games were on TV. These things made that era different from the previous era. And at the end of it, the steroid era was ramping up and then the strike season really made it difficult to recognize the dominant players of that time, especially for those players whose careers essentially ended around the strike. We understood baseball differently in the 90s because of those two things and how they worked together. The 70s and 80s players just don't match up in our minds to the players in the era before them or after.

I followed the Tigers during that time. And Morris was always the ace. If he never played for the Twins or Blue Jays he would still, in my mind, be THE pitcher of that decade (non-nolan ryan division). The Twins and Blue Jays years allowed him to shine brightly on the post-season stage again. Does that mean I think he should be a HOFer? I don't know. Given the era, and when he started and how he finished, it feels right to me that he made it. I think there are others from that time that would also be excellent representatives of the era that are not in.

Years with 15+ HR

Smith 14
Garvey 9

1B = power expected and required
CF = power not expected or required
RF = power expected and required

CF/RF far more difficult defensively than 1B

I see your point regarding Garvey being healthy every year and thus being able to accumulate more RBI/Hits/Extra Base Hits on an annual basis. But Smith was better for a longer period of time than was Garvey, and Smith played far more demanding positions in the field.. And yes, his plate discipline was night and day compared to Garvey.

In 1979 when the Pirates were down 3-1, did Chuck Tanner give the ball to Blyleven with the season on the line? No, he sent him to the bullpen. Why? Chuck Tanner said Blyleven was a selfish player who cared about personal stats rather than team wins. In 1980 Blyleven threw a temper tantrum and quit the team after being pulled after giving up 4 runs in 5.2 innings. The Pirates were in 1st place at the time and ended up not making the playoffs. Blyleven was a distraction for the rest of the season, demanding a trade. The Pirates did after the season, for Gary Alexander, Victor Cruz, Bob Owchinko and Rafael Vasquez. Who? Lol. A Hofer? in his prime traded for garbage.

In 1991 with the season on the line, Tom Kelly gave the ball to Jack Morris. He pitched 10 shutout innings and the Twins won a championship. To actual baseball players, having your teammate's back is more important than personal stats. Reggie Jackson was about winning championships. To that end Morris is more deserving than Blyleven. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats.

As much as everyone talks about Morris being a great pitcher in his time he only finished in the top 3 for Cy Young Voting twice and never won during an 18 year career. That doesn't sound typical for a guy who was the best pitcher of the 80s or whatever. Also seems strange that for a guy everyone hails for pitching complete games, he only led the league once. His peak numbers are nowhere near the HOF standard either.

Trammell is an obvious Hall of Famer, while Morris is more in the borderline Jesse Haines/ Eppa Rixey/Waite Hoyt category. I'm happy to see both of them in the Hall of Fame.

I don't understand those who want to board up the Hall of Fame and keep everybody out. Open up the floodgates!

Trammell yes, Morris no
 

Steve Garvey? Are you kiddin', man?

Blyleven's ERA was 60 points lower.

Tommy John should get in just for inventing that surgery that has helped so many pitchers :)

But Chuck Tanner didn't like him and while he didn't get the start in game 5 of the 1979 series, he did get the win in the game throwing four shutout innings, entering the game in the top of the sixth with the Pirates trailing 1-0. Yeah. Tanner had no faith in that guy.

Oh. And Morris pitched a good game in the World Series once. He was crap when called upon the following year. But that's not the narrative here.

Oh. To the above list I posted of players during and since Morris that were better than him, also alongside David Wells as being at least his equal, add Bob Welch as well.

Thanks to 7 season of 15 Hrs playing in Fenway with short fences. From 1974-80 with Smith playing in St Louis/LA and Garvey in LA, Smith 146 Hrs with a high of 32. Garvey 160 Hrs with a high of 33. Pretty similar considering Garvey was able to play more games.

As far as being more productive for longer, why does Garvey have 579 more hits 502 more total bases and 278 more RBIs?

Trammel was an all-star six times, never more than twice in a row and finished in the top six for MVP once.

Garvey was an all-star eight years in a row (and was an AS ten times); and finished in the top six for MVP five times (winning it once).

They each won four Gold Gloves.

Garvey was just the more dominant player of his era.

2 of smith's 3 best hr seasons were in la.

Longer as in more years as a productive hitter. Garvey had 13 better than average offensive seasons and several clunkers. Smith had 14 better than average season, one exactly average season, and no clunkers at all in seasons with 50 or more plate appearances.

The only reason Garvey had more HR's over that period is that he played in 1127 games to Smith's 826. I will grant you Garvey's ability to stay on the field. But when they were on the field, Smith was a better hitter. And again, played far more difficult defensive positions. And had far better plate discipline.

Um, Morris won two World Series MVPs. In 1984 he threw two complete games, both wins in high-pressure, low scoring games, 3-2 and 4-2. So no, he pitched a good game in the World Series at least thrice.

Crap the following year? 21 regular season wins. ALCS he pitched a complete game and lost 4-3 to Stewart and Eckersley. Game one of the World Series he lost 3-1 to Glavine when he gave up a two-out, three run homer in the 6th inning, after 5 innings of shutout ball with 7 Ks. That's hardly crap. He got bombed in game 5 when he gave up a two-out grandslam to Lonnie Smith in the 5th of inning of what had been a 2-2 game. That's a more accurate narrative.

I said nothing in my post about Blyleven yet your entire reply was about him???!!!

Reggie's an idiot for lots of things he says including "Jack Morris was the dominant pitcher of his era." Sorry but that statement is idiocy no matter how you slice it.

10>4 and Blyleven got the win because the Pirstes scored 7 runs in innings 6 to 8.

Trammel deserved to be in 7 all star games. Garvey deserved to be in 7 all star games. Garvey won four gold gloves AT FIRST BASE. Only two of which he actually (may have) deserved. The other two were total bullshit. Trammel won four AS A SHORTSTOP one of which was bullshit but he should have won another which he did not. Garvey's MVP was bullshit as well. Trammel deserved four top five MVP finishes. Garvey deserved none of his. In fact, the year Garvey won his MVP, he wasn't the best offensive player ON HIS OWN TEAM (Jimmy Wynn...who also happened to play the far more demanding defensive position of center field as well). In fact, Steve Garvey NEVER had any single year where he was the best hitter on his own team.

I have no idea what 10>4 means. If it has something to do with Morris somehow being better than Blyleven, or even close to his equal, I'm sorry but that's laughable. Chuck Tanner or no Chuck Tanner.

Please tell me why Jack Morris is in the Hall and David Wells isn't? They are pretty much the same pitcher.

Bob Welch?
Frank Tanana?
Rick Reuschel?
Dave Stieb?

All career contemporaries who were better than Morris.

David Cone?
Bret Saberhagen?
Kevin Brown?
Dwight Gooden?
Jimmy Key?

All better than Jack Morris.

Morris had a lot of wins playing for better than .500 teams in all but two years of his career. He was a product of the teams he played for in terms of his number of wins. What else did he do well?

I think Morris got an extra bump based on his terrific moustache.

Lou Whitaker was better.

This is also true. Sad, but true.

As hitters, the stats show Trammell and Whitaker aren't very different at all. But Trammell played shortstop, which is more important defensively, and a much harder position to fill with a good offensive bat than second base.

You simply can't effectively compare players without considering their defensive limitations — that only works in fantasy baseball. Steve Garvey could only play first base, a position filled with guys who hit as well or better than him. There are very few shortstops in the history of baseball who hit was well as Trammell.

Looking at their stats and careers, it is amazing how similar Trammell and Whitaker were as players. I would have like to see them go in together.

Whitaker was a better, more consistent hitter. He was the equal of Trammel with the glove, though as you said, Trammel played the more demanding position, although it's not like comparing a shortstop and a first baseman.

Whitaker is at least the equal of Trammel overall. Trammel ranks 11th all time in JAWS at shortstop. Whitaker 13th at second base. Both deserve to be there (though I would put Bobby Grich in ahead of Whitaker).

I think Robinson Cano is a far superior player to Whitaker and he also plays second base. I think Cano will have a tough time getting in.

One of the most confusing arguments with the Hall of Fame is the watered down argument. Look at the class of 1946, just ten years into the Hall's existence. There are names that many people believe don't belong in there, which is essentially saying that the guys who started the Hall of Fame process got it wrong. In essence, you're telling them that they made mistakes and we want to make sure it never happens again.

Maybe they didn't make mistakes. Maybe those were the standards they thought were good enough. After all, those are the first standards of the Hall of Fame.

Why does no one ever say, well if it's the benchmark they set, then that's the level we go for in the future? In fact, since those were the early elections, it's even more likely that those standards are higher than the minimum. After all, the point back then wasn't to get the worst players in first and work your way up.

We assume they made mistakes instead because we want the standards to be higher, but that's quite ridiculous when you think about it. Part of the problem was the writers making it harder and harder to get in, there by raising the bar just because that's what they wanted to do.

There's no good reasoning behind that thought process. It would be like Net54 saying only people with nice collections could join the board, then eventually saying only million dollar collectors should be included and those early members shouldn't be in there. Leon made a mistake allowing some people in.

My personal belief for a long time is that the Hall of Fame should be split up into two groups, one for the elite members like Ruth, Aaron, Mays and one for players who deserve to be recognized for their careers like Al Oliver. Players like Oliver don't even come around every season, yet he has no shot at the Hall of Fame, which seems crazy. They would all be Hall of Famers, yet there is an elite group as well. If someone was as good as Oliver over 18 years, he shouldn't be forgotten to time.

I'm biased as a lifelong Tiger fan, but their peers believe they should be in. I value their opinions much more than people who have never played and have to look at metrics to try and figure out what makes a good ballplayer.

They were each the best player at their respective position for most, if not all, the decade of the 80's.

If I were putting together an all time great roster of winners these two would make the squad.

Please explain how Morris was the best pitcher of his time but only finished as high as 3rd in any one year's Cy Young voting.

Maybe color the plaques different based on 3 standards. Make them subtle but distinguish between first ballot, voted in through the normal process, voted in through a committee. That way visitors with less baseball knowledge could easily identify first ballot guys etc. I guess the tricky part is the early guys who got in during the 2nd, 3rd, 4th classes etc.

More wins than any other pitcher. I would rather have consistency over one good yr.

Wins have become the new RBI though, a stat that is more team based than player based.

Said no baseball player ever.... :)

Right. Because the players are the keepers of baseball knowledge.

Wins are the most overrated stat in baseball. Does anyone argue that Pedro and his 219 wins makes him a worse pitcher than Morris based on wins? In '68 Gibson had a 1.12 ERA and 9 losses.

Garvey or Mattingly??
 

Gotta think when comparing players that are not in, you have to be at same position... Comparing Mattingly to Simmons, can't do it... Compare Mattingly to Garvey who gets in?

Mattingly gets my vote. Garvey got to play his whole career and he just didn't have it. Mattingly had his career taken from him by an injury. Anyone who ever saw Mattingly play in his prime knew what he was and can only wonder what would have been. There's no mystery with Garvey.

Problem is Mattingly wasn't dominant long enough and Garvey is borderline... HOF can't be based on what ifs...putting either one is may open the door to hall of mediocrity. Neither was a McCovey or a Tony Perez...

A few positives for Morris . The decade of the 1980's, he had the most wins 162, next was 140. He was 3rd in k's behind only Nolan Ryan and Valenzuela, He had the most complete games at 133. and we all know his World Series performances and 1 No-Hitter. Hall of Fame ? But he was a great pitcher.

With regard to wins as a stat.

Tell me which year this pitcher had more wins. Same pitcher. Same team. Consecutive years.

Year 1:

Team wins: 99
Pitcher ERA 3.00
Home runs allowed: 13
WHIP: 1.28
FIP: 3.46
Innings: 210

Year 2:

Team wins: 103
Pitcher ERA: 2.95
Home runs allowed: 26
WHIP: 1.23
FIP: 4.19
Innings: 238

Did the pitcher have:

A lot more wins in year 1?
A few more wins in year 1?
The same number of wins both years?
A few more wins in year 2?
A lot more wins in year 2?

Explain your answer.