Baseball Hall of Fame Vote
 

Congratulations to Barry Larkin, the only player selected this year by the BBWAA. I think they got it right this year with that one and only selection. Thoughts?

Next year should be real interesting, with folks like McGwire, Sosa, Clemens on the ballot...

Wow... I'm surprised. Surprised by all of it. Yet I shouldn't be surprised by anything the Hall does anymore...

Larkin, Sutter, man they let anyone in there nowadays.

Grant:

I think that you meant to say Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, etc.

I would counter that Sosa has absolutely no chance, Bonds about 50/50 and Clemens maybe a little less than that....... We'll see............

Biggio will be a very interesting case, my guess is that he gets in maybe his third time around, Piazza will likely take a while if he gets in.....

I'm not up to speed on the Hall of Fame voting. Are there still any serious candidates pre-1940 that will ever get in at this point?

I was hoping my boy Jack Morris would get in. Best single game pitching performance in World Series history. 10 inning shut out game 7 of the series for my Twinkies. I realize the perfecto by Larsen, but nothing matches up to that game.

WOW i give bonds more like 5% chance....

does anyone want to celebrate that man??? nobody i know wants to

I wish they'd vote Morris in. I know he doesn't measure up statistically, but he was the ace of the 80s. He was a consistent top performer for over a decade with practically no peer. Sure some pitchers shined brighter during that time, but not so consistently bright.

And Trammell definitely needs to be in if Larkin and Ozzie are in. If Trammell didn't fizzle out like he did in the 90s with his injuries I think people would see how great his career was, and how he was the SS that changed the position, Ripken coming along a few years after. In the words of Neil Young, "its better to burn out, than to fade away."

Tim Raines ought to be in.

My mind isn't made up on Martinez and Bagwell. I'm on the fence.

+1, Morris was an ace on three teams, an outstanding big-game pitcher, and the winningest of the 80's. Crazy that he's not in. He's up to 67% from 54% and has two more chances, so here's to hoping he can get in.

Congrats to Larkin!!

Clemens would have the best shot out of any of those, but he definitely wouldn't get in first ballot.

I give Bonds the best chance next year because I think that it is easier to identify the pre-steroids portion of his career than it is to identify that of Clemens. Most baseball experts will tell you that the pre-steroids career of Bonds, just up to that point, was first-ballot HOF material.

I'd prefer that no one with the taint gets in. Not Bonds, Clemens, ARod, etc. Heck, Canseco should get in just to spite these guys. Maybe 30 years later, the Veterans Committe can have a different look at this era, but make them wait 30 years.

I like Morris and I like Schilling on next year's ballot. I know people have problems with Schilling, but he was a big part in bringing a WS to both Arizona and Boston.

Phil,

I'm not disagreeing with you, but couldn't you say there is a strong chance it started when he was with the Jays?

Gary:

Good point about Schilling, he would be next in line after those previously mentioned. To me, he had a few really good seasons but not enough of those type of seasons like a Maddux, Glavine, Big Unit, etc.

Pete:

I think that you might be right on with that assesment. Prior to joining Toronto, Clemens had four consecutive "sub-par" seasons in a row for Boston after seven great seasons in a row. At that point, would you have considered him a first-ballot HOF'er? I think maybe not where Bonds definitely was prior to the 2000 season.

The vote is ridiculous when I see players like Eric young, Vinny Castilla, bill mueller and brad radke get votes. Whoever voted for these guys should lose their voting priviledges!

McGwire was on the ballot and I believe got 19%of vote.

Reasonable chance that Biggio is the first of the next bunch to get in.

Radke was a hall of famer innings 2-7.:)

Pete Rose should be allowed in before Bonds, etc. ...

jeff

I don't understand the Hall of Fame.The standards are really getting low. But not as low as allowing Phil Rizzuto in . today on MLB Network they were even talking about Bernie Williams getting in - what a joke ! I never thought of Bernie in the same way as Mantle , Mays etc. That's what it takes to get into the Hall in my opinion.


Hits HR RBI Bave. 162 game ave
Phil Rizzuto 1588 38 563 .273
Larkin 2340 198 960 .295 15 Hr - 71 RBI
Trammell 2365 185 1003 .285 13 HR - 71 RBI


How can Larkin get in and not Trammell ?
How could Rizzuto even be considered ?
How can Bonds even be questioned ? Great stats and speed long before any drug use ?

If Larkin is in, how can Trammell not be elected?

Rawn

They need to let Big Lee Smith in soon. He was the premeir closer of his era. Let Morris in also. The thing everyone seems to forget is that the players are supposed to be compared with their peers. If you use toadys standards, halfvthe players in the hall would not have been elected ti Cooperstown.

Morris and Tram....
 

IMO, if Morris and Trammell played in New York, they'd both be in already.

Matt

This is a really fun time of year on the board.... HOF balloting always brings out the baseball fan in most of us.

The HOF is very H20'd down but it is our shrine for our cardboard heros... it's the reason why we pay so much for a 33 Goudey of Eppa Rixey in nice condition. If Eppa Rixey (just one example, sorry Rixey fans) isn't in the HOF then the price of his card may be a little more than that of a common player. Sure, the guy won 20 games (or more) in three different seasons but he also lost 20 (or more games) twice. As the story goes and a lot of us know many of the guys voted in were done so by their buddies on the veterans committee. How does Cy Young not make it on the first ballot?

This is a fun time of year. One thing I wish the HOF would do is create a "pioneers of the game" section and recognize a few more 19th century players that are just as deserving (or more) as some of the common folk already enshrined.

I'm willing to bet Bonds was using way earlier than 2000, I'd say for most of his career. Why not Biggio, has 3,000 hits.

What you guys are doing, is comparing today's players to the players of Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, etc. The game has changed since then, so I think it's fine that less high stats players get in. If we only allowed players in who had stats like Ruth, etc then we'd barely have anyone in there(meaning current day players).

insidethewrapper,

I can not STAND the New York bias as far as the HOF goes.

I mean, take Rizzuto's stats and have him play for the Reds instead of the Yankees and do you think he even gets a sniff of the HOF? No.

Now, take Larkin's stats and have him play for the Yankees instead of the Reds. Guess what? Not only would he be a Hall Of Famer but probably a first ballot one at that.

David

Maybe cause as a Yankee, he'd won more rings. And winning it all, adds to your stats.

larkin
 

i am amazed that no one on this board sees the obvious
last year he got 61%....I would like to know how its possible that so many people didnt think he was a hof'er last year and changed their mind this year
thats the problem with the system....either u belong in or you dont
putting someone in just because theres no one else is ridiculous

I have said this before and I will continue to say this, as far as the HOF goes, anybody linked to PED use should be forever banned from baseball.

The Commissioners Office had a rule in place against PED use back in 1993 but the Players Association did not want to adopt it. Because the owners didn't want to fight the Players Association (and risk a strike) they let it slide.

So, I don't see why the players get to have their name go down into the history books (as far as being elected into the HOF) when THEY didn't want to pass a rule against PED use, THEY benefited financially from PED use and THEIR stats were enhanced because of PED use.

David

Biggio
 

Biggio should get in before any of these guys. His stats might be better than you think. He's the only player in MLB history with 3,000 H, 600 2B, 400 SB, and 250 HR. This is from a guy that played 14 of his 20 seasons between C and 2B. And he was an All Star at both positions.

I don't think that's true. It hasn't helped Don Mattingly get many votes, also votes weren't crazy for Bernie Williams. I'm not saying those guys or Larkin should be in though. I think it's getting a bit watered down these days. If you really have to think of a player he probably shouldn't be in.

I also agree with last comment...what changed so much from this year to last year with Larkin? Just because no one else isn't going in doesn't mean we need to get someone in just to have a ceremony.


Finally, Brade Radke and Mueller etc...getting votes?

These people should absolutely lose their voting priveledges. How can you possibly justify any votes for those players?

Biggio!!
 

+1 - - Biggio all the way...now coaching my high school alma mater!!

BTW, what ever happened to Dale Murphy? That guy was another one that fizzled out instead of leaving on top...

The whole "Hall of Fame is too watered down" argument is not very compelling to me. A sport with 150+ years of professional history and there are only 240ish enshrined? My goodness, the Baseball Hall of Fame is a fraction of the other three North American sports. Plenty of room if even a hundred more were added. My problem is that guys who deserve is it like Buck O'Neil, Lefty O'Doul, Cecil Travis, Gil Hodges and a slew of other 19th century and Negro League greats aren't in.

"Larkin, Sutter, man they let anyone in there nowadays ..."

I can't believe anyone would even question Barry Larkin's Hall of Fame credentials. He should have been inducted last year. Unfortunately, it seems to be fashionable for some folks (and tragically, some voters as well) to bash every would-be Hall of Famer, regardless whether they've studied the player's stats. Look up Barry's numbers, compare them to every other existing Hall of Famer at his position, and get back to me when you've done your homework. You'll discover he was better than at least half of them ...

"What changed so much from this year to last year with Larkin? Just because no one else isn't going in doesn't mean we need to get someone in just to have a ceremony ..."

Yahoo columnist Tim Brown, who gets to vote, wrote a column last year arguing why Larkin SHOULD NOT be in the Hall of Fame. This year, he wrote a column arguing why Larkin SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame. There was never a problem with Larkin's credentials. Brown's credentials are a different story ...

+1

Dale Murphy should definitely be in the hall. He was a great player and was/is a 1st class man. Injuries cut his career short; steroids would have extended it.

I agree with about Larkin being elected. However, it's important to realize that the Hall of Fame is not necessarily a mandate about how great a player truly is. It is, in fact, a MEDIA AWARD and a MEDIA AWARD only. Just like the Cy Young, MVP, Gold Glove, etc.....it is a media award comprised of sports journalists who may or may not be baseball followers.

How can Tim Raines not be in the Hall? The ones that should lose their voting privileges are the nine yahoos that filled out a blank ballot.

Mark

I think part of that may be because voter want to make sure at least one person get in per year. I honestly believe it's more than a secret ballot. There's much thought put into when a player gets in, rather than just whether he should get in.

Instead of thinking of it like Larkin got in this year because there was no one else worthy on the ballot. I'd like to think that he DIDN'T get in last year, because there was no one else on this years ballot..

There are a number of writers who believe that first ballot should be reserved for the very elite ballplayers, like Gwynn, and will not vote for a middle of the road HOFer on the 1st ballot but will do so the next time around.

FWIW, I think Larkin is a worthy HOFer given his position and era. Who was a better SS from 1990-1996? His career WAR is actually better than Gwynn, Snider, Murray, Santo, Carter, McCovey, Banks, Baker and quite a few other HOFers. He got an MVP, 3 Gold Gloves, had over 2300 hits and stole 379 bases. As a shortstop that is HOF worthy stuff. He wasn't expected to hit 50 HR and drive in 120 runs. That wasn't his job, which is why his WAR is better than so many big stats guys--they played at the slugger positions where massive production was expected.

"FWIW, I think Larkin is a worthy HOFer given his position and era. Who was a better SS from 1990-1996? His career WAR is actually better than Gwynn, Snider, Murray, Santo, Carter, McCovey, Banks, Baker and quite a few other HOFers. He got an MVP, 3 Gold Gloves, had over 2300 hits and stole 379 bases. As a shortstop that is HOF worthy stuff. He wasn't expected to hit 50 HR and drive in 120 runs. That wasn't his job, which is why his WAR is better than so many big stats guys--they played at the slugger positions where massive production was expected ..."

Adam, I nominate you as a Hall of Fame voter. You're better informed than most of them ...

Any thoughts on a SS with 2800+ hits, 401 SB's and 11 Gold Gloves?:)

Trammel
 

He'll get in...don't know when but he will. He was that good...Raines, too.

Too Watered Down!!
 

I think Larkin was elected because they needed somebody to put in! A very good player but not Hall worthy in my opinion. The Pro football Hall Of Fame is even more watered down! They have to have at least four inducted but no more than seven each year. How foolish is that.

Agree about Trammell and Raines. Now I'm not saying this guy belongs, but I'm still wondering how Lou Whitaker got written off so quickly?

The best pitcher of each decade since the beginning of baseball is in the Hall. Jack Morris was the best pitcher in the 80's. He should be in. He was the ace of 3 pitching staffs and lead each to a world championship. If he had "Red Sox" or "Yankees" on the front of his uniform, he would already be in.
There is absolutely no proof that Jeff Bagwell ever took PEDs or steroids. He should go in with Morris next year.

Before or After??
 

The question is not whether someone had a Hall of Fame worthy career before taking PEDs or after. If that's the case, then Pete should be in becasue he was only fingered for betting on baseball after his playing career was over - he's not being touted for his managerial career.

It's not when you did it, or for how long, or how many bets you made, it's the fact that you intentionally cheated the game and the basis for competition. If someone chose to do that, then they should not be in the Hall. The Hall will not be diminished because of shady characters being left out.

That's not the deal with Pete. Please find a copy of The Fix Is In, then read it. After that, even most diehard Reds fans understand why Pete should never go in (excepting for when he buys an admission ticket, 363 days a year).

Totally agree!!!

And I believe Morris will get in next year, along with Bagwell AND Biggio. PED users will be destined to wait for their veteran's committee nominations. The best ones may eventually get in, but it'll be a long time - perhaps after their deaths.

I was glad to see Mattingly getting more votes this year. I'm surprised at how few votes Bernie Williams got.


I think Larkin is a deserving HOFer. Today short stops are expected to hit 30 home runs and steal 30 bases. However, until Larkin did it in 1996 no other short stop ever had. He was truly ahead of his peers.

I don't think Morris should ever get in. He wasn't the best pitcher of the 80s, he just had the most wins. Roger Clemens won 95 games in 5 seasons in the 80s. Was Morris better than he was? Clemens also won back to back CYs in the 1980s. Morris never finished higher than 3rd.

For a guy who is supposed to be the best pitcher of the 80s, Morris posted a 4.00 ERA three times and posted a 3.94 in 1988. He would go on to post a 4.00 or higher ERA in 4 of his last 5 seasons after 1989.

The thing about the drugs is that a man can remain bulked up throughout a grueling 162 game season while using them. It would seem unlikely that they could stick to a weightlifting schedule. I didn't follow the news, but didn't they only target the superstars and/or people breaking records? If thats the case, the players who were using drugs but not tested will get in with their less significant careers. A couple of people mentioned here were quite bulky towards the end of their careers, deep into the seasons. I wouldn't be surprised if nearly all players used, therefore Mac and Bonds should be compared to their peers. They were much better than all the other users playing on the same field.

And I'm not a Bonds fan BTW

PS: steroids will not help a man hit a 92 MPH slider

Biggio
 

"Biggio should get in before any of these guys. His stats might be better than you think. He's the only player in MLB history with 3,000 H, 600 2B, 400 SB, and 250 HR. This is from a guy that played 14 of his 20 seasons between C and 2B. And he was an All Star at both positions."

Totally agree........Craig Biggio should be a first ballot HOFer.

Rizzuto
 

That lack of love for RIZZUTO is surprising....guess you guys never heard of GLUE

RIZZUTO was the glue for many many championships, he was also awarded MVP at the time, rightfully being recognized as a VERY important part of the greatest run ever...

More then hrs in baseball....
RIZZUTO was better, had more championships than maranvile, but nobody complains about him rabbit

The anti new York bias is thick on this board.

Rizzuto
 

Scott

I'm not sure about "The anti new York bias is thick on this board" ?


Anyhow, I agree with everything else in your post here regarding "The Scooter".

As some of you know, Phil Rizzuto was my nearby neighbor when I grew up in Hillside, NJ. I met him many times and even flew 1st class with him on a 2-hour flight to Chicago in 1984.

One of the best tributes I heard given to Rizzuto was from Ted Williams. I met Ted in the 1980's and we had a great conversation. Ted firmly believed and told me.....

"If Phil Rizzuto was the Red Sox shortstop in the late 1940's and the early 1950's, the Red Sox would have been the AL Champs those years, not the Yankees."


TED Z

Scotfandango,

Dave Concepcion played against better competition (African-Americans and actual relief pitchers instead of former starters with dead arms), played for great teams that won World Series, was a better hitter and probably a better defensive Short Stop than Rizzuto and look how much HOF love he has received.

Using Baseball Reference's black ink and gray ink tables for offense and how they relate to how a player stacks up against HOF players, Concepcion scores higher than Rizzuto. Using their comparison of players in general, Concepcion compares to better players than Rizzuto.

If you think Baseball Reference puts too much weight towards the offense then remember that Concepcion and Larry Bowa were the two best defensive Short Stops in the NL until Ozzie Smith came along.

Again, if Concepcion had played in NY and accomplished these things, we would be talking about him as a Hall Of Famer now. But because we are talking about a Latin player who played in Cincinnati during the 1970's and 1980's instead of a guy from NY in the 1950's (who also had a long broadcasting career and a Money Store commercial to keep his name, face and voice in the public eye) we are not doing that.

In short, if people are using the number of World Series rings Rizzuto won (on teams that I think Dickey, DiMaggio, Ruffing, Gomez, Mantle, Berra and Ford, among others, had a LOT more to do with than Rizzuto) or how he was the GLUE for those teams (where in the HOF rules is that stated as a criteria and how many other players could that be used as a reason for their inclusion in the HOF?) then, to me, that means Rizzuto is NOT a Hall Of Fame player. Either that or there are OTHER players out there who should be getting looked at or talked about for the HOF that currently aren't.

Finally, why isn't Ted Simmons or, better yet, Joe Torre NOT being talked about as Hall Of Famers? Both put up great offensive stats as Catchers and Torre had a long and productive career as a Manager (guiding the Yankees to numerous World Series and winning rings to boot).

I have an anti-NY bias because I see too many players as being overhyped just BECAUSE they played for the Yankees (and now the Red Sox) when if they played for another team and did the same things they would be overlooked or their accomplishments put down because they didn't do them in NY.

David

deadballers who deserve serious consideration (statistically)
 

Gavvy Cravath
Ed Reulbach
Mike Donlin

All of which are more deserving than the likes of mcgwire, bondsn sosa etc...

I think the Rizzuto lovers always miss the point that there is a difference between being a good ballplayer and a hall of famer. Rizzuto was a good ballplayer with one great year that played only for great teams. The Yankees still made the 1955 WS with him barely playing, repeated again in 1956 when he played even less, repeated in 1957 when he wasn't on the team, won again in 1958. They won from 36-39 and 60-64, before and after him, the Yankees won the AL over and over for a long time.


Red Sox wouldn't have won the AL with Rizzuto instead of Vern Stephens because if Rizzuto was in Boston, Stephens would've been in the middle of the Yankees lineups driving in runs. Then Johnny Pesky took over, then in 1952 the Red Sox were horrible, they weren't making up a 16 game difference in 1953 because of a light hitting shortstop and by 54 Rizzuto wasn't that good. The Red Sox wouldn't have won anything more with Rizzuto unless the Yankees only put 8 men in field and left the SS position open

No one denies he had a good career but his numbers blend in with a ton of guys who didn't have a chance to play for the Yankees their entire career. Rizzuto could've played with the Senators his whole career and he wouldn't even sniff the HOF, don't believe me, ask Cecil Travis fans.

Rizzuto never even got the support of the writers who saw him back in the day that Marty Marion did. Marion got 40% of the votes in 1970, 7th highest total and only non-HOF besides Hodges in the top 10. At 11th place you had Allie Reynolds, 12th Johnny VanderMeer and down in 15th, Rizzuto on his 8th try. Only if Marion could've been a star shortstop for a team that went to the WS.... :rolleyes:

+1

The Yankees would have been a third place team without "Glue" Rizzuto. ;)

Did you know the most comparable player to Rizzuto all-time is Art Fletcher, time to start hoarding his t206 cards for when the veterans committee finally inducts him!

Also in those top 10 comps from baseball-reference for both Rizzuto and Fletcher is Claude Ritchey. One of our board members recently wrote a slightly interesting article on him but they left out his Hall of Fame credentials? I wonder why... http://www.piratesprospects.com/2012...tchey-bio.html

World Series Championships have nothing to do with being in or out of the HOF. Banks never won, Ted Williams never won etc. The everyday player can't pitch or manage the team. They were great players and they belong in the HOF. If the Tigers didn't win in '68, does that mean Kaline should not be in the HOF ? That would be insane.

I agree completely. Torre should've been in as a player...He'll get in as a MGR, but I hope that doesn't stop people from pursuing him as a player as well.. A strong case can be made for Ted Simmons. I wouldn't mind seeing him get in(but I'd be ok if he doesn't). Conception should eventually get in. If all goes well, I think it would be fitting to see the two Venezuelan #13 shortstops get in together. Imagine if the BWAA voted in Vizquel, and Veterans voted in Conception the same year. I think that would be a great thing.. Now before anyone jumps down my throat about Vizquel. He's a no brainer in my books.. Arguably one of the two best defensive SS's in history(Smith may or may not have been better), 2800+ hits, 400+ SB's, and a leader both on and off the field. According to Baseball-reference his top 8 "similar batters" in order are- Luis Aparicio, Rabbit Maranville, Ozzie Smith, Bill Dahlen, Dave Conception, Luke Appling, Pee Wee Reese, and Nellie Fox. Everything about Omar screams Hall of Fame...

It is a great debate because we all have our own standards and definition of "hall of famer".

I don't consider Larkin, Dawson, Rizzuto, etc...hall of famers. To me they are in the same boat as McGriff, Dale Murphy, Al Oliver, Raines, etc...

Compare Ted Simmons stats to the greatest catchers of all time and tell me why he didn't get any consideration for the HOF. Doesn't make sense to me.

John D.
 

John D.

By 1955, Rizzuto's career was ending. Pardon me for correcting you. He had more than just 1 great year. In 1949, he was runner-up for the AL MVP award to Ted
Williams. Speaking about Ted....I trust his judgement of Rizzuto, when he said to me......

"If Phil Rizzuto was the Red Sox shortstop in the late 1940's and the early 1950's, the Red Sox would have been the AL Champs those years, not the Yankees."



John

OK, you are too young to have seen Rizzuto play and I'm too old and did see Rizzuto play from 1949 to 1956. He was a tremendous Lead-Off batter. An expert bunter,
and a good hitter (especially when a lead-off runner was needed). His fielding at SS and his throwing arm were excellent. And, this is what Ted Williams was alluding to.

Rizzuto's enthusiam for the game; and, his ability to execute at bat and on the field are intangibles that are not evident in the statistics.



Rizzuto did not get the support when it came to HOF voting because of guys like Charles Gehringer who had it in for Phil (I've never understood why). Ted Williams
was very influential in getting Phil into the HOF.

Marty Marion should be in the HOF, he was "Mr Shortstop" before Ernie Banks.
Furthermore, considering some of the guys who have been inducted by the Veterans Committee in recent years, Marion, Hodges, Reynolds, and Vander Meer should
all certainly be in the HOF.


P.S.....Give my regards to your Dad. Tell him my 1957 T-Bird is tuned-up and ready to race :)

TED Z

robextend,

Replace Thurman Munson with Ted Simmons on those mid-1970's Yankees teams and Simmons is a Hall Of Famer.

Simmons was in the majors at a younger age than Munson and had a longer career and still his OPS+ is higher than Munson's (117 to 116). Sure, if he had lived, Munson could have put up a few more good seasons to raise his OPS+. However, if Munson had played as long as Simmons did, it is also likely that he would have had a drop off in production and his OPS+ would have fallen.

No, I don't believe in the idea that just because a guy played for the Yankees (or Red Sox) and put up good, but not great, stats for their career that they should some how get a HOF boost for it.

David

Simmons closest contemporaries that are in the HOF are Bench, Fisk and Carter. Simmons had more hits, a higher batting average, more doubles and more RBI then all of them as well as being an 8 time all-star.

robextend,

Ted Simmons info From baseball-reference:

Gray Ink Batting - 95 (238), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 124 (110), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 44 (116), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Similar Batters

1. Miguel Tejada (855)
2. Alan Trammell (831)
3. Carlton Fisk (819) *
4. Joe Torre (818)
5. Gary Carter (818) *
6. Lou Whitaker (817)
7. Barry Larkin (805) *
8. Yogi Berra (805) *
9. Joe Cronin (804) *
10. Ryne Sandberg (791) *

Six of Simmons ten comparables are IN the HOF. Do the same comparison for Phil Rizzuto and see what happens.

Oh, I am sorry, that is right, Rizzuto played in New York, for the Yankees, won a bunch of rings and had Ted Williams around to influence the HOF voters.

David

I have to disagree with you on Morris. He was a big game pitcher and only Sandy Koufax had as many Babe Ruth awards as Morris (best player in the postseason). Yes he didn't win 300 games (only won 254) but arguably there will never be another 300 game winner in MLB. Morris was a gamer and never wanted to come out of a game, often wanting to pitch all 9 innings. I think this hurt his ERA because of late inning runs scored against him when he was tiring but had a lead. He won 162 games during the 80's, a MLB best, and his 7th game 10 inning shutout of the Braves in the 1991 WS was arguably the greatest pitching feat in history because of what was at stake, even better than Larsen's perfect game. He was a 5 time All-Star and started 14 consecutive opening games. His ERA ended up at 3.90 but he was a dominant force on the mound.

Even Morris' post-season ERA is almost 4.00. People keep saying no one will win 300 games again but since Morris' retirement Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, and Tom Glavine all went on to win 300 games.

Average season of 15 HR 71 RBI, for a guy who ended up with only 2300 hits, doesn't feel like a HOFer to me.

Vizquel is Ozzie without the back flips....

Ozzie actually has a higher OBP than slugging %, that doesn't happen very often.

There a ton of 60's to 90's SS that are real similar in many ways.

Tony Fernandez, Aparicio, Ozzie, Concepcion, Bowa, Campaneris, Trammel, Burleson, and why some got in and others don't....... who knows.

Not to mention the whole Lou Whitaker thing.....

No on Morris for HOF
 

I'm glad that Larkin was elected - I think he is a deserving HOFer at his position. I would also like to see Raines and Trammell get in.

Jack Morris, however, is not a Hall of Famer. The argument that he was the best pitcher of the 1980s is based on an arbitrary span of years that basically gives Morris credit for having his career begin before 1980 and end after 1989. There is simply no reason to use this temporal criteria to evaluate a player's skill and performance. The bottom line is that Morris was above average, but not by much (about 5 percent). There are so many other clearly superior pitchers who have gotten much less HOF consideration than Morris just because their period of quality pitching didn't occur between years ending in a 0, including David Cone, Jim Kaat, Chuck Finley, Orel Hershiser, Luis Tiant, and Rick Reuschel. None of these pitchers deserve to be in the HOF, but all of them were better than Morris.

Take a look at Baseball-Reference's list of WAR leaders for pitchers. Morris has a lower career WAR than Javier Vasquez, Tom Candiotti, and Bob Welch (and I would also argue that Welch was better than Morris in the 1980s).

Chuck Finley and Rick Reuschel "clearly superior" to Jack Morris?:confused::confused:

:eek:

:eek:

Mike Mussina is going to be interesting in a couple of years. I don’t think he is a hall of famer, but postseason success aside, his career was better than that of Jack Morris (who I also don’t think is a hall of famer).

Interesting CBC article about Larry Walker.

He should have more Hall of Fame consideration

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/ml...me-ballot.html

"It’s clear by looking at Walker’s production over 17 seasons that his numbers stack up with anyone in the Hall.

He won three batting titles, seven Gold Gloves, the National League MVP in 1997 and boasted a lifetime on-base-plus slugging percentage of .965, which is higher than 45 of the 64 outfielders currently in the Hall including Reggie Jackson and Dave Winfield. His .565 slugging percentage also ranks 13th all-time.

“When you look at a guy like Larry Walker and think of the best all-around players from his era, who’s better? Barry Bonds, maybe,” said Glew. “He hit 49 home runs when he won the NL MVP award [and drove in 130]."

Huge Larry fan...I completely agree. I never really bought into the whole Colorado factor.. I think it's a lame excuse.

.