Morris & Trammell Elected to HOF
 

Title says it all. Good players but both borderline in my opinion. Not upset I just feel there are more deserving cases out there.
-Rhett

I'm happy
 

I thought Morris had a really good chance today, but thought Tram would fall a little short.

In my opinion, they both would have been elected years ago if they played for the Yankees and had more hard core media coverage during their careers.

underwhelmed, but it's a good day in Detroit

Honestly, of the Tigers of that era I always felt like Lou Whitaker was the most deserving of the bunch, not sure why he never had the potential HOF buzz around him Trammell always did.

Hof
 

Pitiful....If these guys get in, how in the Hell does Dale Murphy not get in????

The argument "If you're not in on the first ballot, then you're not a HOFER" is making more sense as the years go by. And I like Trammell. I know it takes the voters a few years sometimes to get it right, but maybe the Hall needs a new wing for first balloteers at this point.

That 3.90 ERA does not sit particularly well. Not that sabremetrics are everything but per JAWS Morris ranks as the 164th best pitcher of all time. Right behind Jon Matlack.

That's my view. If you have to really debate it and think long and hard about it, and vote on it year after year after year, the answer is probably no.

Dale Murphy won back to back MVP awards for the worst team in baseball. He is also a huge ambassador for the game....He is deserving of the HOF IMO....

Wait what? I'm so confused. Jack Morris wasn't even good. Bad whip and off and on era. Not a strike out pitcher and only 234 wins? I have to be missing something. That's like legitimately mediocre.

If those two are in then Keith Hernandez and Curt Schilling have to be in also.

Happy to see the best World Series game pitched pitcher going in the Hall.

Jack Morris has the worst ERA of any Hall of Fame pitcher. Worse even than the pitchers who played in 1930 when the league batting average was .300.

I finally found the vote totals here:

https://baseballhall.org/news/modern...t-results-2018

Ted Simmons fell one vote short. No one else was close.

Lost in all the hoopla, Ted Simmons was only one vote away from the HOF.

Madison Bumgarner got in?

The Braves won their division in 1982 and finished 3 games back, 2nd place, in 1983.

Correction
 

Not that I think wins are a good statistic to use for entry into the HOF, but it's 254 wins, not 234.

No, Don Larsen.

Tommy John, Jim Kaat and Mike Mussina should be getting in soon. I don't see how you can elect Morris and not those 3.

Slippery Slope
 

I'm certainly not a big fan of today's vote, especially for Morris. You're absolutely right, it opens up the door for those who would argue for enshrinement of players who only deserve to be in the Hall of Very Good (although, I do like Mussina - highest WAR of any eligible player not in the HOF).

I was just pointing out that I didn't think Wins were a great stat to use when judging (for a variety of reasons) and if you're gonna use it, at least check the total :)

One Other Thing
 

I should also point out that the BBWAA takes a beating for the Hall of Fame being watered down, and there are some great examples for this. However, the Veteran's Committee (in it's various forms) has voted in many more players than the writers have. The BBWAA has elected 124 candidates, while the various Committees have elected 195 (including the two today).

Maybe the new format for the Committees will help, who knows. But as a vintage card collector, it bothers me that the Committee dealing with players from the pre-WWII era only meets once a decade while the Committee that met today will meet again in two years and, apparently, twice every five years.

I am fine with both of them going in.

You can argue about whether we should have a "small hall" with only first balloters (or guys about who there is no debate) or a "big hall" with more guys who wouldn't meet that standard. But there is no debate that what we have now is closer to the "big hall" model based on past inductions than it is to the "small hall" model.

I'm not really sure why this is such an issue anyway, even though there is no formal distinction every serious fan knows that there is a core-periphery spectrum within the Hall and Jack and Alan are both going to be taking seats among the more peripheral members. And among that group they are far from being the worst, so their induction does nothing to lower the standards of the Hall (yeah Morris has the highest ERA, but that is just using the weakest part of his resume against him - he has enough other stuff on there to make up for that).

Regardless of where you stand on steroid-era guys getting into the Hall, I think we can agree that with no Bonds, no Pete Rose, no Joe Jackson, and no Roger Clemens, the HOF has lost its luster. Nothing against these new inductees, but they aren't in the same stratosphere as many guys who aren't in Cooperstown and probably never will be.

Congratulations to both Morris and Trammell, the 1978 Topps Set just went up in value. The Molitor/Trammell HOF Rookie Card. That doesn't happen often !

If Phil Rizzuto is in, then most should be in the HOF. If only the Ruth's and Cobb's were in, the Hall would be very empty. Still only a few hundred of the almost 20,000 players (1-2%) of all players. I don't think it is watered down yet.

Steve Garvey was an All-Star eight years in a row and during that period finished in the top six in the MVP vote five times. He was a dominant player of his era. I don't see how Morris gets in and he doesn't.

Personally, I am thrilled about Trammell making it into the hall of fame. Yes his offensive stats are questionable. I got the pleasure of watching Trammell play during his entire career and to appreciate him not just as a player, but as a person. A leader on the 1984 team, as he was named team captain over strong personalities like Gibson and Parrish. But he kept his entire career unsullied of any kind. Just his defensive achievements, along with Lou Whitaker, as the longest double play combination in the history of the game. They completed more double plays then any other combination in the game. And both averaged over 280 for their career.
If you look at the players that support Trammell, that says more then anything else. He was well respected through the league. Hats off to Alan Trammell. You can match numbers to Trammell all you want, but you can't match many players to his professionalism.

Morris, I cannot agree more with all of you.

Trammell deserves to be in the Hall. Jack Morris is pretty much a joke.

Tom C

It certainly opens it up for Garvey, Murphy and Mattingly from this group to be elected over the next few ballots by this committee. Simmons looks like a lock for the next ballot.

Higher than Barry Bonds and Clemens????

Great Fangraphs post here. He also did posts on the pitchers and the other candidates. Love how he mentions some of my cause celebre guys like Grich and Dwight Evans as well as some I feel need to get a longer look like Nettles and Reggie Smith and Darrell Evans.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mode...-lou-whitaker/

Tom C

Bonds and Clemens are slowly trending up as older voters fall off and new ones come on. They are getting in. I'd say 2 more years. Rose has been his own worst enemy in all of this but I'd like to see both those guys in as well.

Has Reggie Smith ever received a single vote? I'm sorry but I think if we're mentioning Reggie Smith and the HOF in the same breath we've reached the point of absurdity, not that we haven't already.

Huh? Kevin where are you coming up with this?

Yeah -- I thought about this too. Is there any other Topps multi-player rookie card with two Hall of Famers? If there is I'm drawing a blank . . . .

Back in the day, Trammell was considered an elite player. A shortstop with an MVP and a 70 WAR is a pretty good candidate to get in, in my opinion.

I must be stupid here because I don't see how in the hell Ted Simmons belongs nor has a resume than Don Mattingly. The ONLY argument for Simmons is longevity. Basically Simmons stats give him about a 3 year advantage over Mattingly, yet it took him 7 more years to get there.

Mattingly had 9 Gold Gloves, 3 Silver Sluggers, an MVP, a batting title, 2 other top 5 MVP finishes... What Mattingly didn't have was longevity due to a back injury. And he didn't have a World Series Title.

Simmons was a very good catcher. Give him a bump because catcher production isn't typically as high as a 1B.

One can argue whether Mattingly belongs, but those that watched him regularly, know well his value was far greater than the stats showed. His defense was as good as it gets for any 1B ever. But I can't fathom an argument where Ted Simmons is closer to a HOFer than Mattingly.

Based on today's vote, guess there is still hope for Darryl Spencer and Ray Sadecki. LOL! The only way either new electee should get into the HOF is if they buy a ticket. Pity there is no HOF for the "very good." Both would make that hall.

During the time that I started watching baseball 1978/1979, there was no bigger star than Steve Garvey. Popeye arms, playing in LA, married to Cindy - you could not tell the story of baseball in the '70's without him. He went to San Diego and didn't have the longevity of others. However, I am convinced that if he stayed in Los Angeles with similar numbers - and maybe a couple of bad end of the career years to add to the counting stats, he walks in.

In my mind, similar with Parker. Along with George Foster, Rod Carew, George Brett and Garvey, they were the biggest stars. I measure this by the baseball books that I would buy at book fairs in elementary school that would tell the stories of the players of the day. He had his mid-80's resurgence with the Reds as well.

I don't begrudge Trammel and Morris - and the '91 WS game 7 is forever etched in my brain - but when I think about that era and the true stars - I think of Garvey and Parker.

Very Happy with the vote
 

So tired of the flawed Hall Of Good argument. It isn't called the hall of great but the Hall of Fame. These were two of the more famous players of their era and both deserve their place in Cooperstown. This is a museum to tell the games history and celebrate its more accomplished players. These were two of the better players of their era and certainly both were very famous. Growing up I always thought of both as future hall of famers. Now i just need a few more greats from my youth to get in. For the record I would have absolutely loved it for Garvey and Parker to have gotten in, but like i said on another thread I honestly would not have minded if every single one of them had made it into the hall.

Also my late grandfather, Roy Tobias, was a huge fan of the Detroit Tigers. I am sure he is smiling down today very happy with these decisions.

The argument for Ted Simmons? Pick any way you possibly want to look at it. Career stats. WAR. JAWS. Anything. Simmons is one of the top 13 (arguably top ten) catchers in the history of the game. Wouldn't you say that that is deserving on enshrinement?

Morris is pretty much the same pitcher as David Wells. Come on now. Hall Of Fame? I can name 40 or 50 pitchers who belong in the Hall before Jack Morris.

Garvey was a first baseman with ok power who had to hit .300 to have value because otherwise he would never have been on base. Will Clark deserves to be there before Garvey.

Reggie Smith? Not saying he belongs. But go check his stats again and get back to me. Much better player than Steve Garvey.

Tom C

Add Jim Rice to that list and those were my thoughts exactly. I still have some of those same books from my younger years. Good post...

I agree 100%.

Mattingly's career numbers are pretty similar to Puckett's in a lot of respects. If you look at Baseball Reference for Puckett, they have Mattingly as the most similar batter, in fact.

In my opinion Tiant was clearly a better pitcher in his day than Morris was in his. Again, not that it's gospel, but by JAWS Tiant is 100+ places ahead of Morris in the all-time rankings, 51 and 164.

+100. Not sure why he doesn't gain more traction in these votes.

Bill James has pointed out recently how flawed WAR is. Isn't it time for you to admit it to? Dwight Evans has a negative dWAR. Shouldn't that tell you how flawed it is?

I lived in LA during Garvey's prime. He was better than Reggie Smith. Garvey was the guy who got the big hits, drove in the runs that wins games. 10 time All Star 5 time NL champion, 1 time WS champion, 1 time MVP, 2 time NLCS MVP and 4 time gold glove. Holds NL record for consecutive games without an error. From 1974-1980 averaged 200 hits 100 RBI and .300 BA. Claiming that Smith was better based on a flawed advanced metric is absurd. Glad this Veteran's Committee is willing to think for themselves and elect Jack Morris, ignoring WAR. It is the Hall of Fame not Hall of High WAR or High JAWS.

World Series titles. If the Red Sox win in 1975, he would probably be in already. Also, Morris benefits from being the best pitcher in an era of bad pitching. Tiant was a better pitcher, but was overshadowed in one of the two great eras for pitchers. He definitely should get in some day. If we are talking about Mike Mussina or Roy Halladay as Hofers, Tiant is too.

Sort of depends how tightly you define his era. He pitched 1977-1994. Clemens was there for what, 10 of those years? And Guidry's great years overlapped the first part of Morris' career.

I absolutely agree with this. I don't get into WAR and JAWS, and had never really considered him in with all the greats, but a few years ago I started digging into Ted's numbers and they're pretty amazing for that era. And the fact that he was a switch hitter and a master handler of pitching staffs made him even more valuable, in my opinion.

One of the most sparse areas of the Hall of Fame are catchers from the 1960s to the early 1990s. You have Bench, Fisk and Carter representing a span of about 35 years? Simmons was a great player who happened to be a quiet guy who played his career for small-market franchises.

I'm happy for Trammell and Morris and disagree with most on here -- I think they both deserve it. Trammell was overshadowed by Yount and Ripken at the time, but opposing managers of the day felt he was easily the best fielder of the group and he became a well-respected hitter.

Morris made 14 straight opening day starts - and I know OD starts don't define a Hall of Famer, but it most definitely defines an "Ace." And his peers considered him an ace for a decade and a half. That says enough for me.

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.