Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Why wasn't Hank Aaron or Willie Mays a unanimous first ballot selection? Any writer who did not vote for guys like them should be barred from voting in the future and checked for Alzheimers...<br /><br />I personally like having a good long period of eligibility. If it was up to me I would make all players eligible forever but ratchet up the cut-off levels as the years progress to cull out stale selections.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>.........

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>PSAJD, you claim that my pointing out that he won more games in the 80s invalid since it's jsut one thing. It's no more invalid your one point that his ERA was 3.90.<br /><br />ERA is an interesting stat and nice indicator, but baseball is about WINNING games. ERA helps you win games, but it's not the sole reason for winning them. Every year we see pitchers with measly ERAs with losing records and others with ERAs out the roof that lose only a hanful of games.<br /><br />Morris was a big game pitcher that always did well with everything on the line. This intangible should aslo be part of the HOF equation? People too hung up numbers. I love them, but I know there is more to a players career than purely numbers.<br /><br />When have the luxury of almost 20 years of hindsight to see the greatness of Clemens, but in the mid to late 80s, if you needed to win a game, Morris would be at the top of list of pitchers you would want to start. Clemens was still young and basically unproven, unlike Morris who had already proven.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Julie, Mays got in on the first ballot, he was asking why they weren't unanomous. I also agree that these writers taht refuse to vote for players in their first year of eligibility should have their votes yanked. There is also the race card involved with May and Aaron. There is no excuse for anyone to not vote for them, but the rationale of a few voters is that if Babe Ruth was a unanomous choice, then they are going to make sure that no one else is.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br />Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Actually Jay...<br /><br />since there has NEVER been a Unanimous selection to the HOF...<br /><br />the voters want to make SURE that there never is one.<br /><br />Seaver got almost 99% ... and he is the highest ...<br /><br />but I agree that there will ALWAYS be a voter or two who does NOT vote for someone just because they want to MAKE SURE that NOBODY is a unanimous selection.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>oops, left out the word NOT again. I have a bad habit of that. I tend to think faster than I can type<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>steve k</b><p>Be interesting to see how the voting for Ripken goes in 2007. Probably won't be unanimous because of a few jerk BBWAA members who would want to be known as the ones who didn't vote for Ripken - they probably like the negative publicity.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>His first full 5 seasons were 24-4, 20-9, 18-12, 17-11, and 21-6. By the way, it surprised me to learn that Don Drysdale, who I had always assumed was a first ballot type, didn't get in until 1984, FIFTEEEN years after he retired, and that his statistics are not exactly overwhelming (209-166 WL).

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>PASJD read bill james book on HOF lots on drysdale in there sabrjay i think you are right on about morris and lee smith.also not really that bad a comment on sandberg as only morgan was better all around.hornsby was not a good fielding 2nd baseman but he was a great hitter.jackie robinson played 2nd base for about 5 years,collins had no power.gehringer was real good all around probably the sandberg of the 30's.lajoie perhaps should be regarded as the best all-time? but i have to disagree with the gooden reverse career argument. goodens first 5 years were hall of fame good but not near koufax last 5. koufax won 20 more games, pitched 205 more innings, had 377 more strike-outs,14 more shutouts and gave up about 3/4 of a run less.he also dominated the world series he appeared in.but,i would bet the vets comittee of the future will put gooden in the hall thus making your argument correct.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Here are some articles about Morris form respected writers:<br /><br />Jayson Stark on Jack Morris today on ESPN.com --<br /><br />Suppose we told you there was a pitcher on this ballot who won 36 more games than anyone else in the sport while he was in it? And suppose we told you this pitcher started three All-Star Games -- a feat surpassed, since the 1970s, by only Randy Johnson?<br /><br />Then suppose we told you this guy pitched a no-hitter, was an Opening Day starter 14 times (more than any American Leaguer who ever lived), averaged 14 complete games a season for eight years and made 515 consecutive starts without missing a turn (a record at the time)?<br /><br />Finally, suppose we told you he was one of the most fabled postseason<br />pitchers of his day, that he started Game 1 of the World Series for<br />three different Series champs and that he pitched all 10 innings of<br />possibly the greatest Game 7 shutout ever?<br /><br />Would you say that guy was a Hall of Famer ...?<br /><br />Murray Chass in the NY Times on Morris dominating his era:<br /><br />Morris "had the most victories of any pitcher in the 1980's. But<br />figured differntly, he went through two other 10-yaer period in which he won even more games, 173 from 1979 through 1988 and 169 from 1983 through 1992." Chass points out that Roger Clemens' most victories in a 10-year period was 166.<br /><br />So much for the if-you-didn't-pick-the-natural-decade-Morris-wasn't-that-good argument. Of course, he only won games, which so many of us on this list believe was little more than mere coincidence. But while Bill James told us eons ago that ERA is a better predictor of future wins than past wins are, he *didn't* say that high ERA is a good predictor of <i>past</i> wins. Morris was the exception that proves the rule. With only 33% of the vote, though even that's an improvement, Jack remains a longshot for the Hall.<br /><br />back to my comments:<br />I was really surprised by the fact that Clemens never won more games in a 10 year period than Morris did. And 2 of the spans mentioned, 1980-89 and 1983-92 includes a year where Morris won only 6 games.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br /><br />Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>As has been stated: "ERA is an interesting stat and nice indicator, but baseball is about WINNING games. ERA helps you win games, but it's not the sole reason for winning them".<br /><br />Morris' W-L record is 254-186. That is, the total number of games he won exceeds the total number of games he lost by 68. In an eighteen year career, that comes out to a production of less than 4 more wins than losses per year.<br /><br />And it is obvious that a pitcher with a 3.90 ERA certainly won few games by himself.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>tbob</b><p>the HOF voting is a joke.<br />Tim says: "Boggs deserves it, bum and all, as for ryno, I am unsure. I will say this Rice gets no love and was the best hitter in the AL for 5 or 6 years running. To me thats a HOFer."<br />Tony O was THE most feared hitter of the 60's. In interviews with pitchers who are in the Hall and other top hurlers whp pitched during that time period, almost to a man they said Oliva was THE most feared and best hitter in the league. <br />Interviewed on ESPN radio yesterday, Goose Gossage said if there were one pitcher who SHOULD be in the Hall who is not, it is Bert Blyleven. He won 280 games for generally mediocre teams and Goose says he was THE dominant pitcher of his era. Strong words. <br />Jack Morris was a helluva big game pitcher but looking at the body of work, Blyleven deserves it more.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Gilbert, using your logic, the following pitchers are all worse than Morris based on win over loses per season: Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan, Don sutton, Gaylord Perry, Phil Niekro, Early Wynn, Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Catfish Hunter tied Morris, Don Drysdale, Pud Galvin, Red Ruffing, Burlie Grimes, Eppa Rixie, Ted Lyons, Red Faber, Herb Pennock, Waite Hoyt, Jim Bunning. He's better than almost half the pitchers that are in the HOF.<br /><br />Do you start penalizing Whitey Ford and other pitchers that pitched for great teams because they got a ton of run support? People like to think that they make objective choices about who does and and doesn't belong in the HOF, but are all colored by our likes and dislikes of player. If you dislike him, you are going to find things that say he doesn't belong, if you like him, you will do the opposite.<br /><br />Regardless of what Morris' ERA was, there was no better big game pitcher than Morris in the 80s and pitched what is considered by many the greatest game in WS history.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>HUH? Anyone ever heard of Willie Mays? Hank Aaron? Roberto Clemente? Frank Robinson? At least for the first half, a guy named Mantle? On his own team, Harmon Killebrew? Sheesh.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Jay: it is you who stated that baseball is about WINNING games. I simply agree with you.<br /><br />As far as your examples of other pitchers who did not win as many games per year as Morris, perhaps they had even less support than he did. Or maybe, as you infer, they were worse.<br /><br />In any case, Morris' performance did not average a yield of four more wins per season than losses.<br /><br />&lt;+4 wins per season does not qualify a man for my Hall of Fame. Maybe your Hall is more lenient. I no longer have any interest in Cooperstown's hall.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Gilbert, take a look at all the pitchers in the history of the game. There are very few (around 25 if I remember right) that averaged 4 more wins than than loses per season for their entire career. Even 3 wins is pretty uncommon. Many of the guys on the list I provided were under that mark, and they are in the HOF. <br /><br />Even as much as I dislike Koufax, there is no disputing he is a big game pitcher, just MOrris was. And if a guy is a boarderline candidate, being a big game pitcher counts for something.<br /><br />As for Oliva, he was favorite player growing up. I've read a number of interviews with pitchers that have said that Oliva was the hitter that they most feared. Keep mind that if this is the case, this means that they pitched in AL and may not have pitched in the NL, so would have never faced Mays, Aaron, Clemente, etc. Killebrew could hit for power, but that was about it. Oliva, in his prime, had power, a great average and speed. Killebrew was a one trick pony.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Jay: Although I had previously not given the fact that baseball is more about winning than it is about batting averages, ERA, RBIs, etc., I agree that your observation has merit.<br /><br />I haven't yet checked which pitchers won the most games (more than they lost), but if you say there are about 25 pitchers in the history of baseball who have achieved greater than 4 games per season, I believe it.<br /><br />I wouldn't have thought the pitching impact statistic to be so meager, but it is what it is.<br /><br />I wonder how many game winning hits a clutch hitter such as Berra or Ott produce in a typical season.<br /><br />This subject may require further study on my part.<br /><br /><br /><br />Regarding Oliva, I recall him being a considerable threat - seemingly always getting a solid hit just when most needed. Much more so than the typical HR hitter. <br /><br /><br /><br />

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I only checked the top 100 in wins in a career, thus the reason I said around 25. I doubt there are too many below that level that unless they had brief careers for one reason or another. Koufax is the only one that comes to mind.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Hre's a great post from the SABR-l list taken from Blyleven's site:<br /><br />And here is Blyleven writing via his website the other day:<br /><br />"I would love to have all those writers that didn't vote for me step<br />up to the plate and let me pitch to them. I would love to throw a high hard one inside. I would love to watch their knees buckle when I throw them my curveball. Yes, some of the writers might make contact but they will remember one thing after facing me. It's hard to hit from your butt!"<br /><br />Another interesting note from the post was that only 8 pitchers since 1900 have thrown more innings than Byleven has. And if you look at the baseball-reference.com, the only HOF measure he doesn't pass is black ink.<br /><br />And here's an interesting Koufax v Blyleven article<br /><br /><a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/050107" target=_new>http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/050107</a><br /><br />Jay<br /><br />Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>...but I do know that Jack Morris NEEDED a lot of run support - the guy was a meatball pitcher with a massive lifetime ERA. It's great that he won slightly more than he lost, but you wouldn't ever see him turn in the kind of season that a TRUE HOF'er like Steve Carlton did for a lousy team...you know the season I'm talking about - Morris would have gone 3-27.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Scott, you are correct, but Morris never came close to losing 20 games in a season. And Carlton did it the year after he won 27. If that's what ya call HOF pitching, then that's your choice. Not that I'd argue CArlton isn't a HOFer. I wouldn't even argue Morris is a good Carlton, but he does belong in the HOF. <br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p>Morris was very consistent. The danger with admitting someone because they had comparable stats to a bottom-tier existing member is that the voters might start comparing future candidates to Phil Rizzuto.<br /><br />I really like Jack Morris, I just don't think he's "great".

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>steve k</b><p>&lt;&lt;&lt; And here's an interesting Koufax v Blyleven article &gt;&gt;&gt;<br><br>Interesting? How about nonsense! Any team owner who really wants to win would take Koufax in a second. This is more dribble from the anti-Koufax clan.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>I refuse even to read an article suggesting Bert Blyleven is remotely comparable to Sandy Koufax. That's like saying Curtis Martin is better than Jim Brown because lifetime he has more yards. If Casey Stengel thought Koufax was the best pitcher he had ever seen, and he went all the way back to near the beginning of the century, that's good enough for me.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Who hit just about 600 HR. Pretty neat trick. Yeah, if only he had been more diverse and hit more singles instead of those homers. Sounds about as meaningful as criticizing Koufax for only having two pitches, the fastball and the curve.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Dave Williams</b><p>The problem with the Morris issue is he is better than half the pitchers in the hall....(As Jay points out).<br /><br />Red Ruffing, Ted Lyons, Pop Haines, etc....<br /><br />The problem is that the Veterans Committee did such a lousy job taking anyone who had any sort of a career for so long, they diluted down the hall.<br /><br />The writers are trying to take it back I suppose, but in the meantime the former Vet committee diluted it way down, and now guys better than those the Vet put in, aren't going to get in. <br /><br />Blyleven, Morris, Rice, Oliva, Santo just need to have the Vet committee to be revived.<br /><br />They revive that and in 30 years Fernando Valenzuela will make it.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p>I read the article. It was interesting. I don't think that the article suggested that Blyleven was as good a pitcher as Koufax. The article asked the reader to decide which pitcher they would take if they had to chose between the two. The question basically boiled down to whether you would chose a consistent pitcher with longevity or would you chose someone that was dominant for a short period of time. Which would help a ball club more?<br /><br />Personally, adding Blyleven to the HOF would be like adding another player that had longevity but not a lot in the area of dominance. Blyleven had the type of career that any player could be proud of. The difference between Don Sutton and Bert Blyleven is that Sutton won 300 games and that's what ultimately got him into the HOF. Neither of those two pitchers was a slouch by any stretch of the imagination. If Blyleven would have won just 13 more games he'd be in the HOF. Look at Early Wynn, he had 300 wins (and less losses, not by much), a higher ERA and less K's and he's in. <br />

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Speaking of longevity and consistency, ironically Harold Baines would probably be a Hall of Famer as the players strikes of 81 and 94 deprived him of 2 benchmarks...<br /><br />300 hits and 400 Homeruns.<br /><br />He was just short in both categories, and would have reached both with another 100 games in his prime.<br /><br />Can you imagine Bainsey a Hall of Famer?<br /><br />Good player forever but enshrined in Cooperstown?<br /><br />Or he could have become the first player to reach 3K and not make it.<br /><br />So maybe the players strikes actually served a purpose.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>tbob</b><p>&lt;&lt;Tony Oliva the most feared hitter of the 60s? HUH? Anyone ever heard of Willie Mays? Hank Aaron? Roberto Clemente? Frank Robinson? At least for the first half, a guy named Mantle? On his own team, Harmon Killebrew? Sheesh.&gt;&gt;<br /><br />Since interleague play was not invented in the 1960's OBVIOUSLY AL pitchers never faced Mays, Aaron, Clemente nor Robby (until the Reds traded him at the end of the decade). We are talking most feared HITTER not SLUGGER. Would you rather have a guy with a whole room full of Silver batting chanpion bats come to the plate with the winning run at 2b or Killebrew batting about .265 with all those strikeouts who might hit one out but could just as easily whiff or pop out? <br />Mantle during the 60's vs. Oliva during the 60's? Mantle did a swan dive after the '63 season. Oliva was clearly better. I am not comparing the 1952-1959 Mantle. I said 60's. You probably aren't old enough to have seen these guys in person. I am and I did. Oliva was the AL answer to Clemente with his rifle arm, speed, reckless play and tremendous hitting. Just as injuries (and his own dissipation) cost Mantle true greatness, injuries kept Oliva from being one of the greatest hitters EVER. I am glad you are so appalled that Oliva was named the most feared hitter in the AL in the 60's but I hardly think you are in a position to know more than the American League pitchers who faced him said he was the best. <br />

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>tbob</b><p>if Oliva had played in New York instead of Minneapolis he would have been in the Hall long ago.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>Like I stated then (and a lot did not agree with me of course). The HOF is for the BEST players of All-Time. I think the following criteria should be used for pitchers and hitters - this would weed out the 100+ that do not belong! All of these criteria should, of course, be based on where the person "stood" when his career ended.<br /><br />Pitchers:<br /><br />Top ten in:<br />Wins<br />ERA<br />Strikeouts<br /><br />Hitters:<br /><br />Top ten in:<br />Average<br />Homeruns<br />RBI<br /><br />Again, if a person is/was in the top ten when they retired from MLB in one of these cats., then they are in! I truly believe if the Hall used this criteria starting in 1936, then we would truly have a Hall of Fame! As for those great defensive players - sorry, you should have spent more time in the batting cage. At least if the Hall based entry on these criteria, we would not be arguing "so and so" should be in because somebody else is in - this would eliminate ANY biases in voting and truly seperate the Greats from the so-so players.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Scotty, I read an article proposing that same exact formula, but the writer also realized the major flaw in it. If you start at 1900 and vote in the those top 10 players from each position, how silly do they look 100 years down the line when you have a bunch of 19th century and Deadball Era players in the HOF that have no business being there. <br /><br />Then there is the problem that as time goes by, it becomes virtually impossible to crack the top 10. You want to use Wins, Ks and ERA for pitchers. We NEVER see a pitcher crack the top 10 in ERA in our lifetime, or anyone elses unless there are radical changes to how pitchers are handled. And with Clemens being tied for 10th in wins and Maddux 24 wins from 10th all-time, we have probebly seen the last pitcher to ever crack the top 10 in Wins. <br /><br />I may see if I can figuer out some sort of database that would show jsut how bizzar this HOF would look.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br />Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Thomas</b><p>I am old enough to have seen Oliva play and sitting in Fenway he was the hitter I feared the most in the sixties. In the end bad wheels did him in like Cepeda and in Rice's case bad eyes.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Jay - After looking at the actual statistics, I will go with my initial assessment: any pitcher who does not average &gt;+4 wins per season qualifies to be forgotten.<br /><br />In order to be considered for enshrinement in my opinion, a pitcher must have one of the following credentials:<br /><br />.600 W-L record<br />3000 Ks<br />300 Wins<br />2.75 ERA <br /><br />And if a pitcher possesses more than one of those credentials, they are assured of careful consideration.<br /><br />Gil

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>However, I meant to start the "top ten" at the year 1936 - when the Hall of Fame actually started electing in players (boy, those first five sure belong!!!!). You are correct - if someone started at 1900, you would have the same mess we have today, except in reverse. Instead of mediocre players from recent years in the Hall, we would have them from the 19th Century!<br /><br />I still disagree with you regarding the players of the future - if they can't break the top ten of those criteria, they really are not among the elite of Baseball! Maybe pitcher would start working a little more - less days rest - just like the old days! They would certainly have to if they wanted in the Hall of Fame someday!<br /><br />The only mistakes I see with my criteria is probably the following should be added:<br /><br />pitchers:<br />win/loss percentage<br /><br />hitters:<br />hits<br /><br />That would make it "THE TOP TEN, WHEN A PLAYER RETIRES STARTING IN 1936 IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES":<br /><br />Pitchers:<br />win/loss percentage<br />strikeouts<br />wins<br />ERA<br /><br />Hitters:<br />Average<br />HR's<br />RBI<br />Hits<br /><br />We would then have a TRUE Hall of Fame!<br /><br />

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Anyone think the Veterans Committee will induct anyone this year? Thoughts on whether anyone on teh ballot is worthy or would dilute the Hall further. Their ballot includes Smoky Joe Wood (he wasn't on the 2003 ballot for some reason), Gil Hoges, Santo and Maury Wills, among others. I say let Smoky in: 116-57 W-L record, 34-5 and three World Series wins in 1912, career ERA of 2.03, etc..after arm was hurt, became outfielder and hit .283 lifetime average.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Santo, Bill Dahlen and Bobby Mathews are the only real gross oversites I can see. Could also put Deacon Phillippe there too as he was the ace of the great Pirates teams that featured Wagner.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Based on the voting last time, I would say the only player with a real chance is Hodges. When umpire Doug Harvey is eligible again in 2 years, he also has a good chance.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>OK, I do not really believe Guidry belongs in the HOF but if you want to make comparisons to Koufax forget Gooden or Blyleven. Winning percentages were almost the same (170-91 for Guidry and 165-87 for Koufax), each had 3 20+ win seasons, Koufax had a better ERA (2.76 vs. 3.29) and KO numbers (2396 vs. 1778) but Guidry won more in fewer opportunities (368 games for Guidry vs. 397 for Koufax).<br /><br />Adam

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Hodges hit more HRs in the fifties than Mantle or Mays. Only the Duke out homered Hodges during this period.<br /><br />Blyleven has over 3000 Ks. All other pitchers who have achieved this level of strikeouts are in, or will be.