Morris & Trammell Elected to HOF

[rhettyeakley]

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

[Kzoo]

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.

[HRBAKER]

underwhelmed, but it's a good day in Detroit

[rhettyeakley]

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.

[CMIZ5290]

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

[bobbvc]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bobbvc

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'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.

[CMIZ5290]

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....

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

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.

[ejharrington]

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

[sycks22]

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

[paul]

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.

[paul]

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.

[mattsey9]

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

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by sycks22

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

Madison Bumgarner got in?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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....

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

[OldOriole]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

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.

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

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Madison Bumgarner got in?

No, Don Larsen.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by OldOriole

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

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.

[OldOriole]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

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

[OldOriole]

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.

[seanofjapan]

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).

[orly57]

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.

[insidethewrapper]

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.

[calvindog]

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.

[billyb]

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.

[btcarfagno]

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

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OldOriole

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

Higher than Barry Bonds and Clemens????

[btcarfagno]

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

[Marchillo]

Originally Posted by orly57

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

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

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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....

Huh? Kevin where are you coming up with this?

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

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 !

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 . . . .

[Mark]

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.

[Jenx34]

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.

[pclpads]

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.

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

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.

[glynparson]

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.

[btcarfagno]

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

[soxinseven]

Originally Posted by kailes2872

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.

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...

[ccre]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

I agree 100%.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[Marchillo]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

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

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Marchillo

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

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

[BradH]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

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?

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.