Morris & Trammell Elected to HOF

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

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.

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

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

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

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?

[sycks22]

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

[DixieBaseball]

I am good with Morris getting in.... He had longevity at a high level with respect to his peer group in his era.

Multiple year All-Star Pitcher with 175 Complete Games (WOW!), Three 20 Win Seasons, Over 250 Wins, 4 World Series Pitched in, and 1 World Series MVP (10 Shutout innings in Game 7).

Pretty stellar to me. The 175 CG is incredible.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by DixieBaseball

Pretty stellar to me. The 175 CG is incredible.

Good enough for 180th place on the career leaders list. Zowie!

[packs]

He only led the league in complete games once, which means other pitchers were more incredible every year except one.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Good enough for 180th place on the career leaders list. Zowie!

And since 1979, Morris is number 1. Second is Roger Clemens at 118. So, no other pitchers were any where close to Morris as a pitcher able to finish what he started in the current era.

[Orioles1954]

Lou Whitaker was better.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Lou Whitaker was better.

This is also true. Sad, but true.

[Chris-Counts]

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

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

[ejharrington]

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

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

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

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

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

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

[packs]

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

[z28jd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marchillo]

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