Morris & Trammell Elected to HOF

[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.

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by 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.

Gotta think when comparing players that are not in, you have to be at same position... Comparing Mattingly to Simmons, can't do it... Compare Mattingly to Garvey who gets in?

[packs]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

Gotta think when comparing players that are not in, you have to be at same position... Comparing Mattingly to Simmons, can't do it... Compare Mattingly to Garvey who gets in?

Mattingly gets my vote. Garvey got to play his whole career and he just didn't have it. Mattingly had his career taken from him by an injury. Anyone who ever saw Mattingly play in his prime knew what he was and can only wonder what would have been. There's no mystery with Garvey.

[chalupacollects]

Problem is Mattingly wasn't dominant long enough and Garvey is borderline... HOF can't be based on what ifs...putting either one is may open the door to hall of mediocrity. Neither was a McCovey or a Tony Perez...

[insidethewrapper]

A few positives for Morris . The decade of the 1980's, he had the most wins 162, next was 140. He was 3rd in k's behind only Nolan Ryan and Valenzuela, He had the most complete games at 133. and we all know his World Series performances and 1 No-Hitter. Hall of Fame ? But he was a great pitcher.

[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.

[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

[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.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

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)

[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.