HOF Results

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Looks like the stats listed for 1993 were really his 1992 WS stats. Since one of the arguments for Morris getting into the HoF was his postseason dominance, I think it's fair to look at the series he wasn't so good. He only pitched in 7 postseason series - 3 were very good, 3 were very bad and 1 was mediocre - so it doesn't really show an overall dominance like people try to present when arguing he belongs in the HoF. Maddux and Glavine pitched in a lot more postseason series so a few bad series out of 23 (for Maddux) or 24 (for Glavine) is more like cherry picking than it is when you are talking about almost half of Morris' postseason appearances being bad.

Fair points, but note that unlike Maddux (11-14) and Glavine (14-16), Morris had a winning record postseason (7-4). He averaged more than 7 innings per start, which is more than Maddux and Glavine. He had 5 complete games-- the same as Maddux and Glavine combined in their 47 postseason series. He won complete games of 3-2 and 4-2 in the 1984 World Series, with the AL MVP sitting in his bullpen. And of course the 10 inning 1-0 complete game in 1991. So I don't think it's imagined or overstated to say he took the ball in big games and was more than a bit successful.

[Scocs]

Again, does anyone know what the current protocol is for players who were on the 2022 Early Baseball/Golden Era ballots but failed to reach 75% of the vote? Will they be on the 2032 ballot again taking up one of the ten slots or does the committee select 10 new names?

[cjedmonton]

Originally Posted by Scocs

Again, does anyone know what the current protocol is for players who were on the 2022 Early Baseball/Golden Era ballots but failed to reach 75% of the vote? Will they be on the 2032 ballot again taking up one of the ten slots or does the committee select 10 new names?

This is a great question…can not find a definitive answer, though.

https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-fam...ras-committees

I cannot imagine a fresh ballot of 10 new names would be put forth. Think of how watered down the list would be after just a couple cycles. Likewise, because so many years would have passed between now and the next voing period, why would those who just missed out in 2022 drop off altogether?

Still looking to see if I can find more concrete info on this process.

[Mike D.]

I believe it’s a “new list”, but players who remain from the prior election can be included on it. With Allen falling one vote shy two votes running it’d be a bit shocking if he was left off the next go-around.

[cjedmonton]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I believe it’s a “new list”, but players who remain from the prior election can be included on it. With Allen falling one vote shy two votes running it’d be a bit shocking if he was left off the next go-around.

That’s my thinking. For instance, the Modern ballot elected Miller and Simmons the last go round, so they need to add 2 names to the 2023 voting to bring the ballot up to 10 (as per their rules). But do the current 8 drop off? Garvey, Evans, John, Whitaker, et al?

[GaryPassamonte]

There is a new committee with a new set of candidates each time. Being on the list does not guarantee being on the list the next time. It is possible, but not a given. For example, Doc Adams was on the previous early era ballot and fell just short of election. He wasn't even on the ballot this year.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

There is a new committee with a new set of candidates each time. Being on the list does not guarantee being on the list the next time. It is possible, but not a given. For example, Doc Adams was on the previous early era ballot and fell just short of election. He wasn't even on the ballot this year.

Yes, it’s a new list and there’s no rule saying prior ballot candidates have to be on the next ballot, and no rule saying they can’t be…it’s just “back into the pool of possible candidates”.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by cjedmonton

This is a great question…can not find a definitive answer, though.

https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-fam...ras-committees

I cannot imagine a fresh ballot of 10 new names would be put forth. Think of how watered down the list would be after just a couple cycles. Likewise, I
because so many years would have passed between now and the next voing period, why would those who just missed out in 2022 drop off altogether.

Still looking to see if I can find more concrete info on this process.

From the link you posted, there's this:

Screening Committee - The BBWAA-appointed Historical Overview Committee shall serve as the Screening Committee and consist of 10-12 representatives. The Committee shall identify 10 candidates for the Early Baseball, Golden Days, Modern Baseball and Today's Game Ballot.

So it looks like they will determine a new set of candidates each time, but it sounds like there is no reason someone who was just on the ballot cannot be again. Dick Allen missed by 1 vote a number of years ago, and he missed by 1 vote again this time which was the first time the ballot he was on was reconsidered.

[cjedmonton]

Serious question: why do you think Allen continues to fall short?

His performance was sustained and undeniable.

Are there perhaps some residual issues related to his surliness/perceived surliness (even if justified)?

Do we have a pre-Schilling Schilling situation?

I think we were all shocked to see him miss the cut again, but don’t think we can lean on any “living candidate” advantage Kaat or Oliva might have had. That did not impede Hodges or Minoso this year.

Was Allen a victim of a loaded ballot? Certainly not. Just trying to understand possible circumstances that led to him missing out for at least another 5 years.

Or perhaps his career unfortunately straddled both the Golden Days and the Modern Baseball era…almost perfectly so.

See for yourself. Very identical, although his pre-70 work was superior.

1963-69
https://stathead.com/baseball/player...to=1969&type=b

1970-77
https://stathead.com/baseball/player...to=1977&type=b

I wonder if he would have been better served on the Modern ballot. One could argue his “greatest contributions”, as per the definition of the eras, was after 1969.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by cjedmonton

Serious question: why do you think Allen continues to fall short?

His performance was sustained and undeniable.

Are there perhaps some residual issues related to his surliness/perceived surliness (even if justified)?

Do we have a pre-Schilling Schilling situation?

I think we were all shocked to see him miss the cut again, but don’t think we can lean on any “living candidate” advantage Kaat or Oliva might have had. That did not impede Hodges or Minoso this year.

Was Allen a victim of a loaded ballot? Certainly not. Just trying to understand possible circumstances that led to him missing out for at least another 5 years.

Or perhaps his career unfortunately straddled both the Golden Days and the Modern Baseball era…almost perfectly so.

See for yourself. Very identical, although his pre-70 work was superior.

1963-69
https://stathead.com/baseball/player...to=1969&type=b

1970-77
https://stathead.com/baseball/player...to=1977&type=b

I wonder if he would have been better served on the Modern ballot. One could argue his “greatest contributions”, as per the definition of the eras, was after 1969.

Stats are Allen's best friend, so he looks only stronger as we move more towards stats-based analysis. But he was quite moody, lots of controversy surrounded him, and he was not liked. Think Albert Belle. in his prime, Belle was one of the best hitters I've ever seen, but he never came close to the HOF.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cjedmonton

Serious question: why do you think Allen continues to fall short?

He quit on his teams multiple times and has a very poor reputation.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Tabe

He quit on his teams multiple times and has a very poor reputation.

Yeah, I remember watching him in 1971 with the Dodgers. Looking back he had some very good stats, but he sure could make you pull your hair out (even though I was only 11). Even a street full of pre-teens could tell he wasn't much of a team guy.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Tabe

He quit on his teams multiple times and has a very poor reputation.

Multiple former teammates have disputed that claim and have attested to his being generally well liked in the clubhouse. They realized the treatment he was getting from the press and the fans was more than he deserved or could handle.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Fair points, but note that unlike Maddux (11-14) and Glavine (14-16), Morris had a winning record postseason (7-4). He averaged more than 7 innings per start, which is more than Maddux and Glavine. He had 5 complete games-- the same as Maddux and Glavine combined in their 47 postseason series. He won complete games of 3-2 and 4-2 in the 1984 World Series, with the AL MVP sitting in his bullpen. And of course the 10 inning 1-0 complete game in 1991. So I don't think it's imagined or overstated to say he took the ball in big games and was more than a bit successful.

Yes, Morris had great success in a few World Series games and more complete games than Maddux and Glavine in far fewer starts, but the game was changing by the time Maddux and Glavine pitched the bulk of their postseason games and complete games were becoming rarer so it's a tough comparison to make. Maddux and Glavine pitched far more postseason innings and had much lower ERAs in a generally higher scoring period of baseball so even with worse won-loss records, you could still argue they were better postseason pitchers. The question with Morris has always been given his overall career, is a few great postseason games enough to make him a HoFer? I think that's the question people have debated endlessly. Maddux (definitely) and Glavine (probably) would have been HoFers if they never pitched at all in the postseason. I doubt that would have been true for Morris.