Morris & Trammell Elected to HOF

[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.

[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 Shoeless Moe

Madison Bumgarner got in?

No, Don Larsen.

[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.

[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.

[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 . . . .

[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.

[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 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.

[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????

[timn1]

Steve Garvey? Are you kiddin', man?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by timn1

Steve Garvey? Are you kiddin', man?

Trammel was an all-star six times, never more than twice in a row and finished in the top six for MVP once.

Garvey was an all-star eight years in a row (and was an AS ten times); and finished in the top six for MVP five times (winning it once).

They each won four Gold Gloves.

Garvey was just the more dominant player of his era.

[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).

[mb2005]

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.

Tommy John should get in just for inventing that surgery that has helped so many pitchers

[profholt82]

To the guys knocking Morris' numbers, his post season performance (World Series in particular) performances have to be taken into account to truly appreciate what he accomplished. Those 3 rings with 3 different clubs don't lie. And his 10 inning game 7 shutout against the Braves is absolutely legendary. There are pitchers in the Hall who accomplished less. I understand the induction.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by profholt82

To the guys knocking Morris' numbers, his post season performance (World Series in particular) performances have to be taken into account to truly appreciate what he accomplished. Those 3 rings with 3 different clubs don't lie. And his 10 inning game 7 shutout against the Braves is absolutely legendary. There are pitchers in the Hall who accomplished less. I understand the induction.

His post season ERA was 3.80. His contribution to the third ring was 0-2 in the WS with an ERA of 8.44.

[abothebear]

I tend to think the stretch from the late 60s to the early 90s is the most difficult to judge. The mound was lower, the players were baby-boomers, the culture had changed, lots of new stadiums and expansion, games were on TV. These things made that era different from the previous era. And at the end of it, the steroid era was ramping up and then the strike season really made it difficult to recognize the dominant players of that time, especially for those players whose careers essentially ended around the strike. We understood baseball differently in the 90s because of those two things and how they worked together. The 70s and 80s players just don't match up in our minds to the players in the era before them or after.

I followed the Tigers during that time. And Morris was always the ace. If he never played for the Twins or Blue Jays he would still, in my mind, be THE pitcher of that decade (non-nolan ryan division). The Twins and Blue Jays years allowed him to shine brightly on the post-season stage again. Does that mean I think he should be a HOFer? I don't know. Given the era, and when he started and how he finished, it feels right to me that he made it. I think there are others from that time that would also be excellent representatives of the era that are not in.

[packs]

As much as everyone talks about Morris being a great pitcher in his time he only finished in the top 3 for Cy Young Voting twice and never won during an 18 year career. That doesn't sound typical for a guy who was the best pitcher of the 80s or whatever. Also seems strange that for a guy everyone hails for pitching complete games, he only led the league once. His peak numbers are nowhere near the HOF standard either.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by profholt82

To the guys knocking Morris' numbers, his post season performance (World Series in particular) performances have to be taken into account to truly appreciate what he accomplished. Those 3 rings with 3 different clubs don't lie. And his 10 inning game 7 shutout against the Braves is absolutely legendary. There are pitchers in the Hall who accomplished less. I understand the induction.

David Wells won 2 World Series. 10-5 post season record. 3.17 post season ERA. Pitched a perfect game in Yankee Stadium. 1998 ALCS MVP. morris had three very good post season series and three terrible ones. The year after his 1991 breathtaking game seven performance, he was lit up like a Christmas tree in both the post season series he pitched in. Wells was overall the better postseason pitcher. And he was Morris' equal during the regular season.

[SAllen2556]

According to Reggie Jackson on whether Bert Blyleven should have been elected into the Hall of Fame: “No. No, no, no, no. Blyleven wasn’t even the dominant pitcher of his era, it was Jack Morris.”

Good enough for me. I think.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

According to Reggie Jackson on whether Bert Blyleven should have been elected into the Hall of Fame: “No. No, no, no, no. Blyleven wasn’t even the dominant pitcher of his era, it was Jack Morris.”

Good enough for me. I think.

One problem with that. Reggie's an idiot...

Hell old man version of Nolan Ryan would get my vote for dominant long before Morris.

Morris's career numbers match up pretty well with guys like Denny Martinez, Orel Hershiser, and Fernando Valenzuela, who all had more dominant stretches than Morris's best.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

One problem with that. Reggie's an idiot...

Hell old man version of Nolan Ryan would get my vote for dominant long before Morris.

Morris's career numbers match up pretty well with guys like Denny Martinez, Orel Hershiser, and Fernando Valenzuela, who all had more dominant stretches than Morris's best.

In 1979 when the Pirates were down 3-1, did Chuck Tanner give the ball to Blyleven with the season on the line? No, he sent him to the bullpen. Why? Chuck Tanner said Blyleven was a selfish player who cared about personal stats rather than team wins. In 1980 Blyleven threw a temper tantrum and quit the team after being pulled after giving up 4 runs in 5.2 innings. The Pirates were in 1st place at the time and ended up not making the playoffs. Blyleven was a distraction for the rest of the season, demanding a trade. The Pirates did after the season, for Gary Alexander, Victor Cruz, Bob Owchinko and Rafael Vasquez. Who? Lol. A Hofer? in his prime traded for garbage.

In 1991 with the season on the line, Tom Kelly gave the ball to Jack Morris. He pitched 10 shutout innings and the Twins won a championship. To actual baseball players, having your teammate's back is more important than personal stats. Reggie Jackson was about winning championships. To that end Morris is more deserving than Blyleven. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by rats60

In 1979 when the Pirates were down 3-1, did Chuck Tanner give the ball to Blyleven with the season on the line? No, he sent him to the bullpen. Why? Chuck Tanner said Blyleven was a selfish player who cared about personal stats rather than team wins. In 1980 Blyleven threw a temper tantrum and quit the team after being pulled after giving up 4 runs in 5.2 innings. The Pirates were in 1st place at the time and ended up not making the playoffs. Blyleven was a distraction for the rest of the season, demanding a trade. The Pirates did after the season, for Gary Alexander, Victor Cruz, Bob Owchinko and Rafael Vasquez. Who? Lol. A Hofer? in his prime traded for garbage.

In 1991 with the season on the line, Tom Kelly gave the ball to Jack Morris. He pitched 10 shutout innings and the Twins won a championship. To actual baseball players, having your teammate's back is more important than personal stats. Reggie Jackson was about winning championships. To that end Morris is more deserving than Blyleven. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats.

I said nothing in my post about Blyleven yet your entire reply was about him???!!!

Reggie's an idiot for lots of things he says including "Jack Morris was the dominant pitcher of his era." Sorry but that statement is idiocy no matter how you slice it.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

According to Reggie Jackson on whether Bert Blyleven should have been elected into the Hall of Fame: “No. No, no, no, no. Blyleven wasn’t even the dominant pitcher of his era, it was Jack Morris.”

Good enough for me. I think.

Dave Stieb was a better pitcher than Jack Morris. So were:

Curt Schilling
Rick Reuschel
Kevin Brown
Mike Mussina
David Cone
Bret Saberhagen
Frank Tannana
Chuck Finley
Kevin Appier
Dwight Gooden
Mark Langston
Frank Viola
Kenny Rogers
Jimmy Key

That's just during and after the Jack Morris era

Morris career win% was .577. The win% for his teams when he did not pitch was .538. Thus he didn't make that much of a difference on the outcome for his team overall. He just played on really good teams during his career.

[nolemmings]

Congratulations to Jack. That makes 3 native sons of St. Paul that have made it to Cooperstown during my lifetime. Now just a few more good seasons and we can wait for Mauer to join them.

One thing about Jack that I believe goes mostly unnoticed is his complete games. In that respect Game 7 from 1991 was a fitting example. He was simply a horse. As for his career, he finished what he started 175 times. Basically 10 per season. That's 57 more than Clemens, more still than Maddux, Pedro and Randy, and 119 better than Glavine. Assuming his productivity tailed off the later he pitched in each game, his ERA is presumably somewhat higher than it otherwise should register. Regardless, it's pretty apparent that he saved a lot of bullpen arms, probably a stat the geeks haven't been able to quantify and rationalize for us yet, so as to tell us we don't know what we saw with our own eyes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

According to Reggie Jackson on whether Bert Blyleven should have been elected into the Hall of Fame: “No. No, no, no, no. Blyleven wasn’t even the dominant pitcher of his era, it was Jack Morris.”

Good enough for me. I think.

Blyleven's ERA was 60 points lower.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Blyleven's ERA was 60 points lower.

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.

[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?

[Chris Counts]

Trammell is an obvious Hall of Famer, while Morris is more in the borderline Jesse Haines/ Eppa Rixey/Waite Hoyt category. I'm happy to see both of them in the Hall of Fame.

I don't understand those who want to board up the Hall of Fame and keep everybody out. Open up the floodgates!