Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Jack Morris Elected to Hall of Fame

  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#21 Tom Froemming

Tom Froemming

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 785 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 09:46 AM

I just don't care for the process. For 15 years hundreds of writers voted and these two didn't make it in. Then it goes to a committee of 16 guys to review their cases and come to a conclusion? Why can't the veterans committees be bigger? 

 

And take a look at the committee. You think fellow St. Paul native Dave Winfield wasn't biased? How about Bobby Cox, John Schuerholz or Don Sutton, all of whom worked for the Braves in 1991. Paul Beeston was the Blue Jays President when they had Morris and Bob Elliot was the Jays writer for the Toronto Sun during the same period.

  • h2oface, Pius Jefferson, Wookiee of the Year and 1 other like this

#22 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,281 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 10:27 AM

 

But when you expand and add more players, you are adding to the bottom, not the top. So it shouldn't affect how many guys get in.
If you contracted 15 teams right now, not a single player hitting the road ever had a chance if being an HOF.

Integration didn't add to the bottom. Adding players from other countries isn't adding to the bottom. Babe Ruth dominated in an era where the talent pool was significantly limited but he and others of his time are overly represented in the HOF. 

 

  • Carole Keller, ashburyjohn, BigSkyTwinsFan and 4 others like this

#23 Doomtints

Doomtints

    Joe's Shades™

  • Members
  • 2,216 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 10:30 AM

This will retire the conversations about whether or not Morris is worthy.

 

This also is a nice sign for Johan, who will probably be voted in by the old timers if he doesn't make it in via the (often clueless and overthinking) writers.

Edited by Doomtints, 11 December 2017 - 10:30 AM.


#24 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 10:32 AM

 

But when you expand and add more players, you are adding to the bottom, not the top. So it shouldn't affect how many guys get in.
If you contracted 15 teams right now, not a single player hitting the road ever had a chance if being an HOF.

 

Adding the Negro League players and later Latin and Asian players isn't adding to the bottom. The pool of talent has greatly expanded from what we probably still consider baseball's hayday.

  • Carole Keller, ashburyjohn and gunnarthor like this

#25 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 16,051 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 11 December 2017 - 10:48 AM

But when you expand and add more players, you are adding to the bottom, not the top. So it shouldn't affect how many guys get in.
If you contracted 15 teams right now, not a single player hitting the road ever had a chance if being an HOF.

It's a fair point, but not really relevant. In addition to the replies so far, I'll mention that the US population by itself is nearly three times the size as in Babe Ruth's day. Had there been no baseball expansion, the 16 teams would be packed thrice as deep in high-end talent, because the bell-curve still has the same shape but the greater number of candidates moves the cutoff line higher.

  • nicksaviking and h2oface like this

My New Year's resolution: finish what I star


#26 dbminn

dbminn

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 410 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul, MN

Posted 11 December 2017 - 11:03 AM

Congratulations to Jack Morris! Too bad he'll never make it in the Hall of WAR - but then again, Sandy Koufax wouldn't be in HOF by that measure either.

Edited by dbminn, 11 December 2017 - 11:04 AM.

  • h2oface likes this

#27 mikelink45

mikelink45

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1,281 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 11:47 AM

I love this election.Two deserving men.The only thing negative is that Jack will no longer get all the free national publicity.Now that he is in we will move on and we will write about the next close vote getter.But does Jack deserve to get it?Yes.Most definitely.He was described often by broadcasters and writers as a future Hall of Famer.We might someday get the statistical hall of fame, but right now it is the baseball hall of fame and it should reflect the fan and the feelings that they have for the player.

 

Jack was a trusted pitcher in multiple lineups and rotations.He was good for opening day and for critical matches.Players and management had trust in him.No one said, wait, check his ERA before we put him on the mount.How many years would we have gladly inserted him into the Twins rotation?

 

Stat complilersget in and always will, but certainly players just feel like they belong there.  

 

Trammel is interesting because he was always good.He was steady, he was dependable, but never did Ozzie's backflip, scorched the bases like Aparicio, or slugged homeruns like Banks.Being dependable and consistent has lots of value and today that got recognized. 


#28 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,452 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 11:53 AM

It's a fair point, but not really relevant. In addition to the replies so far, I'll mention that the US population by itself is nearly three times the size as in Babe Ruth's day. Had there been no baseball expansion, the 16 teams would be packed thrice as deep in high-end talent, because the bell-curve still has the same shape but the greater number of candidates moves the cutoff line higher.


All great points. My mistake.
  • ashburyjohn and nicksaviking like this

#29 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 16,051 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 11 December 2017 - 11:57 AM

Trammel is interesting because he was always good.He was steady, he was dependable, but never did Ozzie's backflip, scorched the bases like Aparicio, or slugged homeruns like Banks.Being dependable and consistent has lots of value and today that got recognized. 

He was no Steady Eddie Bressoud. :) Alan Trammell was, in addition to being dependable and consistent, *really* good.

 

Really, really good. A plus defender at a premium position, who could hit. He could hit well above the league average most seasons during his prime. His team might have been happy with his bat if he had played at first base, those years. But he didn't play first, he played SS, meaning you could go out and get a bat-only guy for first base if you liked. And you didn't have to substitute him out in the late innings for defense - no, if his bat had been bad, he might still have been the late-inning defensive substitute.

 

I might be seriously underselling him by saying he's really, really good. He was *really*, really, really good. Greatest SS ever? No. But a long-standing oversight has finally been corrected.

  • BigSkyTwinsFan, snepp and mikelink45 like this

My New Year's resolution: finish what I star


#30 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,168 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 12:07 PM

Congratulations to Jack Morris! Too bad he'll never make it in the Hall of WAR - but then again, Sandy Koufax wouldn't be in HOF by that measure either.

I keep hearing/reading people slam WAR as to why Morris wasnt making it in before. There are sooooo many old school reasons you can point to to explain why he didnt make it. No need to even mention WAR.

Like, for examples, for his career his ERA was only 5% better than league average. ERA is pretty old school. Or his low K/9 ration and his high BB/9 ratio. Or never winning a CY. All old school reasoning.

And,lets face it, the first 5 or so years on the ballot, newer things like WAR were barely mentioned, much less being used as some kind of barometer for HOF worthiness or individual season awards worthiness. Pretty sure Fangraphs was the first site to have a WAR stat and Fangraphs itself wasnt even in existence until Morris had been on the ballot for like 3 years.

Edited by jimmer, 11 December 2017 - 12:24 PM.

  • dbminn likes this

#31 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,711 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 11 December 2017 - 12:25 PM

Reusse on Morris making it:

 

http://www.startribu...ta/463293213/#1

 

Being the provincial homer I am, it is amazing to think that 3 hall of famers grew up within 5 years and 3 miles of each other in the same city (where I currently live).

  • ashburyjohn, gunnarthor, nicksaviking and 1 other like this
Papers...business papers.

#32 Tom Froemming

Tom Froemming

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 785 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 12:26 PM

 

I keep hearing/reading people slam WAR as to why Morris wasnt making it in before. There are sooooo many old school reasons you can point to to explain why he didnt make it. No need to even mention WAR.

Like, for examples, for his career his ERA was only 5% better than league average. ERA is pretty old school. Or his low K/9 ration and his high BB/9 ratio. Or never winning a CY. All old school reasoning.

And,lets face it, the first 5 or so years on the ballot, newer things like WAR were barely mentioned, much less being used as some kind of barometer for HOF worthiness or individual season awards worthiness.

But he was a winner! Or wait ...

 

Most losses in the 1980s
126 Jim Clancy
122 Frank Tanana
119 Jack Morris

 

Morris had just the 18th best W-L% (.577) among pitchers with at least 100 decisions in the 80s. That was also his career mark, which is nearly identical to Bartolo Colon's. Somebody brought up Sandy Koufax earlier, his W-L% was .655. Johan Santana's was .641. Just sayin'.

  • jimmer likes this

#33 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Minnesota Twins

  • Members
  • 2,525 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 12:59 PM

I think Jack pitched to the score a lot. In today’s game, he would have been taken out of games with big leads. But he was allowed to stay in and rack up innings, and often give up cheap, meaningless runs.

PS: In 7 career World Series starts, 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA, 3 CG. In 6 career World Series starts and one relief appearance, Don Drysdale had 3 wins and a 2.95 ERA. In 13 World Series starts, “big game” Andy Pettitte had an ERA north of 4.

Don’t kid yourselves, October still matters to the voters.
  • Platoon likes this

#34 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 01:17 PM

 

But he was a winner! Or wait ...

 

Most losses in the 1980s
126 Jim Clancy
122 Frank Tanana
119 Jack Morris

 

Morris had just the 18th best W-L% (.577) among pitchers with at least 100 decisions in the 80s. That was also his career mark, which is nearly identical to Bartolo Colon's. Somebody brought up Sandy Koufax earlier, his W-L% was .655. Johan Santana's was .641. Just sayin'.

 

So we've come full circle and we're back to W/L record? I thought Wins was basically the stat that got everyone to finally wake up to how silly some stats actually were. Nolan Ryan and Bert Blyleven were also both top 12 in losses in the 1980's as well.

 

And lumping a guy in with Frank Tanana isn't a demerit to me; he's one of the all time under-rated pitchers in my book.


#35 dbminn

dbminn

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 410 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul, MN

Posted 11 December 2017 - 01:49 PM

 

I keep hearing/reading people slam WAR as to why Morris wasnt making it in before. There are sooooo many old school reasons you can point to to explain why he didnt make it. No need to even mention WAR.

Like, for examples, for his career his ERA was only 5% better than league average. ERA is pretty old school. Or his low K/9 ration and his high BB/9 ratio. Or never winning a CY. All old school reasoning.

And,lets face it, the first 5 or so years on the ballot, newer things like WAR were barely mentioned, much less being used as some kind of barometer for HOF worthiness or individual season awards worthiness. Pretty sure Fangraphs was the first site to have a WAR stat and Fangraphs itself wasnt even in existence until Morris had been on the ballot for like 3 years.

 

All of your points have validity. The writers didn't vote for him and I would not have been upset if the veterans didn't vote him in either.

 

Where I disagree is related to the commentary re: WAR. Paul Swydan just published a HoF screed  at FG - basically suggesting the HoF isn't worth anyone's time because WAR isn't the judge (written before Morris was selected). Here at TD, we have a writer who I respect very much calling the selection "biased" and one that "lowers the bar".  

 

Morris was selected by a veterans' committee that included professionals who either played or were responsible for teams that competed against Morris. If they selected him, then fine. I'm okay with it. They were contemporaries and I respect their opinion.  

Edited by dbminn, 11 December 2017 - 01:54 PM.

  • USAFChief, jimmer and Don Walcott like this

#36 mikelink45

mikelink45

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1,281 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 01:58 PM

 

He was no Steady Eddie Bressoud. :) Alan Trammell was, in addition to being dependable and consistent, *really* good.

 

Really, really good. A plus defender at a premium position, who could hit. He could hit well above the league average most seasons during his prime. His team might have been happy with his bat if he had played at first base, those years. But he didn't play first, he played SS, meaning you could go out and get a bat-only guy for first base if you liked. And you didn't have to substitute him out in the late innings for defense - no, if his bat had been bad, he might still have been the late-inning defensive substitute.

 

I might be seriously underselling him by saying he's really, really good. He was *really*, really, really good. Greatest SS ever? No. But a long-standing oversight has finally been corrected.

I do not mean to demean his skills, they already did that when they forced him to be elected by the veterans committee (modern committee), but it was the lack of flash that both got him in and also delayed his election.

  • ashburyjohn likes this

#37 Tom Froemming

Tom Froemming

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 785 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 02:10 PM

 

So we've come full circle and we're back to W/L record? I thought Wins was basically the stat that got everyone to finally wake up to how silly some stats actually were. Nolan Ryan and Bert Blyleven were also both top 12 in losses in the 1980's as well.

 

And lumping a guy in with Frank Tanana isn't a demerit to me; he's one of the all time under-rated pitchers in my book.

This was in support of jimmer's statement that "There are sooooo many old school reasons you can point to to explain why he didn't make it. No need to even mention WAR." The main old school reason to support Morris is wins. People love that "winningest pitcher of the 80s" title, but he lost a heck of a lot of games too. I was just trying to point out that there's neither a great new or old school argument in Morris' favor. 

 

In he end I don't care specifically that Jack Morris is in. I just don't care for the process and am frustrated that he's in and a ton of other guys who have just as good if not better cases are not ... guys like Frank Tanana. He didn't get a single vote when he was up for election in 1999.

  • jimmer likes this

#38 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,168 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 02:27 PM

All of your points have validity. The writers didn't vote for him and I would not have been upset if the veterans didn't vote him in either.

Where I disagree is related to the commentary re: WAR. Paul Swydan just published a HoF screed at FG - basically suggesting the HoF isn't worth anyone's time because WAR isn't the judge (written before Morris was selected). Here at TD, we have a writer who I respect very much calling the selection "biased" and one that "lowers the bar".

Morris was selected by a veterans' committee that included professionals who either played or were responsible for teams that competed against Morris. If they selected him, then fine. I'm okay with it. They were contemporaries and I respect their opinion.

I just read Paul Swydans article. Does he even say the word WAR (other than mentioning JAWS once)? Im sorry, but I read it and not sure how you came to think his conclusion was what you said. I do think he is sayng there should be high standards and some consistency. He had a problem with Morgans letter. He has a problem with all ballot not being public.

Now he does say he likes a place called Hall of Stats, which certainly has WAR in it, but that is different than saying WAR should decide who gets in the Hall of Fame.

I guess after reading the article I dont find that he is saying what you say he is saying. And even if he is,its just a guys opinion,not the opinion of everyone who values the WAR stat

Edited by jimmer, 11 December 2017 - 02:30 PM.


#39 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,281 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 02:28 PM

 

 

 

In he end I don't care specifically that Jack Morris is in. I just don't care for the process and am frustrated that he's in and a ton of other guys who have just as good if not better cases are not ... guys like Frank Tanana. He didn't get a single vote when he was up for election in 1999.

Well this is entirely on the BBWAA. While some have argued that the writers have lowered the bar for admission to the HOF the one position that they haven't lowered is starting pitcher.Here is how the writers have treated starting pitchers.

 

2015 - Pedro, Smoltz, Big Unit

2014- Glavine, Maddux (These five averaged 300+wins and 3 Cy Youngs apiece. They are all absolute elite starters and all but Pedro threw over 4000 innings)

2011 - Blyleven - was on the ballot forever and finally got in. By WAR, he's better than some of the pitchers elected in 14 and 15.

1999 - Nolan Ryan - yep, the writers didn't elect a single starting pitcher at all between Ryan and Blyleven, although they put in several relief pitchers. Ryan, of course, is another inner circle HOFer. Jack Morris got on the ballot the next year.

1998 - Don Sutton - 300+ wins, 5000+ innings. That was his fifth year on the ballot

1997 - Phil Neikro - 300+ wins, 5000+ innings, nearly 100 WAR. His fifth year on the ballot and there were lots of articles about "compiling wins" at the time.

1994 - Steve Carlton - another inner circle HOFer

1992 - Tom Seaver - in the conversation for best pitcher ever.

 

And that's the entire list of starting pitchers selected by the BBWAA over the last 25 years. 11 guys and all but Sutton are inner circle pitchers. That is completely small hall voting. Morris, Saberhagen, Tanana, Guidry, Kaat, John, Radke, Hershiser, Cone, Brown etc were all dropped or ignored. Not all were HOF worthy but there were a lot of guys who deserved more looks.

 

  • drjim and Don Walcott like this

#40 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8,281 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 02:43 PM

 

I just read Paul Swydans article. Does he even say the word WAR (other than mentioning JAWS once)? Im sorry, but I read it and not sure how you came to think his conclusion was what you said. I do think he is sayng there should be high standards and some consistency. He had a problem with Morgans letter. He has a problem with all ballot not being public.

Now he does say he likes a place called Hall of Stats, which certainly has WAR in it, but that is different than saying WAR should decide who gets in the Hall of Fame.

I guess after reading the article I dont find that he is saying what you say he is saying. And even if he is,its just a guys opinion,not the opinion of everyone who values the WAR stat

I dunno man. Reading that article it seems pretty clear that he wants WAR to be the decider or close to it. Basically, the article seemed a lot like a guy with only child syndrome saying since something isn't like how he'd want it, it's not good. Seemed petty to me. That's probably how dbminn read it too.