Modern Era Ballot Full Of Flaws

Miller should make it.   The others had their chance recently and were passed over for good reasons.   The Veterans' committee looks like a back door to the Hall arrangement and really serves no purpose.

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/27938-hall-of-fame-modern-era-ballot/

It always has been. It's just strange to me that they keep making up new eras and groupings in an attempt to get more players in. It has worked minimally in the past. I know that Bill Mazeroski was a Veteran's committee guy in the year Puckett and Winfield went in. They've been trying to get guys like Oliva in for a long time. I don't think any of these players are HOFers, though I'm not against it. Marvin Miller should be in, but he shouldn't be in the same category as players... This is just a weird one, in my opinion. 

Agree.  Miller is on a different category.  Right there with the Baseball Executives and the like. 

As far as players go, they need a rule that a player needs to be 20 years away from the last time he was on the regular ballot for his candidacy to be re-examined.  Just imagine what hysterics will happen in those "modern era" ballots when McGwire, Clemens, Sosa, Bonds et al. are included, if they do not make it the usual way.

Not an impressive list, frankly.

Trammell deserves it, I think. He should have won an MVP in '87, probably should have gotten at least one more all-star bid. A lot of great seasons and almost no bad ones.

Tiant is a no for me. It wasn't like he was robbed of a Cy or anything. He's a terrific pitcher who's in the Hall of Very Good for me. Had some injuries in his prime years and inconsistency in his 30s. Doubt he makes this list if he's not on those Boston teams from the 70's.

ted Simmons is a close call. He was a better defender than his rep and a terrific hitter, especially for a catcher. A terrific player for a long time, he also never had that really high peak where you'd legitimately think of him as an MVP. I'd have him just short, but I wouldn't cry if he went in, partly because there reall aren't a ton of catchers in there.

Dave Parker has to be a no. Only one really good season once he turned 29? (The MVP votes he got in '86 were absurd; he was too highly ranked in '85, but at least he had a good year then, his last as a pro) The peak was great, but 5 years is not enough to get into the HoF and he doesn't have anything else to hand his hat on.

Dale Murphy has the same problem as Parker: a great peak but then he fall off the face of the earth. probably didn't deserve the first MVP either, although he wasn't a terrible choice or anything; people just cared too much about RBIs back then and ignored Mike Schimdt & Gary Carter that year. I'd say no here too.

Jack Morris. I've been down this road many a time. A fine pitcher who could hang with the best of them...he just wasn't actually the best of them. Pitching to the score is BS, and Jack gave up too many runs to get in. 

Marvin Miller. Eh, it'd be fine. Been better if they'd done it when he was alive.

Don Mattingly. No, no, no! Vastly overrated player who piled up a ton of GG he almost certainly didn't deserve entirely because he played in NYC in the era before everyone could be seen often on tv. Won an MVP when he wasn't even the best guy on his own team. Short career, short peak. He's Kent Hrbek with far better press. See anyone clamoring for Hrbie to get in the HoF?

Tommy John. Borderline for me here too. long, long career (sometimes I still think he's pitching). Certainly meets the "fame" threshold. Piled up a lot of innings, great at keeping the ball in the park. But got most of his Cy Young steam because he was playing in big markets on pretty good teams. The peak's too low, not enough high levels seasons for me. Something of a compiler because he played so damn long.

Steve Garvey. Another No. Mattingly was a better player, and the extra 5 years of decline with the Padres don't do Garvey and favors. His MVP is another bad one; just like Mattingly he wasn't even the best player on his own team that year! Not a chance for this guy.

Keith Hernandez is the biggest snub that comes to mind for me. He's substantially better than either Mattingly or Garvey and played the same position. Mex was actually a reasonable choice as MVP the year he won it, and was historically good defensively. There may be other guys that are deserving to be on this ballot, but it's especially galling to have Garvey & Mattingly on the ballot and then to exclude Hernandez. Maybe that's on purpose: if you leave of Hernandez, maybe people won't compare Garvey & Mattingly to him and realize how they really aren't in the same league...

Just cherry picking actual historical facts, as opposed to hypothetical rating systems.

But it is cherry picking if you only point out things that support your stance and none that counter your position.  For instance, he had Cy Young votes in 7 seasons, but never finished higher than 3rd.  One of the guys that you listed that had more also isn't in the Hall (Mussina), who many feel was better than Tom Glavine who made it on the first ballot.  Five AS appearances are pretty underwhelming for a HoF argument, especially if he's as dominant as you make out him to be.

I like Morris.  I think he was a very good pitcher that benefited greatly by being on great teams.  Yes, he was part of what made them great, no doubt.  He had the moxie that I'd want on any team regardless of how well he was actually pitching.  IMO, he was on the 2nd tier of pitchers of his era.  Very good, but not elite and thus not HoF worthy in my opinion.

This is what makes sports fun though.  People will have different opinions and the debates are pretty fun.

I thought it was clear i was acknowledging that I was cherry picking facts. Given time and space constraints, isn't any post cherry picking? . . . Now, I'm nit-picking.

 

I mentioned the 3 All-Star starts because you can't find another pitcher who started 3 All-Star games who is not in the Hall. Morris probably wasn't in more All-Star games because he had several seasons where he wasn't very good in the first half, but was lights out in the second half -- like 1983 and 1986.

 

I agree with Glavine being a first-time HOFer. I also think Mussina should be in. Clemens would be in, but for steroids. So, my point on the Cy Young votes is that the only pitchers touching his era who had more years where someone voted for them were HOFers. And, I thought, my other point was that he should have been the Cy Young in 1983, but for a bias toward wins. He pitched way more innings than Hoyt, with an ERA of 1/3 of a run less, with way more strikeouts, but Hoyt had 24 wins. If he were a guy who had more WAR to appease people who rely solely on that rating system, everyone would be pointing out the injustice of the 1983 Cy Young voting.

 

Here's a list of pitchers who had less years with Cy Young votes::

 

1. Steve Carlton –   6  HOF
  2. Fergie Jenkins –   6  HOF
  3.  Dennis Eckersley –  6  HOF
  4. Tom Glavine –   6  HOF
  5. Mariano Rivera –   6  Sure thing HOF
  6. Johan Santana –   6
  7. Roy Oswalt –   6
  8.  Justin Verlander –  6
  9. Dan Quisenberry –  5
  10. CC Sabathia –   5
  11. Andy Pettitte –   5
  12. John Smoltz –   5  HOF
  13. Bruce Sutter –   5  HOF
  14. Phil Niekro –   5  HOF
  15. Gaylord Perry –   5  HOF
  16. Rich Gossage –   5  HOF
  17. Don Sutton –   5  HOF
  18. Catfish Hunter –   4  HOF
  19. Rollie Fingers –   4  HOF
  20. Lee Smith –   4
  21. Trevor Hoffman –  4  Likely HOF
  22. Curt Schilling –   4
  23. Bert Blyleven –   4  HOF

 

Here's a list of those who had as many or more:

 

1. Roger Clemens –   12 
  2. Randy Johnson –   10  HOF
  3. Tom Seaver –   10  HOF
  4. Mike Mussina –   9  Likely HOF
  5. Greg Maddux –   9  HOF
  6. Jim Palmer –   8  HOF
  7. Nolan Ryan –   8  HOF
  8. Roy Halladay –   7*  Likely HOF
  9. Pedro Martinez –   7  HOF

 

 

Another cherry-picking fact: Glavine had 682 career starts, and 216 wins where he pitched 7 innings or more. Morris had 525 career starts, and 217 wins where he pitched 7 innings or more. 86% of Morris' wins were 7 innings or more, leaving 2 innings or less for the bullpen to handle.  45% of his wins, the bullpen didn't need to get up at all (more than 1 out of every 5 times he pitched). Both guys had pretty consistently good or great offenses on their teams. But Morris relied much less on his bullpen.

 

Sure, there were years where his stats ended up pretty ordinary (except for innings pitched and CGs). But my point is that its seems like people either don't remember or don't want to remember how dominant he was at times during his prime.

Yes, you did acknowledge the cherry picking.  That wasn't really aimed at you, my apologies for being unclear.  

Much of this debate, in my view, is based on what you feel is a HoF'er.  To me, that is where these debates get fun if it is kept civil.  If you're going to use ASG and awards and even rings as a basis of an argument, he doesn't overwhelm me with anything there aside from the rings.  I don't tend to give much weight to a championship in a team sport to ones individual accomplishments however.  Awards have flaws (see Dozier, Gold Glove).  I'm not ignoring them, just not weighting them much.  The average healthy season that you quoted for Morris in your first post is a nice one, but not what I would consider to be elite.  That is when he was at his best, so I'm certainly not going to be wowed by his entire body of work.

I'm not saying that he wasn't dominant.  Clearly, he had his moments.  Many of them in big spots.  I can acknowledge and appreciate the greatness of a Jack Morris without believing that he was elite and HoF worthy.  The CG's are nice, but he also had 67 fewer than another fringe HoF guy in Blyleven.  Yes, he had four more seasons, but also pitched on mostly bad teams and still managed to win wherever he went.  Bert also posted 32 more shutouts in those CG's.  That's dominant to me and I still consider Bert to be fringe.  Bert betters Jack in most every other statistical category as well, even when comparing their average seasons.

Some people like a lot of guys in the HoF, and that's perfectly fine.  I don't, which is also perfectly fine.

Sigh. I always feel bad crapping on the Jack Morris HoF candidacy, because we was a fine pitcher for a long time and was the most important part of one of the greatest games on baseball history. But you have to really hang a LOT on that one game and the concept that Morris was an "ace" to compensate for what are, quite frankly sub-standard numbers.

Career ERA 3.90. That's just not hall-worthy. Tiant & John were both more than half a run better over their careers, and I'm not a proponent of either of them. Morris never had a season with an ERA under 3.00 in his entire career. never.

He never won a Cy, and never really deserved one, either. You look down his stats and you don't see any truly dominant seasons. his best work was done in years where he had teams that had enough offense that they could let him keep pitching deep into the game. His greatest skill as a pitcher was eating innings. Make no mistake, that is a valuable skill! But I'd need him to have something else to make him into the Hall. 

Did you know he averaged less than 1.5 WAR for his last 7 seasons? There was one last really good season in 1991 with the twins, that magical year that everyone remembers him for...but the decline was fast for Morris. The 1992 season with Toronto had a lot of wins, but he wasn't a great pitcher that year.

Post-season always comes up for Morris, so let's look at it. he was outstanding in 1984, the prime of his career. he got shelled in 1987. he was outstanding for the twins in 1991, especially in the WS. He was awful in 1992. So a bit of a mixed bag, right?

he wasn't a great strikeout pitcher. he never had the elite seasons. he gave up a lot of runs. he didn't win the big hardware. he didn't get a lot of "black type" stats (leading the league) and half the ones he did get are the bad ones. (led the league in Wild Pitches 6 times!)

very good pitcher. made a manager's life a lot easier because he pitched a lot of innings and could save your bullpen. not a hall of famer.

Subjective data such as All Star, and end of season awards  should not become objective statistical data.

Sigh. I always feel bad crapping on the Jack Morris HoF candidacy, because we was a fine pitcher for a long time and was the most important part of one of the greatest games on baseball history. But you have to really hang a LOT on that one game and the concept that Morris was an "ace" to compensate for what are, quite frankly sub-standard numbers.

 

Career ERA 3.90. That's just not hall-worthy. Tiant & John were both more than half a run better over their careers, and I'm not a proponent of either of them. Morris never had a season with an ERA under 3.00 in his entire career. never.

 

He never won a Cy, and never really deserved one, either. You look down his stats and you don't see any truly dominant seasons. his best work was done in years where he had teams that had enough offense that they could let him keep pitching deep into the game. His greatest skill as a pitcher was eating innings. Make no mistake, that is a valuable skill! But I'd need him to have something else to make him into the Hall. 

 

Did you know he averaged less than 1.5 WAR for his last 7 seasons? There was one last really good season in 1991 with the twins, that magical year that everyone remembers him for...but the decline was fast for Morris. The 1992 season with Toronto had a lot of wins, but he wasn't a great pitcher that year.

 

Post-season always comes up for Morris, so let's look at it. he was outstanding in 1984, the prime of his career. he got shelled in 1987. he was outstanding for the twins in 1991, especially in the WS. He was awful in 1992. So a bit of a mixed bag, right?

 

he wasn't a great strikeout pitcher. he never had the elite seasons. he gave up a lot of runs. he didn't win the big hardware. he didn't get a lot of "black type" stats (leading the league) and half the ones he did get are the bad ones. (led the league in Wild Pitches 6 times!)

 

very good pitcher. made a manager's life a lot easier because he pitched a lot of innings and could save your bullpen. not a hall of famer.

I'm not going to argue every point. Some are very valid. But some also don't reflect the time he pitched. By today's standards, he wasn't a strike out pitcher but you're underestimating him. He led the league in strikeouts once and was top ten 8 times. He has more seasons than Johan Santana in the top ten for both strike outs in a season and k/9 in a season. Obviously, Santana was a relief pitcher for a while and Santana was the premier strike out pitcher for a while there but Morris wasn't just trudging along. When he pitched a full season, he was a strike out pitcher.  Only 33 pitchers have struck out more hitters than Morris and he was 21st all time when he retired. 

Sure. But are you proposing that the HoF be selected on objective statistical data alone?

The hall of fame is subjective also. Koufax had 7 years of being dominate. Johan Santana had a similar run. The biggest difference is WS. Subjective, but  it isn't Santana's fault he never had a chance to be a WS MVP.  He isn't going in like Koufax did. Early Wynn is in the HOF because he pitched until he almost had a foot in the grave and got to 300 wins.

I am fine if Jack gets in.  Morris is not a bad candidate he is a victim of current thinking which will change over time like all theories.  I am fine with Trammel or any of the other players.  

I am not fine with Miller, I was not fine with Selig or Kuhn or any of the other GMs, executives, owners.  I want players in the HOF, even if I argue about who is the right one and anquish over "bad" choices.  

But there are no WAR totals, no stats to cover the non-players.  They are not why we go to baseball games nor are they a reason for us to visit the Hall.   If they want something like we have for writers and broadcasters I am fine, but take them out of the mix

Some of the big negatives for Morris are as old school as it gets.

 

He would have the worst ERA (3.90) of any SP in the HOF (currently the worst is 3.80). The average ERA for a HOF pitcher is under 3.00. For his career, his ERA is only 5% over league average.

 

Also, his K/9 is less than 6 and his BB/9 is over 3.

 

Not only that, the new way of thinking hasn't even really taken strong hold in the HOF voting (as there are tons of old school writers holding on) and even less so the first 10 years he was eligible.  And one example of HOF voting not really up to newer thinking is Glavine getting in first ballot and Mussina still not in.

I am not a big Mussina fan.  He pitched for really good teams and was never the real leader.  I know he has many pushing for him, but I am fine if he is out.  I am also fine if Morris is out, but the old ERA standard is about to go away if we are going to put any modern era pitchers in.  In the era of the HR the ERA for the entire league is going up and the innings are going down.  In a big game I would take Morris over Mussina any day.  Since 1993 league ERA has gone from 3.94. to 4.77 and the complete games pitched has dropped from 371 to 59.  How can you compare numbers?  https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/pitch.shtml

I certainly think both Mussina and Morris could be in the HOF (I'm a big hall guy). Glavine in before Moose isn't a huge problem when you consider all the extra innings he threw. For his career, Moose threw about 3500 innings w/123 ERA+ over 18 seasons. From 91-06, Glavine threw 3500 innings w/127 ERA+.  He then threw another 900 or so innings (not counting the 200+ postseason innings). Rate stats are good but they have limits. 

One thing that is very hard for pitchers to do is be top 10 in both ERA+ and IP in the same year. You throw that many innings, your rate stats drop. Glavine managed that 9 times. Moose 7x. Pedro 5x. Schilling 6x. Smoltz 4x. Morris 3x.