2014 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot
MLB

Take a look at your 2014 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot, because of course it's not too early for that

1/10/13 in MLB   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

Blog Photo - 2014 Baseball Hall of Fame ballotGearhead has already discussed the future of the various folks on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot, and whether or not he likes their long-term chances of induction.

On thing he alluded to several times was the jam-packed 2014 class of new candidates. He mentioned a few names that you've all heard of, like Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas.

ESPN has a poll with all the names that will be on the ballot next year, asking readers to vote for their choices. You can vote for up to 10 players. Here's the list:

Moises Alou, Jeff Bagwell, Armando Benitez, Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Sean Casey, Roger Clemens, Jose Cruz Jr., Ray Durham, Damion Easley, Keith Foulke, Eric Gagne, Tom Glavine, Luis Gonzalez, Scott Hatteberg, Jacque Jones, Todd Jones, Jeff Kent, Jon Lieber, Esteban Loaiza, Paul Lo Duca, Greg Maddux, Edgar Martinez, Don Mattingly, Fred McGriff, Mark McGwire, Jack Morris, Matt Morris, Mike Mussina, Trot Nixon, Hideo Nomo, Rafael Palmeiro, Jay Payton, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Kenny Rogers, Richie Sexson, Curt Schilling, Lee Smith, J.T. Snow, Sammy Sosa, Shannon Stewart, Frank Thomas, Mike Timlin, Steve Trachsel, Alan Trammell, Jose Vidro, and Larry Walker

As you can see, there are a TON of names on that list.

Also, more importantly, there are a ton of worth Hall of Fame candidates there. More than 10, realistically.

Even the most vehement anti-steroid voters will still see plenty of worthy candidates that belong on their ballot.

So who SHOULD get the votes?

Before I start, I should issue a disclaimer: I believe that performance enhancing drug use should be ignored. There are several reasons for that. For starters, MLB ignored it for decades. Why should we suddenly start paying attention to something that we completely ignored when it greatly benefitted baseball for years? Also, I don't want to play games with guys like Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza, who are suspected of PED use by many, despite the fact that there is no proof whatsoever. It's not fair to them to discriminate against them merely because of their era, when we don't know exactly who did what.

Therefore, my votes will be based solely on what they did on the field. If their numbers are up to snuff, then they've got my vote. Period.

Anyway... If I had a vote, there are quite a few guys I'd consider. Here are the ones who would get my vote:

Blog Photo - 2014 Baseball Hall of Fame ballotJeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Tom Glavine
Jeff Kent
Greg Maddux
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Frank Thomas


Guys who barely missed out:
Edgar Martinez -- Very good offensive numbers, and maybe I'd give him stronger consideration on a less crowded ballot.
Fred McGriff -- Some people are very high on McGriff, but I honestly don't see it. Good, not great.
Mark McGwire -- Great HR numbers, but that's it. Not even an average player, otherwise.
Mike Mussina -- Solid pitcher for a long time, but never a dominant ace.
Rafael Palmeiro -- Was he ever even the best player on his own team? Or a legit MVP candidate? Palmeiro is the textbook example of a compiler. Pretty good over a long time, but never great.
Curt Schilling -- He might be the first guy off the list. If I were allowed to vote for 11 players, I'd vote for Schilling in a heartbeat.
Sammy Sosa -- Much like McGwire, his HR are his only claim to fame.


Who would get your vote if you had a 2014 Hall of Fame vote, and why?
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

1/14/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Eric_ wrote:
This is last time I'm responding, because like Pat I'm tired of this.

Pat already pointed out Schilling doesn't compare that poorly to Morris in complete games (which as I have admitted, is the one legitimate and objectively true point to Morris's candidacy).

With shutouts though, you're way overrating the difference. Morris has 28, Schilling had 20, which isn't that big a difference given the difference in offense when they played (the fact you actually dispute this is the main reason I'm done with you, I mean seriously?).

Also for fun, here's a list of contemporaries who had more shutouts than Morris: Dave Stieb (30), Dennis Martinez (30), Fernando Valenzuela (31), Jim Kaat (31), Frank Tanana (34).

Wow that was fun problem is they did not have all the other stats to go with,  it is not just the SHO, which you cannot understand.  Morris did more in less time, Kaat 25 seasons, Martinez 23 seasons, Tanana 21 seasons, so mentioning them is just funny.

As for Valenzuela yeah had the SO but not the other stats to go with it, and  became less then average after 1986, Steib same thing after 1991, if not for injuries will  would have seen them in the Hoff, was second to which pitcher Jack Morris for the 80s. Point you seem to be missing it is not just the SO. Just as it is not the WHIP because,  Bob Feller,  got in with a higher WHIP then Morris',  unless you will claim Feller,  should not have gotten in or he is one of the players which makes the HoF have a low standards to get in.

Just like injuries cut Stubs and Valenzuela's careers, the DH let players whose career would have been cut short to stay and compiler stats. So to have a player play a position his entire career, with offensive stats to get in, should always get the vote to the hall over a player who moved to DH to continue to compile offensive stats. Something you and Pat really seem to miss, which makes your stance on these players not getting in very weak.  

1/14/13   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

jaysinw wrote:
Schilling regular season does not compare, the Morris, and you going after the playoff record , is in your words cherry picking. So you going on about SO not ever pitcher is a strike out pitcher, that does not make them better.

Better offensive era, come dude the issue you have after the expansion and the merge of umpires, you went to teams having a stack offense to teams having maybe one or two hitters on a team. The only team that had a stacked offensive team was the Yankees, who Schilling did face while in Boston. When Morris played there were more complete teams out there. The umpires merging change the way the AL and NL called their respectively strike zone, in fact open it up quit a bit. You logic and stance is very weak on Schilling being better the Morris, it is just fact.

This is last time I'm responding, because like Pat I'm tired of this.

Pat already pointed out Schilling doesn't compare that poorly to Morris in complete games (which as I have admitted, is the one legitimate and objectively true point to Morris's candidacy).

With shutouts though, you're way overrating the difference. Morris has 28, Schilling had 20, which isn't that big a difference given the difference in offense when they played (the fact you actually dispute this is the main reason I'm done with you, I mean seriously?).

Also for fun, here's a list of contemporaries who had more shutouts than Morris: Dave Stieb (30), Dennis Martinez (30), Fernando Valenzuela (31), Jim Kaat (31), Frank Tanana (34).

1/14/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

jaysinw wrote:
haha no not incapable, I am just admitting you have no point and you talk in circles and you are just not worth the time.

The typical response of a person who can't back up what is said.  It doesn't fool anyone.

1/14/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

ML31 wrote:
I'd ask you to point out where I have made circular arguments but I know that would not get an answer.

So in other words, you admit you are incapable of addressing what was said and are equally incapable of making a case for Tom Glavine being in the Hall of Fame.

haha no not incapable, I am just admitting you have no point and you talk in circles and you are just not worth the time.

1/14/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Eric_ wrote:
You asked why I said "Schilling is the pitcher Morris supporters which Morris was." I gave my response. I included the postseason numbers because postseason success is something many Morris supporters cite, specifically the 1991 World Series. I think Schilling's are objectively better even accounting for the extra playoff rounds. I also don't understand your contention Schilling has no peak and Morris does, but whatever. I really don't understand your logic. I just don't.
(Edited by jaysinw)

WHIP could be very misleading H/9 =8.3 BB/9=2.0 innings 3261 to H/9 8.4 BB/9 3.3 innings 3824 so Morris threw almost 500 more innings the Schilling in 2 less years in 20 less games.

They both gave about about the same hits and Morris would walk 1 more batter, yeah the WHIP is really misleading. The only thing you really got is ERA a difference of .44

So the following who be more comparable to you the top one being Schillings. The third one is closer to the same numbers and by your logic should be in the HoF too, if not all ready there.

W214 L146 ERA 3.35 CG 83 SHO 20 SO 3138 ERA+127 WHIP 1.137 Games 569 innings 3261 in 20 seasons

W 194 L112 ERA  3.51 CG63 SHO 24 SO 2293 ERA+102WHIP1.256 Games 430 innings 2800.2 in 16 seasons

W194 L126 ERA 3.46 CG56 SHO22  SO 2668 ERA+121 WHIP 1.256 Games 450 innings 2898.2 in 17 seasons

1/14/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

jaysinw wrote:
My bad you talk in circles with NO point attached.  Foolish you I do not have to justify Glavine he did it himself and you cannot justify how he is overrated.....

I'd ask you to point out where I have made circular arguments but I know that would not get an answer.

So in other words, you admit you are incapable of addressing what was said and are equally incapable of making a case for Tom Glavine being in the Hall of Fame.

1/14/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

ML31 wrote:
What does "talk in circles with point attached" even mean?

Instead of dancing around the issue how about addressing what was actually said?  If you disagree that you have a very low standard for the Hall then kindly present your case.  I'd be interested in reading how you defend that.  I'd also be interested in seeing how you justify Glavine being in without mentioning his 22 years and 300+ wins.  Surely you aren't that uncertain of your own position....

My bad you talk in circles with NO point attached.  Foolish you I do not have to justify Glavine he did it himself and you cannot justify how he is overrated.....

1/14/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Pat wrote:
What are you even saying? Your numbered points don't even apply to what you're trying to say.

Also, your assertion that Palmeiro is better than Thomas merely for the fact that he played 1B is laughable. You admit that his hitting isn't comparable to Thomas, but then you say Palmeiro is the better player merely because he played the field, despite the fact that Palmeiro's fielding wasn't all that impressive?

Your logic is impossible to follow, and honestly makes no sense whatsoever. I'm done with this foolishness.

No numbers do matter that is the point, are you drinking? Palmerio put up numbers his entire career, which what we have been debating, because he did not put up out of the word numbers odes not mean he did not put up HoF numbers. I admit Thomas is a better hitter yes does not mean he mean he was a better player. No to be a complete player you must play the field, plain and simple. He could hit, many players prior to the DH had his career cut short because he could not play the field. It is why the DH is a stats compiler.  Palmer impressive???? it was 90% better then Thomas' and you want him in for only his offensive contributions.


Makes complete sense Palmerio put up numbers to make the HoF you have a weak argument because he was not an outstanding hitter is completely foolish, just as you were completely wrong saying Palermio never had a good season.

1/14/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

jaysinw wrote:

6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.



5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.


I know you do not mention the position as for I do why, #5 above, 'contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. Thomas becoming a DH took away half of his contributions to the team. Now he is nothing more then a stats compiler on the offensive side.

Yes Thomas came in and was on fire I will give him that, you are correct they are not comparable as hitters.  You had stated Palmerio never had a great year which was not true, I just Thomas as an example, still looking at Palmerio's contributions to his teams and and record and playing ability it makes him a hall of famer.  Love your comment of Dunn and Granderson being no Ichiro, very true Palermio playing 1B his entire career makes him a better player then Thomas, but no he was not a better hitter.

What are you even saying? Your numbered points don't even apply to what you're trying to say.

Also, your assertion that Palmeiro is better than Thomas merely for the fact that he played 1B is laughable. You admit that his hitting isn't comparable to Thomas, but then you say Palmeiro is the better player merely because he played the field, despite the fact that Palmeiro's fielding wasn't all that impressive?

Your logic is impossible to follow, and honestly makes no sense whatsoever. I'm done with this foolishness.

1/14/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

jaysinw wrote:

Wow I will give it to you, you can talk in circles with point attached. It is why I dismiss what you write, knowing this is your MO.


The method is in black and white,

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

 

6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.


So the wins and SHO qand CG no-hitters and Perfect games would be permitted. There is no gray area, and those looking at it and saying the method is to vague should not be voting end of story.

What does "talk in circles with point attached" even mean?

Instead of dancing around the issue how about addressing what was actually said?  If you disagree that you have a very low standard for the Hall then kindly present your case.  I'd be interested in reading how you defend that.  I'd also be interested in seeing how you justify Glavine being in without mentioning his 22 years and 300+ wins.  Surely you aren't that uncertain of your own position....

1/14/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Pat wrote:
I don't know why you keep mentioning positions, as if I even mentioned that at all. I did not.

And you keep saying Palmeiro is a better 1B than Thomas. That may be true, but he's better in the sense that Curtis Granderson strikes out less than Adam Dunn. Sure, Granderson strikes out less, but that doesn't make him Ichiro. In the same vein... Sure, Palmeiro was better defensively than Thomas, but that doesn't suddenly make him Mark Teixeira with the glove. His fielding was still mediocre enough that it really shouldn't factor into his HOF candidacy.

Let me spell it out for you...

Using OPS+, Frank Thomas had NINE SEASONS that were better than Palmeiro's best season. He had TWELVE SEASONS that were better than Palmeiro's career OPS. Frank Thomas' worst full season OPS+ was 119. Palmeiro had five full seasons that were worse than that.

As hitters, they are honestly not comparable.

6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.



5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.


I know you do not mention the position as for I do why, #5 above, 'contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. Thomas becoming a DH took away half of his contributions to the team. Now he is nothing more then a stats compiler on the offensive side.

Yes Thomas came in and was on fire I will give him that, you are correct they are not comparable as hitters.  You had stated Palmerio never had a great year which was not true, I just Thomas as an example, still looking at Palmerio's contributions to his teams and and record and playing ability it makes him a hall of famer.  Love your comment of Dunn and Granderson being no Ichiro, very true Palermio playing 1B his entire career makes him a better player then Thomas, but no he was not a better hitter.

1/14/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

jaysinw wrote:
Schilling regular season does not compare, the Morris, and you going after the playoff record , is in your words cherry picking. So you going on about SO not ever pitcher is a strike out pitcher, that does not make them better.

Better offensive era, come dude the issue you have after the expansion and the merge of umpires, you went to teams having a stack offense to teams having maybe one or two hitters on a team. The only team that had a stacked offensive team was the Yankees, who Schilling did face while in Boston. When Morris played there were more complete teams out there. The umpires merging change the way the AL and NL called their respectively strike zone, in fact open it up quit a bit. You logic and stance is very weak on Schilling being better the Morris, it is just fact.

"Shilling regular season does not compare"

Please give your justification for this patently false statement.

Using ERA+, Shilling has 10 seasons that are better than Morris' BEST season.

Also, you keep mentioning complete games, but you completely fail to take their respective eras into account. Morris led the league in complete games ONCE. Schilling led the league THREE TIMES. So, despite the fact that Morris had more of them, Schilling had more compared to his contemporaries, which is a far more accurate measure than comparing pitchers from separate decades.

Not to mention the fact that complete games are pretty low on the list of stats that matter.

1/14/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Eric_ wrote:
You asked why I said "Schilling is the pitcher Morris supporters which Morris was." I gave my response. I included the postseason numbers because postseason success is something many Morris supporters cite, specifically the 1991 World Series. I think Schilling's are objectively better even accounting for the extra playoff rounds. I also don't understand your contention Schilling has no peak and Morris does, but whatever. I really don't understand your logic. I just don't.

I know you want to forget Morris's wins, SHO and CG,


6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.

It is one of the things that should be weighed on heavily.

1/14/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

ML31 wrote:
No.  The method of election is vague and can be interpreted in all kinds of ways.  It is something many writers often complain about.  Record doesn't just mean wins and losses.  If so that would exclude position players.  I find staying with the same team that you came up with to be an example of integrity, sportsmanship and character.  Your answer is also the answer to the task you posed of me.  It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

What you said about Glavine makes no sense whatsoever.  Wins happen to be assigned to pitchers but we all know it is far more a team stat than an individual one.  Where would Glavine be if his teams scored fewer runs?  I do not want to penalize a pitcher for something he doesn't control any more than I want to immortalize him.  Pitching wins are telling but they are not among the best ways to evaluate pitching talent.   So I would ask, apart from Glavine's win total and the fact that he played 22 years (which many feel make him automatic but I ask for more), what makes him a Hall of Famer?   And one more thing...  Make his case without comparing him to existing members.  I only ask this because there are a number of existing members who ought not be in as well...

OK... So given what you said then the answer is not that you have a personal feeling towards Morris...  The alternative is that your threshold for what constitutes a Hall of Famer is exceedingly low.  Which is fine.  It's your interpretation of the institution.  Your position is much closer to the writers than mine is.  If I had my way, 1/3 of the players in the Hall wouldn't be in.

Wow I will give it to you, you can talk in circles with point attached. It is why I dismiss what you write, knowing this is your MO.


The method is in black and white,

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

 

6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.


So the wins and SHO qand CG no-hitters and Perfect games would be permitted. There is no gray area, and those looking at it and saying the method is to vague should not be voting end of story.

1/14/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Eric_ wrote:
You asked why I said "Schilling is the pitcher Morris supporters which Morris was." I gave my response. I included the postseason numbers because postseason success is something many Morris supporters cite, specifically the 1991 World Series. I think Schilling's are objectively better even accounting for the extra playoff rounds. I also don't understand your contention Schilling has no peak and Morris does, but whatever. I really don't understand your logic. I just don't.

Schilling regular season does not compare, the Morris, and you going after the playoff record , is in your words cherry picking. So you going on about SO not ever pitcher is a strike out pitcher, that does not make them better.

Better offensive era, come dude the issue you have after the expansion and the merge of umpires, you went to teams having a stack offense to teams having maybe one or two hitters on a team. The only team that had a stacked offensive team was the Yankees, who Schilling did face while in Boston. When Morris played there were more complete teams out there. The umpires merging change the way the AL and NL called their respectively strike zone, in fact open it up quit a bit. You logic and stance is very weak on Schilling being better the Morris, it is just fact.

1/13/13   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

Eric_ wrote:
Why did you randomly select Palmeiro's best season and his 6th best season, and then Thomas' 9th and 11th best seasons?

It's called cherry picking.

You asked why I said "Schilling is the pitcher Morris supporters which Morris was." I gave my response. I included the postseason numbers because postseason success is something many Morris supporters cite, specifically the 1991 World Series. I think Schilling's are objectively better even accounting for the extra playoff rounds. I also don't understand your contention Schilling has no peak and Morris does, but whatever. I really don't understand your logic. I just don't.

1/13/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

jaysinw wrote:

'5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.'

BBAWAA; Method of Election;



So to answer your question the BBAWAA method of elections makes it clear 'where (a player with the) most wins in a decade has to do with the Hall of Fame.

To be clear it is in the part which comes up first PLAYER's RECORD, and also the part where it says CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TEAM(s) ON WHICH A PLAYER PLAY.... wait it also makes it clear for a team(s) for a player play, so to vote for someone because he played for them 20yrs is not part of the criteria. I could have missed it, but I do not recall, Pat asking for anyone to rewrite to criteria used to vote for players into the HoF. Instead using what we have validate those who we would pick for the HoF. Just as Glavine being the most overrated pitcher, unless someone else was throwing the pitches, to get the wins, or he was lucky to get so  many forfeits which brought his career win total to where it is or somehow he played in another ML and they are adding those totals to what he got in MLB which would have put him over 300. Your opinion is flat out ridiculous that he is the most over pitcher.


Taking an oath to be fair and impartial when recommending both rewards and punishments, as a NCO in the Army, I know all to well that you cannot take out your personal feelings 100%. I also know great NCOs can remove most of his/hers feelings and rate a Soldier on a professional level, which is why many Soldiers get the awards and promotions. Yes, there is some who do not separate his/hers feelings and they are the kywags just like the BYWAY who keep deserving player out of the Hall.


Ok you believe he will get in, I personally did not cheer for him or Palmerio,  and I do not cheer now for Derek Jeter, seeing how I love the NL and they play(ed) in the AL. I do however can judge what they did respectively and impartially besides the fact which team or league he played in.   

No.  The method of election is vague and can be interpreted in all kinds of ways.  It is something many writers often complain about.  Record doesn't just mean wins and losses.  If so that would exclude position players.  I find staying with the same team that you came up with to be an example of integrity, sportsmanship and character.  Your answer is also the answer to the task you posed of me.  It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

What you said about Glavine makes no sense whatsoever.  Wins happen to be assigned to pitchers but we all know it is far more a team stat than an individual one.  Where would Glavine be if his teams scored fewer runs?  I do not want to penalize a pitcher for something he doesn't control any more than I want to immortalize him.  Pitching wins are telling but they are not among the best ways to evaluate pitching talent.   So I would ask, apart from Glavine's win total and the fact that he played 22 years (which many feel make him automatic but I ask for more), what makes him a Hall of Famer?   And one more thing...  Make his case without comparing him to existing members.  I only ask this because there are a number of existing members who ought not be in as well...

OK... So given what you said then the answer is not that you have a personal feeling towards Morris...  The alternative is that your threshold for what constitutes a Hall of Famer is exceedingly low.  Which is fine.  It's your interpretation of the institution.  Your position is much closer to the writers than mine is.  If I had my way, 1/3 of the players in the Hall wouldn't be in.

1/13/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

jaysinw wrote:
Ok, you said Palmerio never had a great season, so you stance he never had a great season which is not even close of being correct. Your whole stance on him is weak at best. This is not a debate that Palmerio was better then Thomas, hitting wise, but all around player. Palmerio was a better 1B and played it his entire career as for Thomas more to DH to pad his stats. Thomas started off red hot yay jump and down after 2000 what did he do, his BA drop HRs drops, Palmerio again being him stay pretty much average. So it is great you jump on Thomas' good years, but because of being injuired he played DH to compile stats, or he may have been out of baseball after 12yrs and we would not be having this conversation.


McGwire was paid to hit HRs, and because he did not hit more singles or doubles, but played 1B again his entire career, and hit more HRs then everyone but 9 players so far. that is a weak case again against McGwire for not voting for him,

I don't know why you keep mentioning positions, as if I even mentioned that at all. I did not.

And you keep saying Palmeiro is a better 1B than Thomas. That may be true, but he's better in the sense that Curtis Granderson strikes out less than Adam Dunn. Sure, Granderson strikes out less, but that doesn't make him Ichiro. In the same vein... Sure, Palmeiro was better defensively than Thomas, but that doesn't suddenly make him Mark Teixeira with the glove. His fielding was still mediocre enough that it really shouldn't factor into his HOF candidacy.

Let me spell it out for you...

Using OPS+, Frank Thomas had NINE SEASONS that were better than Palmeiro's best season. He had TWELVE SEASONS that were better than Palmeiro's career OPS. Frank Thomas' worst full season OPS+ was 119. Palmeiro had five full seasons that were worse than that.

As hitters, they are honestly not comparable.

1/13/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

ML31 wrote:
So what to you...  It is small factor for me.  Show me where most wins in a decade has to do with the HAll of Fame?  I value it because it is a rare thing in today's game.  Precious few players have a long career with the same team.  Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and even Babe Ruth couldn't do it.

Who cares what factors I use?  Hello?  That's what the whole discussion is about.  You don't care what anyone thinks then why waste your time responding?  To use your reasoning, who cares why you want Morris in the Hall?

It seems I have to remind you yet AGAIN that the one thing you are ragging on me about is NOT even something I use to initially evaluate who I would vote for for the Hall of Fame.  It is only used to help me decide with borderline players.  For example, Bonds doesn't get excluded because he played for two teams.  Multi-team players don't even get negative points with me.  It is essentially a tiebreaker for me.  Why to you respond as it it is the very first factor I use?

It seems to me that you may be feeling a little aggressive at this point given that it seems you are being ganged up on. 

BTW...  I wouldn't be surprised if Morris gets in.  In fact, I'll be surprised if he DOESN'T given the ridiculously low threshold the Hall of Fame has. 

'5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.'

BBAWAA; Method of Election;



So to answer your question the BBAWAA method of elections makes it clear 'where (a player with the) most wins in a decade has to do with the Hall of Fame.

To be clear it is in the part which comes up first PLAYER's RECORD, and also the part where it says CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TEAM(s) ON WHICH A PLAYER PLAY.... wait it also makes it clear for a team(s) for a player play, so to vote for someone because he played for them 20yrs is not part of the criteria. I could have missed it, but I do not recall, Pat asking for anyone to rewrite to criteria used to vote for players into the HoF. Instead using what we have validate those who we would pick for the HoF. Just as Glavine being the most overrated pitcher, unless someone else was throwing the pitches, to get the wins, or he was lucky to get so  many forfeits which brought his career win total to where it is or somehow he played in another ML and they are adding those totals to what he got in MLB which would have put him over 300. Your opinion is flat out ridiculous that he is the most over pitcher.


Taking an oath to be fair and impartial when recommending both rewards and punishments, as a NCO in the Army, I know all to well that you cannot take out your personal feelings 100%. I also know great NCOs can remove most of his/hers feelings and rate a Soldier on a professional level, which is why many Soldiers get the awards and promotions. Yes, there is some who do not separate his/hers feelings and they are the kywags just like the BYWAY who keep deserving player out of the Hall.


Ok you believe he will get in, I personally did not cheer for him or Palmerio,  and I do not cheer now for Derek Jeter, seeing how I love the NL and they play(ed) in the AL. I do however can judge what they did respectively and impartially besides the fact which team or league he played in.   

1/13/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

jaysinw wrote:
So what if they played for the same team for 20yrs it means nothing, show me where it has to do with the HoF??? That's right it does, so deal with the fact they did and it still means nothing. Who cares what factors you use, you grade a player staying with a team his entire career, so your opinion means less then nothing on how you grade. Like it or not it, simple fact it does not mean a thing.

So what to you...  It is small factor for me.  Show me where most wins in a decade has to do with the HAll of Fame?  I value it because it is a rare thing in today's game.  Precious few players have a long career with the same team.  Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and even Babe Ruth couldn't do it.

Who cares what factors I use?  Hello?  That's what the whole discussion is about.  You don't care what anyone thinks then why waste your time responding?  To use your reasoning, who cares why you want Morris in the Hall?

It seems I have to remind you yet AGAIN that the one thing you are ragging on me about is NOT even something I use to initially evaluate who I would vote for for the Hall of Fame.  It is only used to help me decide with borderline players.  For example, Bonds doesn't get excluded because he played for two teams.  Multi-team players don't even get negative points with me.  It is essentially a tiebreaker for me.  Why to you respond as it it is the very first factor I use?

It seems to me that you may be feeling a little aggressive at this point given that it seems you are being ganged up on. 

BTW...  I wouldn't be surprised if Morris gets in.  In fact, I'll be surprised if he DOESN'T given the ridiculously low threshold the Hall of Fame has. 

1/13/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

ML31 wrote:
Of course I am dealing with fact.  Are you saying it is not a fact that Larkin and Trammell played for the same team their entire career?   You bemoan folks useing personal feelings but in supporting Morris you are doing so yourself.  Either because you had some kind of personal connection when he played (favorite player, did something at some game you attended...  Something...) or your personal feelings for what constitutes a Hall of fame player are lower than even many of the voters.  If Morris gets in then a case could be made for 40% of all players who played more than 15 years getting in. 

And for the record, everyone has some sort of bias.  We all use the facts and weigh them with how much we value that particular fact.  Morris won a lot of games in the '80's.  You value that very highly.  Most don't.  And again...  While I personally value players who stay with the same team their entire career, it is by no means whatsoever any kind of major determinate for who would get my vote (if I had one).  It is merely one of the factors I use ONLY for borderline cases.  Please try and keep that in mind should you choose to poo-poo it again.

So what if they played for the same team for 20yrs it means nothing, show me where it has to do with the HoF??? That's right it does, so deal with the fact they did and it still means nothing. Who cares what factors you use, you grade a player staying with a team his entire career, so your opinion means less then nothing on how you grade. Like it or not it, simple fact it does not mean a thing.

1/13/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Eric_ wrote:
Why did you randomly select Palmeiro's best season and his 6th best season, and then Thomas' 9th and 11th best seasons?

It's called cherry picking.

Cherry picking... seriously from you who brought up how Schillings play-off record was better then Morris' That is the pot calling the kettle black.

1/13/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Pat wrote:
I guess my first question for you would be this: Why did you randomly select Palmeiro's best season and his 6th best season, and then Thomas' 9th and 11th best seasons? I don't understand the logic there. Why not look at the best few seasons from each player? I feel like it would be a far more efficient way to prove whatever you're trying to prove. Unless, of course, the numbers don't work in your favor that way. Which they don't.

Also, my argument against McGwire isn't that he was just a hitter. It's that he was only a HOME RUN hitter. He had a .263 career batting average. He had 3-4 seasons where his overall hitting stats were great, but for the most part, he was just a guy who didn't hit a lot of singles or doubles. You've completely missed the boat once again on what I'm trying to say.

Ok, you said Palmerio never had a great season, so you stance he never had a great season which is not even close of being correct. Your whole stance on him is weak at best. This is not a debate that Palmerio was better then Thomas, hitting wise, but all around player. Palmerio was a better 1B and played it his entire career as for Thomas more to DH to pad his stats. Thomas started off red hot yay jump and down after 2000 what did he do, his BA drop HRs drops, Palmerio again being him stay pretty much average. So it is great you jump on Thomas' good years, but because of being injuired he played DH to compile stats, or he may have been out of baseball after 12yrs and we would not be having this conversation.


McGwire was paid to hit HRs, and because he did not hit more singles or doubles, but played 1B again his entire career, and hit more HRs then everyone but 9 players so far. that is a weak case again against McGwire for not voting for him,

1/13/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

jaysinw wrote:
Not really, so I dismiss what you say, value nothing if a player stays with a team, again personal feelings instead of facts. Love loyalty but then is not a criteria for the hall of fame. So there is no point of mentioning it. By doing so you are no different then Pecdro Gomez, saying that even if a player has not been found guilty in anyway of using PEDs he will use his own eye test and will not vote for him for the hall of fall. Sorry Pedro your eyes is not good enough neither is your stance on Glavine.

Of course I am dealing with fact.  Are you saying it is not a fact that Larkin and Trammell played for the same team their entire career?   You bemoan folks useing personal feelings but in supporting Morris you are doing so yourself.  Either because you had some kind of personal connection when he played (favorite player, did something at some game you attended...  Something...) or your personal feelings for what constitutes a Hall of fame player are lower than even many of the voters.  If Morris gets in then a case could be made for 40% of all players who played more than 15 years getting in. 

And for the record, everyone has some sort of bias.  We all use the facts and weigh them with how much we value that particular fact.  Morris won a lot of games in the '80's.  You value that very highly.  Most don't.  And again...  While I personally value players who stay with the same team their entire career, it is by no means whatsoever any kind of major determinate for who would get my vote (if I had one).  It is merely one of the factors I use ONLY for borderline cases.  Please try and keep that in mind should you choose to poo-poo it again.

1/13/13   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

Why did you randomly select Palmeiro's best season and his 6th best season, and then Thomas' 9th and 11th best seasons?

It's called cherry picking.

1/13/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

jaysinw wrote:
Negative ghost rider, you can have your opinion and stand on your soap box, saying he never had a great season. To be consistent in any sport, for 20 seasons, while playing the field in a big deal. He may not make a big splash and his name is not throw around but that does not make him a compiler. you get those who had maybe 7-9 good years I even give you great years, then hang on playing DH to reach 3,000, or 500 HRs.

You can go on and say he was not great he is without a dougt Hall of Fame material. 

Frank Thomas 43HR 143 RBI .328 BA OBP .436 .625 SLG  1.061 OPS 163OPS+
Palmerio           47HR 148 RBI .324BA  OBP .420 .630SLG   1.050 OPS  160OPS+

Thomas          42HR 105RBI  .267BA .390OBP .562SLG 952OPS 146OPS+
Palmerio           43HR 121RBI  .296BA .379OBP .565SLG .945OPS 144OPS+  
So Pat, do you want to try again, because these numbers here say you are completely wrong in your assessment that Palmerio had never had any such season, or was not good enough EVER.  

No one is claiming Frank Thomas was a scrub, but to say Raphael Palmerio had no top notch seasons because he play consistent over his career, is just disrespectful, and untrue.

Still with all that, making your case on Frank Thomas vote, when he was just a hitter, is your argument not to vote for Mark McGwire, which sinks your ship.

I guess my first question for you would be this: Why did you randomly select Palmeiro's best season and his 6th best season, and then Thomas' 9th and 11th best seasons? I don't understand the logic there. Why not look at the best few seasons from each player? I feel like it would be a far more efficient way to prove whatever you're trying to prove. Unless, of course, the numbers don't work in your favor that way. Which they don't.

Also, my argument against McGwire isn't that he was just a hitter. It's that he was only a HOME RUN hitter. He had a .263 career batting average. He had 3-4 seasons where his overall hitting stats were great, but for the most part, he was just a guy who didn't hit a lot of singles or doubles. You've completely missed the boat once again on what I'm trying to say.

1/13/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Pat wrote:
No. A compiler has nothing to do with position.

A compiler is a player whose peak never reaches superstar level. It's a guy who never really has any GREAT seasons... just a lot of pretty good seasons.

Frank Thomas had many seasons that were among the best of the best in Major League Baseball. Palmeiro never had any such season.

Palmeiro was never a great player at any point in his career. His career statistics look good SOLELY because of longevity, not because of greatness.

Regardless of position, he's not a Hall of Famer. He just wasn't good enough. EVER.

Negative ghost rider, you can have your opinion and stand on your soap box, saying he never had a great season. To be consistent in any sport, for 20 seasons, while playing the field in a big deal. He may not make a big splash and his name is not throw around but that does not make him a compiler. you get those who had maybe 7-9 good years I even give you great years, then hang on playing DH to reach 3,000, or 500 HRs.

You can go on and say he was not great he is without a dougt Hall of Fame material. 

Frank Thomas 43HR 143 RBI .328 BA OBP .436 .625 SLG  1.061 OPS 163OPS+
Palmerio           47HR 148 RBI .324BA  OBP .420 .630SLG   1.050 OPS  160OPS+

Thomas          42HR 105RBI  .267BA .390OBP .562SLG 952OPS 146OPS+
Palmerio           43HR 121RBI  .296BA .379OBP .565SLG .945OPS 144OPS+  
So Pat, do you want to try again, because these numbers here say you are completely wrong in your assessment that Palmerio had never had any such season, or was not good enough EVER.  

No one is claiming Frank Thomas was a scrub, but to say Raphael Palmerio had no top notch seasons because he play consistent over his career, is just disrespectful, and untrue.

Still with all that, making your case on Frank Thomas vote, when he was just a hitter, is your argument not to vote for Mark McGwire, which sinks your ship.

1/13/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Eric_ wrote:
I'm too drunk and heartbroken (damn it Packers) to respond to anything right now, but how is it that this thread lead to a huge discussion and my 4 part HoF series in December didn't lead to squat?

Great Game, sorry for your loss, I had the 49ers.

1/13/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

ML31 wrote:
It is a subjective thing...  I think Blyleven was better than Morris and I don't think he deserves to be in the Hall.  Off the top of my head, I think Gooden, Mike Scott and Orel Hershiser were all better than Morris.  None are Hall of Fame worthy either.  Schilling was better and I don't think he should be in.

Staying with one team is not a major determinate for my HoF vote.  It will sway borderline cases for me simply because I like it when star players stay put.  Trammll and Larkin are borderline cases for me and them staying with one team is what got them my vote.  Again, sue me.  I value that.  Not saying you have to. 

Actually, my comment about Glavine holds a great deal of weight.  What has he done apart from play a long time for teams that got him wins to get in the Hall?  He was never among the most dominating pitchers of his era.  Very good yes.  Great?  No.  I have no negative views regarding Glavine whatsoever.  There is no emotion in my evaluation.  It is cold and calculating.  And I promise you, had Glavine not hit the magic 300 mark there would be great debate about his candidacy.  He'd be in the same boat as Morris or Blyleven. 

Not really, so I dismiss what you say, value nothing if a player stays with a team, again personal feelings instead of facts. Love loyalty but then is not a criteria for the hall of fame. So there is no point of mentioning it. By doing so you are no different then Pecdro Gomez, saying that even if a player has not been found guilty in anyway of using PEDs he will use his own eye test and will not vote for him for the hall of fall. Sorry Pedro your eyes is not good enough neither is your stance on Glavine.

1/12/13   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

I'm too drunk and heartbroken (damn it Packers) to respond to anything right now, but how is it that this thread lead to a huge discussion and my 4 part HoF series in December didn't lead to squat?

1/12/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

jaysinw wrote:
A DH is a compiler, players moved there because of a injury or they are weak on defense and teams do not want them to be liability. Frank Thomas would not have had the numbers he had if it was not for the role of DH. I got your point you are still missing it, that yes Palmer, may have played a long time he did it primary position player instead of Thomas who for a 11yrs being the DH compiled stats.

Numbers I would have said Mcwire BA 263 OBP 394 SGL 588 OPS 982 OPS+163
to                                         Thomas   BA 301 OPS 419 SGL 555 OPS 974 OPS+156

McGwire never played DH more then 1B, or even a 40/60 split. So to your point of not voting for McGwire because he only hit HRs but an average player otherwise, when the only Thomas did really better was in BA. OBP is a difference of .025 in OPS Mac is 33 points better, OPS only 7 points, and OPS+7 points higher. So they ate very comparable, I will always give an edge to someone who plays a position over a DH any day.

So I got your point, you do not like Palmerio, but you stance on him for not getting in is really weak.

No. A compiler has nothing to do with position.

A compiler is a player whose peak never reaches superstar level. It's a guy who never really has any GREAT seasons... just a lot of pretty good seasons.

Frank Thomas had many seasons that were among the best of the best in Major League Baseball. Palmeiro never had any such season.

Palmeiro was never a great player at any point in his career. His career statistics look good SOLELY because of longevity, not because of greatness.

Regardless of position, he's not a Hall of Famer. He just wasn't good enough. EVER.

1/12/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

jaysinw wrote:
Wrong Morris was one of the top pitchers of his time look and see who had more wins, SHO, CG, innings pitchers, SO then he did in his time. So show me from 1977-94 how many pitchers beat him in all these category? Still in Schilling's era he did not do better, and that is how this started.

I know you said they were on the bubble for you, still for the record I would vote Lee Smith for the hall, base on he pitching as a reliever, granted it has been defined more over the last 20 years so will see others do better. At that time it was Lee, Trammell, I will pat him on the back, nice he stayed with a team for 20 yrs does not get you into the hall.

Galvin being most overrated pitched of his era, why is what you say holds no weight. you must let you personal views judge things instead knowing players, and what they were about. Even without 300 wins Glavine would have been in he could have stopped at 266 and made the Hall.

It is a subjective thing...  I think Blyleven was better than Morris and I don't think he deserves to be in the Hall.  Off the top of my head, I think Gooden, Mike Scott and Orel Hershiser were all better than Morris.  None are Hall of Fame worthy either.  Schilling was better and I don't think he should be in.

Staying with one team is not a major determinate for my HoF vote.  It will sway borderline cases for me simply because I like it when star players stay put.  Trammll and Larkin are borderline cases for me and them staying with one team is what got them my vote.  Again, sue me.  I value that.  Not saying you have to. 

Actually, my comment about Glavine holds a great deal of weight.  What has he done apart from play a long time for teams that got him wins to get in the Hall?  He was never among the most dominating pitchers of his era.  Very good yes.  Great?  No.  I have no negative views regarding Glavine whatsoever.  There is no emotion in my evaluation.  It is cold and calculating.  And I promise you, had Glavine not hit the magic 300 mark there would be great debate about his candidacy.  He'd be in the same boat as Morris or Blyleven. 

1/12/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Pat wrote:
When did I say anything about the DH?

I think you're missing my point, when I refer to Palmeiro as a compiler.

I'm not holding his longevity against him. There's nothing wrong with players who have long careers and rack up huge numbers.

My problem with Palmeiro is that he was never, at any point, anywhere near as good as the guys who actually deserve induction.

For example... you mention Frank Thomas. But his career OPS+ is 156. Palmeiro's is 132. Thomas' batting average is 13 points higher, his OBP is 48 points higher, and his slugging percentage is 40 points higher.

Sorry, Frank Thomas and Rafael Palmeiro aren't comparable as hitters.

A DH is a compiler, players moved there because of a injury or they are weak on defense and teams do not want them to be liability. Frank Thomas would not have had the numbers he had if it was not for the role of DH. I got your point you are still missing it, that yes Palmer, may have played a long time he did it primary position player instead of Thomas who for a 11yrs being the DH compiled stats.

Numbers I would have said Mcwire BA 263 OBP 394 SGL 588 OPS 982 OPS+163
to                                         Thomas   BA 301 OPS 419 SGL 555 OPS 974 OPS+156

McGwire never played DH more then 1B, or even a 40/60 split. So to your point of not voting for McGwire because he only hit HRs but an average player otherwise, when the only Thomas did really better was in BA. OBP is a difference of .025 in OPS Mac is 33 points better, OPS only 7 points, and OPS+7 points higher. So they ate very comparable, I will always give an edge to someone who plays a position over a DH any day.

So I got your point, you do not like Palmerio, but you stance on him for not getting in is really weak.

1/12/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

ML31 wrote:
I think you are confusing Morris having a couple of great moments with him being a great pitcher.  It's not the first time someone has done that.  Writers voted for Andre Dawson based ONLY on his fantastic 1987 MVP season.  It was indeed a different time yes.  But it's not like Morris was one of the top pitchers of his era.    I'll admit Smith is a bubble player.  So going after my lackluster support for him is legit.  I can still make a better case for him than Morris.  Trammell is a bubble player too for me.  But what puts him over the top for me is that he played his entire career for the same team.  I do use that when evaluating maybe players.  Sue me.  It's a feat I personally value.  Trammell is like Larkin.  I'm OK with Larkin being in for the same reason. 
And yes, I do not have Glavine on my list.  He was certainly good but just as certainly one of the most overrated pitchers in his era.  I just can't vote for that guy simply because umpires gave him 4 extra inches of outside plate they didn't give to nearly anryone else.   The ONLY thing Glavine has going for him for the Hall is his win total.  I do not think 300 wins means automatic Hall entry.  To me, 300 wins only means you were good enough to pitch a long time and played for good teams much of your career.  Neither are reasons to enshrine someone in the Hall of Fame. 
The best argument for Morris is the one that carries little weight.  Most wins in the 80's?  Nice stat.  But almost worthless.  That WS performance in '91?  Again, nice, but post season performance doesn't make a Hall of Fame player.  He threw a log ot CG's and a lot of innings.  Yet again, nice but that really would only be impressive if he pitched 15 years later when that sort of thing really gained traction to go out of style.  Looking at the era he played in only hurts his case rather than supporting it.

Wrong Morris was one of the top pitchers of his time look and see who had more wins, SHO, CG, innings pitchers, SO then he did in his time. So show me from 1977-94 how many pitchers beat him in all these category? Still in Schilling's era he did not do better, and that is how this started.

I know you said they were on the bubble for you, still for the record I would vote Lee Smith for the hall, base on he pitching as a reliever, granted it has been defined more over the last 20 years so will see others do better. At that time it was Lee, Trammell, I will pat him on the back, nice he stayed with a team for 20 yrs does not get you into the hall.

Galvin being most overrated pitched of his era, why is what you say holds no weight. you must let you personal views judge things instead knowing players, and what they were about. Even without 300 wins Glavine would have been in he could have stopped at 266 and made the Hall.

1/12/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Eric_ wrote:
As others have pointed out, Morris's overall ERA and WHIP just don't compare (in fact, his ERA would be highest of any Hall of Famer). Schilling has a better ERA, a better WHIP, and more career strikeouts, and did it all in a much better offensive era. That's why Schilling has a very good 127 ERA+, while Morris's is a meh 105 ERA+.

Schilling's peak was inconsistent, but he had 9 full seasons overall with a better ERA+ than Morris's best season by that metric. Morris does have innings and durability; I'll give him that. However, Schilling is no slouch in that department for his era. Meanwhile, for their playoff careers, Schilling was better overall, despite Morris obviously having the best playoff start of all of them.

Schilling: 11-2, 2.23 ERA, .968 WHIP, 120 K, 4.80 K/BB
Morris: 7-4, 3.80 ERA, 1.245 WHIP, 64 K, 2.00 K/BB

The only real argument Morris has is win total, and there are so many factors towards that stat that the pitcher doesn't control that it's just not a good metric to determine value. I truly think electing Morris would be the worst writers' election in its history, and only Jim Rice or Catfish Hunter is really that close.

See you cannot go into WHIP Bob Feller had one of 1.316, and ERA of 3.25.  Still Morris' ERA was higher you are splitting tiny hairs over a .65 of an ERA, but again is WHIP is better then Fellers who is in. 


I knew you would go in the play-off record again, silly because a player who play before the expanded play-off is a out a disadvantage, and if someone did not make in the play-offs or had a poor showing he should not get in. Schilling got Morris in play-offs, but Morris walks circles the regular season.

You statement about Thomas you look for peak and longevity----- and as you said Thomas had that in spades again so did Morris, but not Schilling. 

Point about Thomas, if you are going to call player a compiler, when that is what a DH is 100%, and also go into not voting for Mark Mcgwire or Sammy Sosa because they hit HRs, but will vote for Thomas for doing the same thing. I stand by not voting for Thomas over a position player, based on who knows how long he would have player if he continue to play a position.

So with that your logic from your statements does not support stand. Still a weak argument to say you would take Schilling over Morris, or just simply not putting Morris in.  

1/12/13   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

(Edited by Eric_)

Some other things based on the discussion so far:

Frank Thomas may have be a DH 55% of the time, but so what? Does that mean he can't ever be inducted? That no DH's can be inducted? Paul Molitor was a DH 45% of the time and he got in no problem.

Thomas is a career .301/.419/.555 hitter. He's 19th all time in OBP, 14th in OPS, and 18th in home runs. 22nd in career RBIs too if you care about that.

He had the peak too. Look at his career from 1990-1999. He was still a first baseman most of that time to boot. What I look for is peak and longevity, and Thomas has both in spades.

Turning to Blyleven, he's 5th all-time in strikeouts (and was 3rd when he retired), 9th in shutouts, and 14th in innings pitched.

Yes, he had a peak too, 1970-1978 primarily. It was more disjointed after that, but there weren't many bad seasons until the very end. Obsession with pitcher record is why he wasn't recognized as one of the best pitchers in the game at the time, but that's not his fault.

You can say "Hall of Very Good" all you want, but the Hall isn't just for the Ruths, Aarons, and Cy Youngs of the world. It never has been.

I'm not getting into it now, but there are plenty of reasons to support Larkin (which I did) and Trammell (which I do, even though he's going to probably get squeezed next year) other than them playing on the same team their entire careers.

1/12/13   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

jaysinw wrote:
Without going into how he won games, in 18 season he pitched 3824 innings, 3.90 ERA, 175 CG 28 SHO 2478 SO in 549 games, WHIP 1.296  5x All-star, 7x placed in Cy Young voting, 5X placed in the MVP voting as for Schilling in 20 seasons he pitched 3261 innings, 3.46 ERA, 83CG, 20SHO, 3116 SO in 569 games WHIP 1.137 6X all-star, 4x place in Cy Young voting, 4x placed in the MVP voting.

Schilling with all of his stats no one can say he was consistent year in and year out as Morris, besides being a SO pitcher, he only had great years in '01,;02, and '04. So again how he, 'Schilling is the pitcher the Morris' backers wish Morris was'?
(Edited by Eric_)

As others have pointed out, Morris's overall ERA and WHIP just don't compare (in fact, his ERA would be highest of any Hall of Famer). Schilling has a better ERA, a better WHIP, and more career strikeouts, and did it all in a much better offensive era. That's why Schilling has a very good 127 ERA+, while Morris's is a meh 105 ERA+.

Schilling's peak was inconsistent, but he had 9 full seasons overall with a better ERA+ than Morris's best season by that metric. Morris does have innings and durability; I'll give him that. However, Schilling is no slouch in that department for his era. Meanwhile, for their playoff careers, Schilling was better overall, despite Morris obviously having the best playoff start of all of them.

Schilling: 11-2, 2.23 ERA, .968 WHIP, 120 K, 4.80 K/BB
Morris: 7-4, 3.80 ERA, 1.245 WHIP, 64 K, 2.00 K/BB

The only real argument Morris has is win total, and there are so many factors towards that stat that the pitcher doesn't control that it's just not a good metric to determine value. I truly think electing Morris would be the worst writers' election in its history, and only Jim Rice or Catfish Hunter is really that close.

1/12/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

jaysinw wrote:
Yeah 3.90 is high, so is the SHO and CG that is pitched, back then great pitchers where not pulled after 7 innings, and if you were the pitcher on the team managers would leave you in instead of bring ing someone else in to give up even more. Completely different era, not only was he consistent he was great. you must have something better. You saying you would have voted for Lee Smith, if not for the 10 player rule, with his 3.03 ERA and a WHIP of 1.256 as a reliever is pissed poor, makes you argument against Morris weak, just as you voting for Alan Tramell. He was a very good ball player no way good enough to get into the hall, and then not even having Glavine on your list, seriously, yeah thank you for opinon but you do not much of a case.

I think you are confusing Morris having a couple of great moments with him being a great pitcher.  It's not the first time someone has done that.  Writers voted for Andre Dawson based ONLY on his fantastic 1987 MVP season.  It was indeed a different time yes.  But it's not like Morris was one of the top pitchers of his era.    I'll admit Smith is a bubble player.  So going after my lackluster support for him is legit.  I can still make a better case for him than Morris.  Trammell is a bubble player too for me.  But what puts him over the top for me is that he played his entire career for the same team.  I do use that when evaluating maybe players.  Sue me.  It's a feat I personally value.  Trammell is like Larkin.  I'm OK with Larkin being in for the same reason. 
And yes, I do not have Glavine on my list.  He was certainly good but just as certainly one of the most overrated pitchers in his era.  I just can't vote for that guy simply because umpires gave him 4 extra inches of outside plate they didn't give to nearly anryone else.   The ONLY thing Glavine has going for him for the Hall is his win total.  I do not think 300 wins means automatic Hall entry.  To me, 300 wins only means you were good enough to pitch a long time and played for good teams much of your career.  Neither are reasons to enshrine someone in the Hall of Fame. 
The best argument for Morris is the one that carries little weight.  Most wins in the 80's?  Nice stat.  But almost worthless.  That WS performance in '91?  Again, nice, but post season performance doesn't make a Hall of Fame player.  He threw a log ot CG's and a lot of innings.  Yet again, nice but that really would only be impressive if he pitched 15 years later when that sort of thing really gained traction to go out of style.  Looking at the era he played in only hurts his case rather than supporting it.

1/12/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

ML31 wrote:
I'm sorry but 3.90 ERA is piss poor and 1.296 is not all that impressive a WHIP either.  Morris was good, consistent but no way does he belong in the Hall.  But then, neither does Blyleven.  And he got in.  That Hall is obviously not reserved for the best of the best.  To cite the cliche, it's turning into the "Hall of the very good".

Yeah 3.90 is high, so is the SHO and CG that is pitched, back then great pitchers where not pulled after 7 innings, and if you were the pitcher on the team managers would leave you in instead of bring ing someone else in to give up even more. Completely different era, not only was he consistent he was great. you must have something better. You saying you would have voted for Lee Smith, if not for the 10 player rule, with his 3.03 ERA and a WHIP of 1.256 as a reliever is pissed poor, makes you argument against Morris weak, just as you voting for Alan Tramell. He was a very good ball player no way good enough to get into the hall, and then not even having Glavine on your list, seriously, yeah thank you for opinon but you do not much of a case.

1/12/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

jaysinw wrote:
I knew you would go there with the MVPs if you look back you can make an argument that only one is legit, the other there were players more valuable then Yount, not to mention it is the same people who cannot get the hall of fame vote right voting for the MVP. So finishing no higher then 5th is a silly argument besides there are players in the Hall, which never won a MVP or pitchers which did not win the Cy Young. Case in point Dale Murphy, did not make it and he won 2 MVP also and was a 7x all star in 18 years.


The GG is a joke, the point being you cannot sit there using which award is won, all the awards you can see a case why a player should not have won.   

The problem with you argument, is you would vote for Frank Thomas, who because of injuries and pain was moved from 1B to DH why, to compile offensive stats. So for that matter you should never vote for Thomas or Jim Thome when it is his turn. Don Mattingly if he would have just moved to DH to have lenghtened his career and pad his stats.  

Ignore that he was suspended for using PEDs, it is you you said and I paraphrasing that  using PEDs should be ignore. If you wanted to go with PEDs any player that was shown to have used them should not get into the hall either seeing how PEDs, just on a simple note was to help a player stay healthier so that he could have a longer career, which in return would be padding his stats.

Still you do not have a strong argument to keep him out, when players who have done less are in and you back players who padded their stats moving to DH 

When did I say anything about the DH?

I think you're missing my point, when I refer to Palmeiro as a compiler.

I'm not holding his longevity against him. There's nothing wrong with players who have long careers and rack up huge numbers.

My problem with Palmeiro is that he was never, at any point, anywhere near as good as the guys who actually deserve induction.

For example... you mention Frank Thomas. But his career OPS+ is 156. Palmeiro's is 132. Thomas' batting average is 13 points higher, his OBP is 48 points higher, and his slugging percentage is 40 points higher.

Sorry, Frank Thomas and Rafael Palmeiro aren't comparable as hitters.

1/12/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Pat wrote:
Jorge Posada should absolutely NOT be an All Star.

Yount won 2 MVPs. Palmeiro never finished higher than 5th.

Also, please don't mention gold gloves as if they matter. Palmeiro won a gold glove in 1999, a year in which he played 28 games in the field. He is the poster boy for fraudulent gold glove awards.

Even if you completely ignore the fact that he was suspended for PED use almost immediately after wagging his finger at Congress, he was never THAT good of a player. Hall of very good, perhaps. But not HOF worthy.

I knew you would go there with the MVPs if you look back you can make an argument that only one is legit, the other there were players more valuable then Yount, not to mention it is the same people who cannot get the hall of fame vote right voting for the MVP. So finishing no higher then 5th is a silly argument besides there are players in the Hall, which never won a MVP or pitchers which did not win the Cy Young. Case in point Dale Murphy, did not make it and he won 2 MVP also and was a 7x all star in 18 years.


The GG is a joke, the point being you cannot sit there using which award is won, all the awards you can see a case why a player should not have won.   

The problem with you argument, is you would vote for Frank Thomas, who because of injuries and pain was moved from 1B to DH why, to compile offensive stats. So for that matter you should never vote for Thomas or Jim Thome when it is his turn. Don Mattingly if he would have just moved to DH to have lenghtened his career and pad his stats.  

Ignore that he was suspended for using PEDs, it is you you said and I paraphrasing that  using PEDs should be ignore. If you wanted to go with PEDs any player that was shown to have used them should not get into the hall either seeing how PEDs, just on a simple note was to help a player stay healthier so that he could have a longer career, which in return would be padding his stats.

Still you do not have a strong argument to keep him out, when players who have done less are in and you back players who padded their stats moving to DH 

1/12/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

jaysinw wrote:
Compiler... , because over 20 years he was consistent instead of having 8 great years 7 good years and then 5 ok or below average years.  Slightly above average, hitting 30+ HRs 9 straight years and 10 out of 11 yrs. and won the SS & GG twice.  Yes looking how many all star games a player was in is a joke. Jorde Posada was in 5 in 17 yrs, does not mean he should be in the hall...or that Robin Yount should not be in the hall because he only played in 3 all star games in 20 seasons?

Jorge Posada should absolutely NOT be an All Star.

Yount won 2 MVPs. Palmeiro never finished higher than 5th.

Also, please don't mention gold gloves as if they matter. Palmeiro won a gold glove in 1999, a year in which he played 28 games in the field. He is the poster boy for fraudulent gold glove awards.

Even if you completely ignore the fact that he was suspended for PED use almost immediately after wagging his finger at Congress, he was never THAT good of a player. Hall of very good, perhaps. But not HOF worthy.

1/12/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

jaysinw wrote:
Without going into how he won games, in 18 season he pitched 3824 innings, 3.90 ERA, 175 CG 28 SHO 2478 SO in 549 games, WHIP 1.296  5x All-star, 7x placed in Cy Young voting, 5X placed in the MVP voting as for Schilling in 20 seasons he pitched 3261 innings, 3.46 ERA, 83CG, 20SHO, 3116 SO in 569 games WHIP 1.137 6X all-star, 4x place in Cy Young voting, 4x placed in the MVP voting.

Schilling with all of his stats no one can say he was consistent year in and year out as Morris, besides being a SO pitcher, he only had great years in '01,;02, and '04. So again how he, 'Schilling is the pitcher the Morris' backers wish Morris was'?

Of all the things you just mentioned, most of them are subjective and/or dependent on other factors.

The two things that are the most objective and accurate stats are ERA and WHIP... both of which heavily favor Schilling.

1/12/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

jaysinw wrote:
Without going into how he won games, in 18 season he pitched 3824 innings, 3.90 ERA, 175 CG 28 SHO 2478 SO in 549 games, WHIP 1.296  5x All-star, 7x placed in Cy Young voting, 5X placed in the MVP voting as for Schilling in 20 seasons he pitched 3261 innings, 3.46 ERA, 83CG, 20SHO, 3116 SO in 569 games WHIP 1.137 6X all-star, 4x place in Cy Young voting, 4x placed in the MVP voting.

Schilling with all of his stats no one can say he was consistent year in and year out as Morris, besides being a SO pitcher, he only had great years in '01,;02, and '04. So again how he, 'Schilling is the pitcher the Morris' backers wish Morris was'?

I'm sorry but 3.90 ERA is piss poor and 1.296 is not all that impressive a WHIP either.  Morris was good, consistent but no way does he belong in the Hall.  But then, neither does Blyleven.  And he got in.  That Hall is obviously not reserved for the best of the best.  To cite the cliche, it's turning into the "Hall of the very good".

1/12/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Eric_ wrote:
Just once, I'd love to see someone make an argument for Morris that wasn't nothing but narrative. The problem is you can't except for the win thing, and at this point we really shouldn't be using wins to judge pitchers.

Schilling is the pitcher the Morris backers wish Morris actually was.

Without going into how he won games, in 18 season he pitched 3824 innings, 3.90 ERA, 175 CG 28 SHO 2478 SO in 549 games, WHIP 1.296  5x All-star, 7x placed in Cy Young voting, 5X placed in the MVP voting as for Schilling in 20 seasons he pitched 3261 innings, 3.46 ERA, 83CG, 20SHO, 3116 SO in 569 games WHIP 1.137 6X all-star, 4x place in Cy Young voting, 4x placed in the MVP voting.

Schilling with all of his stats no one can say he was consistent year in and year out as Morris, besides being a SO pitcher, he only had great years in '01,;02, and '04. So again how he, 'Schilling is the pitcher the Morris' backers wish Morris was'?

1/12/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

Pat wrote:
In other news, I'm tired of hearing people stump for Palmeiro, too. I realize the All Star game is a popularity contest... but if a guy played for 20 years and only was an All Star 4 times, then we shouldn't even be discussing his HOF candidacy.

Look up the word "compiler" in the dictionary, and there's a picture of Palmeiro. Slightly above average player for a really long time. Never the best player on his own team, or even close to it.

Not a Hall of Famer.

Compiler... , because over 20 years he was consistent instead of having 8 great years 7 good years and then 5 ok or below average years.  Slightly above average, hitting 30+ HRs 9 straight years and 10 out of 11 yrs. and won the SS & GG twice.  Yes looking how many all star games a player was in is a joke. Jorde Posada was in 5 in 17 yrs, does not mean he should be in the hall...or that Robin Yount should not be in the hall because he only played in 3 all star games in 20 seasons?

1/11/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

Pat wrote:
In other news, I'm tired of hearing people stump for Palmeiro, too. I realize the All Star game is a popularity contest... but if a guy played for 20 years and only was an All Star 4 times, then we shouldn't even be discussing his HOF candidacy.

Look up the word "compiler" in the dictionary, and there's a picture of Palmeiro. Slightly above average player for a really long time. Never the best player on his own team, or even close to it.

Not a Hall of Famer.

Funny to hear that...  I've never felt Palmeiro was worth of the Hall.  He fell into that category of very good player, not great player.  (like Winfield, Blyleven and the afore mentioned Morris)  But I constantly heard the talking heads years ago speak like he was the first Hall of Fame litmus test for steroid users.  I didn't think so because I never felt the guy was worthy anyway.  Although, I'm convinced given the very low threshold of what the writers deem as worthy (this year's ballot not withstanding) he would have certainly been in the Hall had that positive test not appeared.

1/11/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

In other news, I'm tired of hearing people stump for Palmeiro, too. I realize the All Star game is a popularity contest... but if a guy played for 20 years and only was an All Star 4 times, then we shouldn't even be discussing his HOF candidacy.

Look up the word "compiler" in the dictionary, and there's a picture of Palmeiro. Slightly above average player for a really long time. Never the best player on his own team, or even close to it.

Not a Hall of Famer.

1/11/13   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

Just once, I'd love to see someone make an argument for Morris that wasn't nothing but narrative. The problem is you can't except for the win thing, and at this point we really shouldn't be using wins to judge pitchers.

Schilling is the pitcher the Morris backers wish Morris actually was.

1/11/13   |   jaysinw   |   4899 respect

1) Jack Morris- come on the man was one of the most fear pitchers of the AL won 15 or more every year in the '80s but 2 and one of those years was 14 which lead the AL.

2) Lee Smith- another one who anyone would want on the mound come the 7-8 inning of a game, not just the ninth.

3) Mark McGwire- I have heard people say he could not play defense, did win a GG in 1990, so how someone could vote for Frank Thomas (who was less of a defensive 1B, then moved to DH)and not McGwire is beyond me.

4) Maddox and 5) Glavine- enough said.


6) Raphael Palmerio- he may have been quiet but is a lot like another HoFer in Eddie Murray.

7) Mike Piazza- was the best power hitting catcher, defense improve over his career.

8) Fred McGriff-- 493 HRs, hit 19 or more in 16 of the 19 seasons, two he played in 27 games or less, so really 17 seasons compared to Frank Thomas who did it in 13 0f his 19 seasons and we can take 2 seasons away to make it 19. So he may not be flashy but still should get in.


9) Bonds- I am going along with excluding steroids, what he did on them still cannot be denied.


10) Clemens- without question should still be in there.



Out this year
Craig Biggio- is only out because of the 10 player rule and Morris, Lee and McGriff should have all ready been in, which then Biggio, Bagwell, and Kent would have been on this list.


Sammy Sosa just not this year but the next.


Jeff Bagwell- he was not a lock to get in so in 2015 I would vote for him

Jeff Kent- see him in 2015

Frank Thomas- I am not a fan of the DH, but he did put up great offensive numbers, I just may not vote for him while there is position players on the list worth the vote.

Curt Schilling- I like him but I am not sure how someone can vote for him to get in and not Jack Morris.

Now these would be voted as would Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez,  John Smoltz, and Gary Shefield.




 

1/10/13   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

Also, not all of those potential first timers will end up on the ballot, although if Steve Trachsel gets on there I'm going to have a good laugh.

1/10/13   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

Off the top of my head (until my next 6000 word opus next year) and not doing any major legwork on the newbies:

Bagwell
Biggio
Bonds
Clemens
Glavine
Maddux
Piazza
Raines
Thomas
Either Mussina or Schilling in the last spot

That drops off for me McGwire, Edgar, and Trammell for now. I haven't thought about Kent yet, so I don't know. My overall consideration set for next year is 19 though (the 5 big newbies and all the returners save Morris, Smith, and Mattingly), so I'd love to see the 10 limit gone. This backlog is ridiculous.

1/10/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

Biggio - Solid consistent hitter.  Plus he played catcher when he came up.  Versitile player.
Bonds - Home run king.  Hands down the best player in the last 50 years.
Clemens - Rock solid pitcher.  All the K's, Cy Young's, Innings pitched...  Solid lock.
Kent - Although average defensively was the best offensive 2nd baseman since Jackie Robinson
Maddux - For a 7 year span he was as untouchable as a starter could get.  Another 7 where he was still pretty good.
McGwire - The home run is still the sexiest stat in Baseball.  And only 9 players have hit more.
Piazza - Although average defensively, the best hitting catcher since the likes of Cochrane.
Raines - Floored how under appreciated this guy is.  He was a better leadoff hitter than Henderson IMHO.
Sosa - Again, only 7 players hit more homers.
Thomas - His DH days bring him down in my eye but he still played most of his career in the field.  Dominant hitter for most of his playing days.

Those who would make it but left off the list due to the 10 player limit are Smith and Trammell.

1/10/13   |   gobigblue1960   |   4803 respect

I have been a baseball fan for most of my life.

Dale Murphy, Jack Morris, Tim Raines are three automatic entries for me. 

As for Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and the steroids guys, I have no sympathy or them, or their fans.

They cheated baseball, and the historic records of the best game ever invented.