Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!!

I think Morris has the strongest chances. Also Trammell. If you look at his
stats, he was very comparable to Ozzie Smith and Smith made it on the first
ballot. Maybe Tram should have learned to do some backflips.

"Da Yooper" wrote in message

> Those that should be in the HOF, in order of strongest stats. Anyone
> care to comment on these ??
>
> 1. Sweet Lou Whitaker - I feel he's very strong at that position
> compared to his contemporaries.
>
> 2. Jack Morris - winning pitcher of the 1980's, two WS rings, and
> good longevity. Always lots of quality innings...
>
> 3. Alan Trammell - crowded out by Yount/Smith/Ripken in terms of
> media attention. Also, if Phil Rizzuto, Rabbit Maranville, and
> Pee Wee Reese get in, how can you deny Tram a vote ??
>
> 4. Tommy Bridges - Career 3.57 ERA, nearly a full run below the
> league average. Also only 122 less career strikeouts than Hal
> Newhouser had.
>
> 5. Bobby Veach - Career .310 batting average, and drove in at least
> 100 runs six times. His stats are very comparable to Yahoo Sam
> Crawford's, if you take into account that Crawford had 50% more
> career at-bats. Only negative is that he was a late bloomer and
> only had 11 "full" major-league seasons (14 total).
>
> Andy.
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!! 

>2. Jack Morris - winning pitcher of the 1980's, two WS rings, and
> good longevity. Always lots of quality innings..

I think Morris actually had 4 WS rings (3 in a row!!!)
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!! 

In article ,
somedude.RemoveThis@somewhere.net says...
> Those that should be in the HOF, in order of strongest stats. Anyone
> care to comment on these ??

Whitaker and Trammell both are in the class of HoFer. Problem is that
the Hall of Fame has a relatively weak record of electing all-time greats
that are very good at a broad base skills but none that are particularly
noteworthy on a historical level. So they get thrown in a group with
players like Bobby Grich, Ron Santo, and in 5 years, Tim Raines at the
expense of weaker candidates like Steve Garvey.

> 2. Jack Morris - winning pitcher of the 1980's, two WS rings, and
> good longevity. Always lots of quality innings...
>
>
> 4. Tommy Bridges - Career 3.57 ERA, nearly a full run below the
> league average. Also only 122 less career strikeouts than Hal
> Newhouser had.

There are certain negatives that Tommy Bridges, a good candidate bring
out in Morris' case. Morris has the highlights, but whereas Bridges
finished with a 3.57 ERA in a 4.50 ERA league, Morris finished with a
3.90 ERA in a 4.08 ERA league and only was a run better than league
average a single time in his career.

As for the 1980s most wins, that's mostly a measure of being very durable
(Morris' best point) and for just happening to have his best years
between 1980-1989. If it was 1977-1986 that he had the most wins, you'd
never hear of it. Also, wins within a decade isn't great Hall criteria.
Take a look at the top 10 for 1980s wins:

Jack Morris
Dave Stieb
Bob Welch
Charlie Hough
Fernando Valenzuela
Bert Blyleven
Nolan Ryan
Jim Clancy
Frank Viola
Rick Sutcliffe

Is that how one would mentally rank those pitchers? Or even close?
Morris was durable, not dominant - he's also the 3rd losingest pitcher of
the 1980s.

I'll get off this subject now as I'm likely to be cursed out by someone
for going after a sacred cow.

> 5. Bobby Veach - Career .310 batting average, and drove in at least
> 100 runs six times. His stats are very comparable to Yahoo Sam
> Crawford's, if you take into account that Crawford had 50% more
> career at-bats. Only negative is that he was a late bloomer and
> only had 11 "full" major-league seasons (14 total).
>
> Andy.
>

--
Dan Szymborski
dan.RemoveThis@baseballprimerREMOVE.com

"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not a whole-hearted
supporter of what is good."
-Robert Schumann
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!! 

You can make a case for each player mentioned, but this has got me
thinking - does playing in Detroit hurt a player's chances of making it to
the HOF? If Morris or Trammell played in New York or St. Louis, would they
be in the HOF? Probably... Jason


"Da Yooper" wrote in message

> Those that should be in the HOF, in order of strongest stats. Anyone
> care to comment on these ??
>
> 1. Sweet Lou Whitaker - I feel he's very strong at that position
> compared to his contemporaries.
>
> 2. Jack Morris - winning pitcher of the 1980's, two WS rings, and
> good longevity. Always lots of quality innings...
>
> 3. Alan Trammell - crowded out by Yount/Smith/Ripken in terms of
> media attention. Also, if Phil Rizzuto, Rabbit Maranville, and
> Pee Wee Reese get in, how can you deny Tram a vote ??
>
> 4. Tommy Bridges - Career 3.57 ERA, nearly a full run below the
> league average. Also only 122 less career strikeouts than Hal
> Newhouser had.
>
> 5. Bobby Veach - Career .310 batting average, and drove in at least
> 100 runs six times. His stats are very comparable to Yahoo Sam
> Crawford's, if you take into account that Crawford had 50% more
> career at-bats. Only negative is that he was a late bloomer and
> only had 11 "full" major-league seasons (14 total).
>
> Andy.
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!! 

Lou Whitaker didn't have enough votes to stay on the ballot, so he'll be
considered down the road for the vote by the Veterans Committee.

"Dan Szymborski" wrote in message

> In article ,
> somedude DeleteThis @somewhere.net says...
> > Those that should be in the HOF, in order of strongest stats. Anyone
> > care to comment on these ??
>
> Whitaker and Trammell both are in the class of HoFer. Problem is that
> the Hall of Fame has a relatively weak record of electing all-time greats
> that are very good at a broad base skills but none that are particularly
> noteworthy on a historical level. So they get thrown in a group with
> players like Bobby Grich, Ron Santo, and in 5 years, Tim Raines at the
> expense of weaker candidates like Steve Garvey.
>
> > 2. Jack Morris - winning pitcher of the 1980's, two WS rings, and
> > good longevity. Always lots of quality innings...
> >
> >
> > 4. Tommy Bridges - Career 3.57 ERA, nearly a full run below the
> > league average. Also only 122 less career strikeouts than Hal
> > Newhouser had.
>
> There are certain negatives that Tommy Bridges, a good candidate bring
> out in Morris' case. Morris has the highlights, but whereas Bridges
> finished with a 3.57 ERA in a 4.50 ERA league, Morris finished with a
> 3.90 ERA in a 4.08 ERA league and only was a run better than league
> average a single time in his career.
>
> As for the 1980s most wins, that's mostly a measure of being very durable
> (Morris' best point) and for just happening to have his best years
> between 1980-1989. If it was 1977-1986 that he had the most wins, you'd
> never hear of it. Also, wins within a decade isn't great Hall criteria.
> Take a look at the top 10 for 1980s wins:
>
> Jack Morris
> Dave Stieb
> Bob Welch
> Charlie Hough
> Fernando Valenzuela
> Bert Blyleven
> Nolan Ryan
> Jim Clancy
> Frank Viola
> Rick Sutcliffe
>
> Is that how one would mentally rank those pitchers? Or even close?
> Morris was durable, not dominant - he's also the 3rd losingest pitcher of
> the 1980s.
>
> I'll get off this subject now as I'm likely to be cursed out by someone
> for going after a sacred cow.
>
> > 5. Bobby Veach - Career .310 batting average, and drove in at least
> > 100 runs six times. His stats are very comparable to Yahoo Sam
> > Crawford's, if you take into account that Crawford had 50% more
> > career at-bats. Only negative is that he was a late bloomer and
> > only had 11 "full" major-league seasons (14 total).
> >
> > Andy.
> >
>
> --
> Dan Szymborski
> dan DeleteThis @baseballprimerREMOVE.com
>
> "A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not a whole-hearted
> supporter of what is good."
> -Robert Schumann
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!! 

In article , none RemoveThis @none.com says...
> Lou Whitaker didn't have enough votes to stay on the ballot, so he'll be
> considered down the road for the vote by the Veterans Committee.

True, but we're talking who should be in the Hall, after all! Whitaker
falling off the ballot was downright silly.

--
Dan Szymborski
dan RemoveThis @baseballprimerREMOVE.com

"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not a whole-hearted
supporter of what is good."
-Robert Schumann
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!! 

I agree with that 100%

>Whitaker falling off the ballot was downright silly.
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!! 

I don't think any of the candidates deserve to be elected to the Hall of
Fame.. 26 years pitching in the majors by Tommy John with 288 victories
merits the Hall of Fame ahead of Morris.


"Jason" wrote in message

> You can make a case for each player mentioned, but this has got me
> thinking - does playing in Detroit hurt a player's chances of making it to
> the HOF? If Morris or Trammell played in New York or St. Louis, would they
> be in the HOF? Probably... Jason
>
>
> "Da Yooper" wrote in message
>
> > Those that should be in the HOF, in order of strongest stats. Anyone
> > care to comment on these ??
> >
> > 1. Sweet Lou Whitaker - I feel he's very strong at that position
> > compared to his contemporaries.
> >
> > 2. Jack Morris - winning pitcher of the 1980's, two WS rings, and
> > good longevity. Always lots of quality innings...
> >
> > 3. Alan Trammell - crowded out by Yount/Smith/Ripken in terms of
> > media attention. Also, if Phil Rizzuto, Rabbit Maranville, and
> > Pee Wee Reese get in, how can you deny Tram a vote ??
> >
> > 4. Tommy Bridges - Career 3.57 ERA, nearly a full run below the
> > league average. Also only 122 less career strikeouts than Hal
> > Newhouser had.
> >
> > 5. Bobby Veach - Career .310 batting average, and drove in at least
> > 100 runs six times. His stats are very comparable to Yahoo Sam
> > Crawford's, if you take into account that Crawford had 50% more
> > career at-bats. Only negative is that he was a late bloomer and
> > only had 11 "full" major-league seasons (14 total).
> >
> > Andy.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!! 

In article ,
j123.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca says...
> You can make a case for each player mentioned, but this has got me
> thinking - does playing in Detroit hurt a player's chances of making it to
> the HOF? If Morris or Trammell played in New York or St. Louis, would they
> be in the HOF? Probably... Jason

I don't think it's so much the city. Most of the sportswriters voting
were around for good Detroit teams. I really think they're just the type
of player that has a hard time being appreciated in Hall voting. If
Trammell had a higher average and less home runs or lost 100 doubles but
garnered 3 or 4 more Gold Gloves, he wouldn't be a better player but more
electable.

--
Dan Szymborski
dan.DeleteThis@baseballprimerREMOVE.com

"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not a whole-hearted
supporter of what is good."
-Robert Schumann
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!! 

"Tim B" wrote in message

> Lou Whitaker didn't have enough votes to stay on the ballot, so he'll be
> considered down the road for the vote by the Veterans Committee.

In my view Whitaker is a marginal HOF but the best of the list, at least of
Tigers I've seen play. I'd put him a bit ahead of Trammell. I'd rank
Trammell ahead of Ozzie by a decent margin, but I'd not have voted for
Ozzie, so that would not help Trammell with me. Whatever the merits of
Whitaker, I think it was too bad that he went off the ballot so quickly. I
can see the hard-ass guys not voiting for him, but the softies made a
mistake, given their general position.
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!! 

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:48:57 -0500, Dan Szymborski
wrote:

>In article ,
>somedude@somewhere.net says...
>> Those that should be in the HOF, in order of strongest stats. Anyone
>> care to comment on these ??
>
>Whitaker and Trammell both are in the class of HoFer. Problem is that
>the Hall of Fame has a relatively weak record of electing all-time greats
>that are very good at a broad base skills but none that are particularly
>noteworthy on a historical level. So they get thrown in a group with
>players like Bobby Grich, Ron Santo, and in 5 years, Tim Raines at the
>expense of weaker candidates like Steve Garvey.
>
>> 2. Jack Morris - winning pitcher of the 1980's, two WS rings, and
>> good longevity. Always lots of quality innings...
>>
>>
>> 4. Tommy Bridges - Career 3.57 ERA, nearly a full run below the
>> league average. Also only 122 less career strikeouts than Hal
>> Newhouser had.
>
>There are certain negatives that Tommy Bridges, a good candidate bring
>out in Morris' case. Morris has the highlights, but whereas Bridges
>finished with a 3.57 ERA in a 4.50 ERA league, Morris finished with a
>3.90 ERA in a 4.08 ERA league and only was a run better than league
>average a single time in his career.

Which makes him basically a more durable version of Catfish Hunter, if
you compare their stats. Catfish's ERA was similarly close to league
average - granted he did throw in pain every year after age 30. So my
question would be why Catfish and not Morris, and for that matter Bert
Blyleven ? Especially Blyleven with his 3.31 career ERA and over 3700
K's !! The sportwriters hate this guy or what?

>As for the 1980s most wins, that's mostly a measure of being very durable
>(Morris' best point) and for just happening to have his best years
>between 1980-1989. If it was 1977-1986 that he had the most wins, you'd
>never hear of it. Also, wins within a decade isn't great Hall criteria.
>Take a look at the top 10 for 1980s wins:
>
>Jack Morris
>Dave Stieb
>Bob Welch
>Charlie Hough
>Fernando Valenzuela
>Bert Blyleven
>Nolan Ryan
>Jim Clancy
>Frank Viola
>Rick Sutcliffe
>
>Is that how one would mentally rank those pitchers? Or even close?
>Morris was durable, not dominant - he's also the 3rd losingest pitcher of
>the 1980s. I'll get off this subject now as I'm likely to be cursed out by someone
>for going after a sacred cow.

Good point, the "most in the 80's" sounds sexier than is really is.
But the bottom line for Morris reads 252 wins. Not the "Magic 300"
but certainly more than others already enshrined.

I can't argue that Ryan, Carlton, Seaver, Jenkins, Sutton, etc. have
better stats than Morris, but there is a "void" of HOF pitchers who
had the peak of their careers after 1980. Shouldn't at least one
starting pitcher from the "80's" be worthy of enshrinement? Middle
infield is certainly well covered from all the earlier eras, with guys
like Red Schoendiest, Rabbit Maranville, and Phil Rizzuto getting in.

With one of every five players in the majors being a starting pitcher,
it seems the "80's" starters should be represented by at least ONE
Hofer, right ? I'm not advocating a quota, but it sure looks like a
serious void from my limited perspective ....

Andy.
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!! 

In article ,
somedude DeleteThis @somewhere.net says...
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:48:57 -0500, Dan Szymborski
> wrote:
> >average a single time in his career.
>
> Which makes him basically a more durable version of Catfish Hunter, if
> you compare their stats. Catfish's ERA was similarly close to league
> average - granted he did throw in pain every year after age 30. So my
> question would be why Catfish and not Morris, and for that matter Bert
> Blyleven ? Especially Blyleven with his 3.31 career ERA and over 3700
> K's !! The sportwriters hate this guy or what?

Blyleven is the anti-Hunter - he played his prime for some truly horrible
offensive teams.

[...]

> >Is that how one would mentally rank those pitchers? Or even close?
> >Morris was durable, not dominant - he's also the 3rd losingest pitcher of
> >the 1980s. I'll get off this subject now as I'm likely to be cursed out by someone
> >for going after a sacred cow.
>
> Good point, the "most in the 80's" sounds sexier than is really is.
> But the bottom line for Morris reads 252 wins. Not the "Magic 300"
> but certainly more than others already enshrined.
>
> I can't argue that Ryan, Carlton, Seaver, Jenkins, Sutton, etc. have
> better stats than Morris, but there is a "void" of HOF pitchers who
> had the peak of their careers after 1980. Shouldn't at least one
> starting pitcher from the "80's" be worthy of enshrinement? Middle
> infield is certainly well covered from all the earlier eras, with guys
> like Red Schoendiest, Rabbit Maranville, and Phil Rizzuto getting in.
>
> With one of every five players in the majors being a starting pitcher,
> it seems the "80's" starters should be represented by at least ONE
> Hofer, right ? I'm not advocating a quota, but it sure looks like a
> serious void from my limited perspective ....

Problem is that if everyone better than the worst mistakes get in, we'll
have a massive Hall of Fame and in the process, probably make more
mistakes!

Morris is definitely better than the worst Hall of Famers and it wouldn't
be a travesty if he got in the Hall (all those innings in his era is a
huge point in his favor), but I think there are still more deserving
players. Like Bridges.

And Rizzuto *is* a truly horrible choice. The Vet Committee turned out
to be pretty ill-conceived what with Frankie Frisch getting everyone he
ever played with into the Hall. The new format isn't an improvement
either - almost guaranteed to elect nobody.

There was some pretty bad luck with 1980s pitchers as a group it seems.
Just looking at the pitchers that debuted between 1976 and 1985, there
are a lot of could'ves and not many dids. Dave Stieb, John Tudor,
Fernando Valenzuela, Frank Viola, Orel Hershiser, Dwight Gooden, Jimmy
Key, Bret Saberhagen is a pretty impressive list of derailed pitchers.

Actually, this makes me more in favor of Jack Morris for the Hall. He's
pretty much the only pitcher of the era to get his full career in except
for Dennis Martinez, who strangely enough debuted before Morris but had
his best years after Morris was done.

--
Dan Szymborski
dan DeleteThis @baseballprimerREMOVE.com

"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not a whole-hearted
supporter of what is good."
-Robert Schumann
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!! 

Dan Szymborski wrote in message ...
> In article ,
> somedude RemoveThis @somewhere.net says...
> > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:48:57 -0500, Dan Szymborski
> > wrote:
> > >average a single time in his career.
> >
> > Which makes him basically a more durable version of Catfish Hunter, if
> > you compare their stats. Catfish's ERA was similarly close to league
> > average - granted he did throw in pain every year after age 30. So my
> > question would be why Catfish and not Morris, and for that matter Bert
> > Blyleven ? Especially Blyleven with his 3.31 career ERA and over 3700
> > K's !! The sportwriters hate this guy or what?
>
> Blyleven is the anti-Hunter - he played his prime for some truly horrible
> offensive teams.
>
> [...]
(snippage)
> >
> > With one of every five players in the majors being a starting pitcher,
> > it seems the "80's" starters should be represented by at least ONE
> > Hofer, right ? I'm not advocating a quota, but it sure looks like a
> > serious void from my limited perspective ....
>
> Problem is that if everyone better than the worst mistakes get in, we'll
> have a massive Hall of Fame and in the process, probably make more
> mistakes!

Llyod Waner and Rick Ferrell set the bar pretty low. As does Jesse Haines
for pitchers. (To put the matter into perspective I'd rank Waner some
place between Devon White and Marquis Grissom -- albeit in a very
different offensive package. Good defensive CF who was just a tick below
league average as an offensive player)

To me (and I'm pretty sure you're on something close to the same page)
the solution is simple. Vote for the most qualified player. And if for
some reason there a better player that you can't vote for, well you
know where the line between HOFer and not is.

I can live with a HOF definition that doesn't include Bert Blyleven. I can
accept there are pitchers already in who Blyleven is better than. But I
can't see the logic of voting for any pitcher clearly not as good as
Blyleven.

(Pete Rose doesn't set a bar, nor does Joe Jackson. We all know they'd
be in if they didn't do what earned them their bans)

> Morris is definitely better than the worst Hall of Famers and it wouldn't
> be a travesty if he got in the Hall (all those innings in his era is a
> huge point in his favor), but I think there are still more deserving
> players. Like Bridges.
>
> And Rizzuto *is* a truly horrible choice. The Vet Committee turned out
> to be pretty ill-conceived what with Frankie Frisch getting everyone he
> ever played with into the Hall.

Thing is that the VC was required in its early days. The ballots were so
strong that the writers had basically lost the ability to elect anybody.

Of course the goofy choices started right off the bat. There are some real
lemons in the 1946 group. Tinker (but *not* Evers and Chance. If those
guys weren't going in, nobody was), McCarthy.

Still, without the VC setup we wouldn't have Arky Vaughan, Johnny Mize,
Amos Rusie, Roger Connor, George Davis, Sam Crawford or Billy
Hamilton.

I think it's clear that some great players are always going to be over-looked
by the writers (Santo, Grich, Whitaker and arguably Evans and Evans)
and you need some process to allow for it. The problem lies more with
allowing a Frisch to get control of the process. (As a digression, I can easily
see Joe Morgan ending up with similar power in the current process. And
while I don't think he's anywhere near the idiot he so often sounds like on
TV, I think that would be very bad for the Hall.)

>The new format isn't an improvement
> either - almost guaranteed to elect nobody.

Which means they're going to tweak the process. Probably by something
like runoff votes like they tried for a while with the writers. I remember
reading something about a new nominating committee chaired by Morgan.
Strictly in the proposal stage and I can't find the article, but as I recall it
the idea was that if the VC didn't elect anybody, the nominating committee
would cull the ballot for a second try.
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers That Should Be In The HOF !!!