The Hall of Fame, and some facts...with Sutters induction in perspective

Skinpinch

O.K., brush aside the fact that Bruce Sutter now looks like Rob Reiner's twin, and the fact that there are more pitchers from his own era who were just plain better, I'm not getting too upset about him making it, and here's why...

The 1970s-80's era players get the shaft when it comes to recognition in both statistical measurements, and Hall of Fame honors. They get the shaft because the way people are accustomed to measuring ballplayers is inherently unfair when it comes to players from this era. Even the most current method of measuring vs. the peers gives these players a disadvantage when compared to other eras.

Sutter's era was the toughest in the history of MLB to separate oneself from their peers, PERIOD!! It is hard to dominate the game when there are far more players around that are closer in ability to the best. I'm not going to flood this post with the immense amount of data, but thats why I'm not too upset about the election...I am a little upset that he passes more desrving guys from his era though.

Of the five or six names that are constantly mentioned on here from that era for the Hall, I wouldn't mind if they made it either. Then it would at least historically even out the era's a little, and this one should rightfully have the MOST players in it, certainly not the least. Boy, just look at the HOF roster from the 20's-30's, it seems like every other guy is in the Hall of Fame.

Axtell

Jim Rice and Jack Morris not being in the hall of fame are ridiculous exclusions...Rice's only negative being he hated the media and by all accounts was a bear to deal with...but few of his era instilled as much fear in opposing pitchers.

Sutter is a worthy induction, but for these 2 to still be on the outside looking is a shame for all baseball fans.

Skinpinch

Here is the breakdown of Hall of Famers by decade. Obviously most HOFers span two decades, so I simply put them into the decade in which they played the majority of their years. If the years were even, then I put them into the decade of their peak years...THe MIck was in the 50's, Aaron in the 60's. There were a couple of toss ups, but it doesn't mess up the jist of the list. HOFers by decades...

1880's... 12
1890's... 13
1900's... 22
1910's... 11
1920's... 30
1930's... 29
1940's... 14
1950's... 17
1960's... 20
1970's... 15
1980's....12

A foreigner went to the Hall of fame a few weeks ago and asked me...."What happened to the kids in the late 50's to early 70's?? Did they stop playing baseball in your country? When they grew up, they were the least represented in the Hall of Fame!"

I replied, "On the contrary, there were more kids playing baseball in our country during that time period than at any other time in the history of our country...In fact, multiple times than the turn of the century children." I continued, "It's just that writers, players, fans, and common statisticians don't really know how to measure the true value of the players, thus the bias in the results."

If you look at that chart, the 80's is tied for the lowest amount of HOFers. The only two decade span that has less HOFers from the 70's-80's is in the 19th century. I can understand the 19th century, but the 70's-80's?? That just smacks of ignorance. When I break down the pertinent information, you would see just how bad the bias is.

A couple of things to consider...is adding more marginal HOFers going to rectify the previous mistakes?? No. But do you want to go to the Hall of Fame and have 1/3 of the plaques representing players from the 20's and 30's only?? What about honoring the others?? Is anybody going to tell me that if the circumstances of the 80's mirrored that of the 20's that Pedro Guerrero wouldn't be batting .350 with 40 homers too?? Get rid of all the people of color in the game, Pedro paints his skin white, compete against only 1/2 the available population etc...etc...etc...

If I have time I will dig up some of the facts that make you go hmmm!

This comes back to the Mattingly thing we use to debate, and I always said, "Mattingly was the best hitter on the planet earth for a two year stretch, and there aren't that many people who could ever say that!" He did it against the stiffest competition than at any other point in the history of the game!! Doesn't that man need to be remembered more than half the joe schmoes who are in there from other eras??

As for Rice, his dominance is usually jacked too high by his backers, but when his era is put into proper context he is worth remembering as well, just as many others from the 'CROWDED' era of players, most of whom get little respect, because there were just too many good players to stand head and shoulders above the rest.

Coinhusker1

Blyleven got only 55% of the vote, and was behind Rice and Gossage (about 64%). I still do not quite understand what the media has against him, but I had limited exposure to him when he played.

JrMacdaddy

I don't ever see Jack Morris going into the HOF. How can a guy with a carrer ERA that's almost 4 (3.90) be in the HOF?

CardCoreCollector

Out of 18 years in the bigs Morris had an E.R.A over 4.00 eight times

JrMacdaddy

<< <i>Out of 18 years in the bigs Morris had an E.R.A over 4.00 eight times >>



That ain't a Hall of Famer.

The league ERA during his career was 4.08. He had an ERA worse than the league average 7 times. Finished 3rd in CYA voting twice. One WS MVP and 5 AS appearances. I just don't see it.

edited for spelling

Axtell

Jack Morris was the most dominant pitcher of the 80s.

Top 5 in Cy Young voting 5 times.
5 time all star.
3 time 20 game winner (also won 19 once and 18 twice).

But then looking at one stat (ERA) you are going to see what you want to see - he doesn't belong.

bri2327

Skinpinch.....nice breakdown and good info.

During the 80's I watched far more American league games than national league, and I can say with certainty that Jack Morris had the longest strech of dominance in that time frame. Other pitchers come to mind of course, Guidry and Palmer early in the decade. Some other names that had a couple of good years are Frank Viola, Saberhagen, Jimmy Key,Langston, and Dave Stewart, but none were consistantly dominant. The only pitchers, in my mind who pitched anywhere near Jack Morris' level for a considerable portion of the decade were Dave Stieb, and of course Clemens in the latter half of the decade.

bri2327

Also, regarding the one sticking point that people seem to have against Morris, his ERA.......Morris was a bulldog who NEVER wanted to come out of games. He was from the old school and believed he should finish what he started. I think this alone made for a slightly high ERA. He just didnt want to ever come out of a game, and occasionally his stats would suffer because of it. If he were pitching today, with pitch counts and all this other stuff that yanks pitchers out after 5 2/3 innings then I am sure his ERA would have been considerably lower.

Skinpinch

Bri, I don't know if that hurt his ERA more than it did the others during that era, but the 1,300+ walks and 389 Home Runs allowed were most likely the culprits. If you can show that to be fact, then it may give him a boost.

The following isn't a peak least, it is a career list. The career list on Hunter painted a sort of unfairly picture of him because his career ended early and started awfully early, and he did have a better peak than what the total career showed. Morris didn't have that type of dominance. I don't find a season where Morris was close to be the top dog in his own league.

Here are the overall RUNS saved above LEAGUE AVERAGE pitcher for some NON HOF 80's guys, with park factor included...

Saberhagen.....245
Stieb................244

Guidry.............170
Rogers............170

Viola................151
Hershisher.......143

Gooden...........112

Morris..............76
Welch...............72

Soto..................52
Fernando.........39

Steib and Saberhagen clearly had more dominance than Morris, and a total career value that is higher.

Now, that is vs. LEAGUE AVERAGE PITCHER. His value is probably a little higher when looked at differently. If you look at his value as compared to a league average REPLACEMENT, his value goes up a little more since Morris has a big edge over a lot of guys in INNINGS.
I say this because the true value of a pitcher who logs the innings may better be measured vs. the average replacement in his stead. It isn't as if teams have a league average pitcher on the bench waiting to take a spot in the rotation.

Think of it like this, a guy with a career ERA exactly the same as league average would get 0 runs in the chart above. That doesn't mean he is worthless, it just means his totals ended up at league average. Well, a league average pitcher that leads the league in innings might better be expressed with runs above REPLACEMENT player. Morris's number would be around 800+ runs above the average replacement pitcher over his 3,800 plus innings. Steib's value would be about the same because he threw 1,000 less innings, despite being far better in ERA.

This has real life implications, but it can ALSO BE COUNTERED!!! A good GM would know when to cut bait with a longevity guy. If you take Stieb who is clearly better in his prime, and then get rid of him at the right time, and then put that money towards a fresher pitcher.....you are better off doing that, than paying a premium price and suffering through the Jack Morris lean years of a lot of IP!
That is another discussion, but the bottom line is that the dominance outweighs the longevity in terms of what's best for a team.

So, Stieb has a better career value vs. league average pitcher. They are about equal when measured vs. League avg REPLACEMENT. Stieb clearly has a better dominance. Stieb is the better player to have.

To keep this discussion in line with the thread, Stieb is a player that merits the HOF more than Morris from the 80's. I think Morris's true peak rating would need to be looked at more thoroughly to see if he merits discussion.


Edited to add: The figures of the league replacement are generous. That is replacing with a real crummy replacement level player. Those numbers are a tad high toward that type of evaluation.

joestalin

If you have to prove a guy belongs in the hall by discussion, then he doesn't belong. The only thing I remember about Sutter, is those
years with the Braves blowing a bunch of saves.

What a waste

JS

aro13

skinpinch - Have you had an article published on the 1970's being the decade that was the toughest in Major League history. If yes, can you PM me the details. I would love to read a definitive article on that topic. I have read countless articles arguing the merits of each decade and have never read one that was definitive.

The fact that less players from the 70's are in the Hall is hardly surprising. That decade has not seen all of its players elected. If you look deeper into the numbers you will see that it is not a bias against the 70's but a decision by the Veterans Committe to go crazy and elect players and than stop completely. The fact that the new "veterans committee" has not elected anybody yet is further indication that it is tougher to get in the Hall than ever before for players not on the writers ballot. Of the 102 players that were voted in by the writers the breakdown by decade is:

102 players

1900 - 5
1910 - 3
1920 - 11
1930 - 16
1940 - 6
1950 - 15
1960 - 16
1970 - 15
1980 - 15

Also, by giving the 70's "only" 15 players I am not including Fisk, Ryan, Schmidt or Sutter. I put all of them in the 80's. If you include even two of them in the 70's it would mean the 70's have the most players voted in by the writers.

Skinpinch

HI Aro, I don't have an article published on that yet. In fact, it would take more than an article to go into the detail. I would have to be a little more ambitious to undertake it, and frankly there isn't much money in that type of stuff.

Aro, remember the criteria I used to sort the players etc... but I can give a breakdown of the list later. but I did not differentiate from veterans committe and voters. It isn't the 70's itself as the decade of bias, it is actually more the 80's, and part of the 70's. It seems like you have more guys in the 70's/80's than I did...I don't see those guys. You may be using different criteria.

I know that there is more time for those guys to get voted in, and that is what prompted me to say "I'm not too upset about Sutter getting in" because it is just a step towards evening out who is in the Hall, and so the Hall isn't dominated by plaques of the other era's, regardless of whos decision it was to put them in. More later.

Skinpinch

The list I provided is a generic list that mostly exemplifies a more detailed list. The trickiest part is sorting the player into the proper era or decade.
The more detailed way looks at age, birth date, and more importantly it weighs the years as to where they did their HOF body of work. For example, Willie Stargell is in the 70's decade on my list at the top. He touched the 80's, and played in the 60's. IS he a 70's-80's guy I am referring to?? No. He is from the 60's-70's generation. Same for Gaylord Perry, Rose, and Niekro among others. BUT THose guys are listed as 70's guys in my generic list!! And the thing I said is to look at any set of two decades back to back, so all guys are touched, to see how htey stack up among the other decades. The 70's-80's combined(which is including guys that really aren't 70's-80s) is the second lowest ever than any other combination of two back to back decades. Even guys like Palmer and Carlton are iffy. Those types of guys can almost go either way, 60's-70's, or 70's-80's. Based on age and birth, they lean towards the earlier one.

TO make it simple, I listed them by decade, and put them into a decade. If back to back decades are looked at, then it gives a rough idea, but like I said above it isn't in detail and isn't narrowed down to what the evidence shows....George Brett is a 70's-80's guys I am referring to. He is from the era that receives less respect, as measured by statistical measurements and HOF measurements, as compared to other eras. Of course statistical measurements greatly influence HOF results, and the HOF results could still change.

Again, this is a very generic list, and the information used to break it down to where it should be is overwhelming. Certainly more so than one could put on a post. Again, one of these days I will undertake it, and put ALL the data needed into writing. I am still searching for some facts and such that needs to play a role. The more detailed list doesn't go by round numbers like decades either. The round numbers are used for generic postings. Hope that helps.

coinkat

I remember Sutter most from his days with the Cubs. Was he good enough for the HOF? I am not sure... He was good and it seems that Baseball changed during this time and perhaps relief pitchers still don't get the respect they deserve

JoeBanzai

Morris was a very good pitcher for an extended period. I wouldn't say he belongs in the HOF, but if he gets in, I won't be shocked. I would say that Jim Rice and Bert Blyleven are the two players that I think should be in the hall but are not.

Blyleven's exclusion REALLY surprises me. He was a great pitcher for a very long time, He was an innings eater, struck out lots of guys, he was third all-time when he retired, very good control. The only thing that stands out as a negative is his lack of 20 win seasons. I watched him come up with the Twins and he came up at the end of Killebrew and Oliva's careers and the start of some pretty pathetic Twins teams. I remember he lost a lot of low scoring games. Look at 1973 and what he had to do to win 20 games; 325 innings pitched and an era almost 1.5 runs below the league average, 258 strikeouts and only 67 walks and he still took a loss 17 times. 25 complete games and 9 shutouts! Just under half his wins he had to shut out the opposition! I would have loved to see him play for the Twins in the 1960's when they hit the cr*p out of the ball.

Rice has been discussed a lot and he put up some fantastic numbers for quite a few years, certainly more than enough to get in. It has been mentioned that he played in a ballpark that was good for a right-handed batter, but the ballpark has been there for a long time and his numbers have got to be among the best in the last 50 years, so nobody else has been able to do what he did.

I think both Rice and Blyleven are better than many of the marginal HOFers. I don't know as much about Rice, but Bert could really be a jerk. Could that be the reason? Skinny, what's the statistical analysis on Bert?

JB

Skinpinch

JoeB, in another thread I posted the run value of the 70's pitchers, compared to that of the league average, and Blyleven was very near the top for his career among his contemporaries. He is the most baffling omission from the Hall.

Fenway did have an impact on Rice, much like ti did for the league when games were played there. Rice is simply not in because he lost it quick and retired early. His dominace was very good, but not to the level that most put it at. Considering the era he came from, it wouldn't be a travesty if he got in. I see him as more deserving than Sutter. Not as deserving as Blyleven, or to a hitter not as deserving as Dick Allen.

Blyleven had a good peak, and had very good longevity. Won/Loss % hurts him, but that is ignorance on the part of sportwriters.
All we can do is just scratch our head about Blyleven.

sagard

My favorite Sutter memory was Sandberg hitting game tying homers off him in both the ninth and tenth innings of a game.

downgoesfrazier

Favorite Sutter memory was my grandfather making the sinking motion with his hand while saying "jjjjoooop!". Oh, how he loved Sutter...we all did. He was one special pitcher when he was with the Chicago Cubs. The guy was tough as nails and took the ball seemingly every day...and not just for a hitter or two. Two & three inning saves were more the norm. He was such a presence. He would walk with his jacket to the bullpen and looked almost regal. In Wrigley you really get to SEE the guys tossing to get loose. Sutter would throw 15-20 pitches and then just stand there staring at the game with his arms folded. The fan's would go nuts just watching him get up to stretch. All intensity. He was fantastic.


dgf

JoeBanzai

Thanks for the info on Blyleven skinpinch. I read a book called "Cult Baseball Players" and in it Jim Kaat writes about Dick Allen in very glowing terms on what an amazing player he was. Kaat played with Killebrew and called Allen the strongest player he had ever seen. Harmon was widely regarded as one of, if not THE strongest player in the 60's, so that is high praise.

I sense a trend in the reputations of some of these players. If I remember correctly, Blyleven "flipped off" the fans early in his playing days and I don't think he was very nice to the writers. Earlier in this thread Jim Rice is said to be a bear to deal with and of course Dick Allen is forever criticized because he wanted to be called Dick instead of Ritchie, and he too was said to be impolite to the writers. By the way, what's wrong with wanting to be called by Dick instead of Ritchie?

If my thoughts are correct, the writers are totally in the wrong to keep players out for being rude, as long as they don't violate the rules governing entrance to the hall. But the writers are famous for payback, how many MVP's would Ted Williams have won if he would have treated people a little better?

They can't all be as gracious as Harmon Killebrew.

JoeBanzai

Skinpinch

I hear ya. All those guys got the surly tag. Steve Carlton had that tag towards the press, but he was Steve Carlton. The press hated Murray too, but come on, plus he was a superb teammate.

In the writers eyes, Allen and Rice both lacked the longevity, and Blyleven(In the writers eyes) lacked the eye popping seasons(which of course they base on w-l records). Since they saw some holes in their resumes, perceived or real, it was probably easy for them to discount them based on the stuff you are talking about.

Over time new writers who didn't know them will be voting, and that perception will change some. That is why they don't have the rule of ONE YEAR of eligibility like some propose. True a player doesn't get better after he retires, but by keeping them on the ballot that long, you avoid some of the stuff like grudges and perception clouding reality.

Blyleven is climbing. It is amazing when you look back to see how some greats didn't make it their first few times, just baffling!

Skinpinch

DowngoesFrazier, aren't you the one that had that cool 70's NL All Star photo in relaxed team photo pose??

downgoesfrazier

1977 NL ALL STAR TEAM

sagard

Great photo.

Help me out:

Back Row:
Reushel, Griffey, Smith Dawson, Cubs ???, Foster, Trillo, Templeton, Cards ???, Cedeno???, Pirates ???

Third Row:
Mets ???, Seaver, Braves ???, Concepcion, Winfield, Candilaria, Carlton, Minton???, Sutton, Morgan

Second Row:
Cey, Rose, Parker, Phillies ???, Sparky, Lasorda, Bench, Garvey, Luzinski

Front:
Astros ???, Mays, Reds???, Torre, Reds???, Schmidt

downgoesfrazier

Back Row: Reuschel, Griffey, Smith, Valentine, Morales, Foster, Trillo, Templeton, Simmons, Andujar.
Middle Row: Stearns, Seaver, Montanez, Concepcion, Winfield, Candelaria, Carlton, Lavelle, Sutton, Gossage, Morgan (in front of Gossage)
Second Row: Cey, Rose, Parker, Ozark, Anderson, Lasorda, Bench, Garvey, Luzinski
Front Row: Astros Trainer, Mays, Grammas, Kranepool, No clue, Schmidt.
*Not Pictured: Bruce Sutter (selected but unable to play due to injury).

Box Score & Re-Cap

Here's the 1977 All Star Game Play-by-Play

NL STARS 1ST: Plenty of injuries: Bruce Sutter did not come, and John Candelaria and Joaquin Andujar dressed but couldn't play for NL For AL, Frank Tanana and Mark Fidrych could not play, and Nolan Ryan, chosen as replacement, refused to come because he was not originally chosen Game dedicated to Jackie Robinson First pitch: Rachel Robinson AL captain: Joe DiMaggio; NL captain: Willie Mays Terrence Cardinal Cooke gave invocation, Pearl Bailey sang 'America the Beautiful' and baritone Robert Merrill sang the National Anthem MVP: Don Sutton (Los Angeles); Morgan homered (it was the 3-0 pitch); Garvey was called out on strikes; Parker singled to Zisk; Foster doubled [Parker scored]; Palmer threw a wild pitch [Foster to third]; Luzinski homered [Foster scored]; Cey struck out; Bench struck out; 4 R, 4 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. NL Stars 4, AL Stars 0.

AL STARS 1ST: Carew grounded out (Sutton to Garvey); Randolph was called out on strikes; Brett walked; Yastrzemski popped to Morgan; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. NL Stars 4, AL Stars 0.

NL STARS 2ND: Concepcion walked; Sutton made an out to Carew [Concepcion to second]; Concepcion was caught stealing third (Fisk to Brett); Morgan lined to Randolph; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. NL Stars 4, AL Stars 0.

AL STARS 2ND: Zisk struck out; Jackson singled to Foster; Fisk was called out on strikes; Burleson lined to Foster; 0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. NL Stars 4, AL Stars 0.

NL STARS 3RD: Garvey homered; KERN REPLACED PALMER (PITCHING); Parker struck out; Foster struck out; Luzinski grounded out (Randolph to Carew); 1 R, 1 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. NL Stars 5, AL Stars 0.

AL STARS 3RD: JONES BATTED FOR KERN; Jones flied to Parker; Carew lined to Foster; Randolph struck out; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. NL Stars 5, AL Stars 0.

NL STARS 4TH: ECKERSLEY REPLACED JONES (PITCHING); Cey grounded out (Randolph to Carew); Bench popped to Brett; Concepcion grounded out (Eckersley to Carew); 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. NL Stars 5, AL Stars 0.

AL STARS 4TH: WINFIELD REPLACED LUZINSKI (PLAYING LF); SIMMONS REPLACED SUTTON (PLAYING C ); LAVELLE REPLACED BENCH (PITCHING); Brett flied to Winfield; Yastrzemski struck out; Zisk singled to Foster; Jackson struck out; 0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. NL Stars 5, AL Stars 0.

NL STARS 5TH: RICE REPLACED JACKSON (PLAYING RF); LYNN REPLACED YASTRZEMSKI (PLAYING CF); Simmons grounded out (Randolph to Carew); Morgan flied to Lynn; Garvey struck out; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. NL Stars 5, AL Stars 0.

AL STARS 5TH: MONTANEZ REPLACED GARVEY (PLAYING 1B); Fisk popped to Concepcion; Burleson grounded out (Concepcion to Montanez); HISLE BATTED FOR ECKERSLEY; Hisle flied to Parker; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. NL Stars 5, AL Stars 0.

NL STARS 6TH: CAMPANERIS REPLACED BURLESON (PLAYING SS); WYNEGAR REPLACED FISK (PLAYING C ); LAROCHE REPLACED HISLE (PITCHING); Parker grounded out (Campaneris to Carew); Foster grounded out (Brett to Carew); Winfield doubled to Rice; Rice dropped ball; Cey walked; ROSE BATTED FOR LAVELLE; Rose flied to Rice; Seaver, recently traded from Mets, received a huge ovation; 0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 2 LOB. NL Stars 5, AL Stars 0.

AL STARS 6TH: ROSE STAYED IN GAME (PLAYING 3B); TEMPLETON REPLACED PARKER (PLAYING SS); MORALES REPLACED FOSTER (PLAYING CF); VALENTINE REPLACED CONCEPCION (PLAYING RF); SEAVER REPLACED CEY (PITCHING); Carew singled to Morales; Randolph grounded out (Seaver to Montanez) [Carew to second]; Brett grounded out (Rose to Montanez); Lynn walked; Zisk doubled [Carew scored, Lynn scored]; Rice popped to Simmons in foul territory; 2 R, 2 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. NL Stars 5, AL Stars 2.

NL STARS 7TH: RICE CHANGED POSITIONS (PLAYING LF); SCOTT REPLACED CAREW (PLAYING 1B); NETTLES REPLACED LAROCHE (PLAYING 3B); SINGLETON REPLACED ZISK (PLAYING RF); CAMPBELL REPLACED BRETT (PITCHING); Valentine walked; Simmons grounded out (Randolph to Scott) [Valentine to second]; Morgan struck out; Montanez struck out; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. NL Stars 5, AL Stars 2.

AL STARS 7TH: TRILLO REPLACED MORGAN (PLAYING 2B); Wynegar singled to Valentine; Campaneris struck out; Nettles reached on an error by Templeton [Wynegar to second]; Scott flied to Morales; Randolph singled to Morales [Wynegar scored (unearned), Nettles to second]; FAIRLY BATTED FOR CAMPBELL; Fairly struck out; 1 R, 2 H, 1 E, 2 LOB. NL Stars 5, AL Stars 3.

NL STARS 8TH: LYLE REPLACED FAIRLY (PITCHING); Templeton doubled to Rice; Morales was hit by a pitch; Lyle threw a wild pitch [Templeton to third, Morales to second]; Winfield singled to Rice [Templeton scored, Morales scored]; SMITH BATTED FOR SEAVER; Smith singled to Rice [Winfield to second]; SCHMIDT RAN FOR SMITH; Rose grounded into a double play (Randolph to Scott) [Winfield to third, Schmidt out at second]; Valentine flied to Lynn; 2 R, 3 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. NL Stars 7, AL Stars 3.

AL STARS 8TH: REUSCHEL REPLACED SCHMIDT (PITCHING); Lynn grounded out (Trillo to Montanez); Singleton was hit by a pitch; Rice singled to Morales [Singleton to second]; Wynegar grounded into a double play (Montanez to Templeton to Montanez) [Rice out at second]; 0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. NL Stars 7, AL Stars 3.

NL STARS 9TH: Simmons grounded out (Nettles to Scott); Trillo struck out; Montanez grounded out (Randolph to Scott); 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. NL Stars 7, AL Stars 3.

AL STARS 9TH: GOSSAGE REPLACED SIMMONS (PITCHING); STEARNS REPLACED REUSCHEL (PLAYING C ); Campaneris walked; Nettles struck out; Scott homered [Campaneris scored]; Randolph grounded out (Templeton to Montanez); MUNSON BATTED FOR LYLE; Munson struck out; 2 R, 1 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. NL Stars 7, AL Stars 5.

Skinpinch

DGF, I remember asking you about this a couple/few years ago. Did you ever make any second generation copies off of the negative? I'm sure a few people would purchase one. I know I would.

Just look at the smattering of Reds in that picutre.

downgoesfrazier

Pinch,
I have a new business/hobby that I started months back. It's called "Old School Images". I have over 600 original photos of Americana (tons of sports in there). This particular photo I haven't made available as of yet. You see, I promised a copy to a collector two years ago at 200.00. He bought it.

Here's the rub. The deal was, I wouldn't reproduce more than 3 copies of the image in large format. I can do a small (5x7) copy as often as I want, but a deal is a deal. If I could contact the guy and ask for his permission...we'll see. I purchased the negative for a large sum after it was used for a book a few years ago. It kind of fell in my lap. The copies I sold paid for the negative, but now I'm stuck. I never planned on getting into this hobby as full-time as I have. I like it so much more than cards as every image I purchase is 1/1 or very hard to come by. I just added a few Terry Bradshaw images that are absolutely UNREAL. They were shot in the Orange Bowl in 1972. I added Bert Jones, Lenny Dykstra, and an awesome Dale Murphy collection as well. I also was fortunate to locate original photos of the 1971 Oakland A's and 1977 Houston Astros. It's been great.


dgf

beefcake210

I find it interesting to look at older HOF voting records. For instance:

1981 HOF Voting:

*Bob Gibson 337 84.04 (Elected)
*Don Drysdale 243 60.60
Gil Hodges 241 60.10
*Harmon Killebrew 239 59.60
*Hoyt Wilhelm 238 59.35
*Juan Marichal 233 58.10
*Nellie Fox 168 41.90
*Red Schoendienst 166 41.40
*Jim Bunning 164 40.90
Maury Wills 163 40.65
*Richie Ashburn 142 35.41
Roger Maris 94 23.44
Harvey Kuenn 93 23.19
Elston Howard 83 20.70
*Orlando Cepeda 77 19.20
Thurman Munson 62 15.46
Ted Kluszewski 56 13.97
*Luis Aparicio 48 11.97
Lew Burdette 48 11.97
*Bill Mazeroski 38 9.48
Don Larsen 33 8.23
Roy Face 23 5.74

11 HOFers in this election that were not elected, including three players that received less than 20% of the vote. Granted seven of them by the defunct Veterans committee, but still four that weren't HOFers this year - and Drysdale, Killebrew, and Marichal are considered very solid HOFers, but waited.

1970 HOF Voting

*Lou Boudreau 232 77.33
*Ralph Kiner 167 55.67
Gil Hodges 145 48.33
*Early Wynn 140 46.67
*Enos Slaughter 133 44.33
*Johnny Mize 126 42.00
Marty Marion 120 40.00
*Pee Wee Reese 97 32.33
*Red Schoendienst 97 32.33
*George Kell 90 30.00
Allie Reynolds 89 29.67
Johnny Vander Meer 88 29.33
Hal Newhouser 80 26.67
Joe Gordon 79 26.33
*Phil Rizzuto 79 26.33
*Bobby Doerr 75 25.00
Bob Lemon 75 25.00
Tommy Henrich 62 20.67
Alvin Dark 55 18.33
Phil Cavarretta 51 17.00
*Duke Snider 51 17.00
Bucky Walters 29 9.67
Dom DiMaggio 15 5.00
Ewell Blackwell 14 4.67
Bobo Newsom 12 4.00
*Richie Ashburn 11 3.67

Even more examples here - Ashburn, a HOFer, would have fallen off the ballot here if they'd had the 5% rule. Snider 17% support? I find Hodges to be an interesting case - 15 years of 50-60% support, but could never get over the hump. So, in 1970, 3% of voters thought Ashburn was HOF quality, and 48% thought so of Hodges. 12 years later, it was 35% and 60%. Yet Hodges hasn't made it? What did those writers know that we don't?

With Sutter elected, every ballot from 2001 back has 4+ eventual HOFers on it. Out of the group of reasonably possible HOF candidates currently on the ballot (Rice, Gossage, Dawson, Blyleven, Lee Smith, Morris - though I'd personally add Murphy and Trammell) - you have to figure 2-4 will be elected in the next 10 years - and added with the 80s guys who aren't eligable yet (Ripken, Gwynn 80s or 90s, Henderson 80s for sure, Clemens probably 90s) - it'll be right on target.

Just look at the 90s though - how many "sure HOFers" (leave out steroids for a second) do we have in this decade?

Clemens
Randy Johnson
Pedro
McGwire
Bonds
Sosa
Palmeiro
Glavine
Biggio
Alomar
Maddux
Piazza
Frank Thomas (he'll make it)
Mariano Rivera (the Yankees run was in the 90s)

These are 90s guys with realistic shots:

Bagwell
Sheffield
Hoffman
Mussina
C Jones


and these guys strattle the 90s and 00s - but will probably be more classified in this century (though Manny will be very close)
ARod
Jeter
Manny Ramirez
Vlad
Delgado
Thome


We'll end up at 15-20 HOFers for the 90s, just like the other decades...