Why is Tommy John not in the HOF?
MeteoriteGuy
Posts: 7,140 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Was looking up Tommy John today on baseball-reference.com and was interested in the list of pitchers who stats are most like Tommy John.
The list goes:
1. Jim Kaat
2. Robin Roberts
3. Bert Blyleven
4. Fergie Jenkins
5. Early Wynn
7. Tom Glavine
9. Don Sutton
So the question is, why isn't Tommy John in the Hall of Fame? He is a Yankee so one would think that if he was considered borderline, he would be in.
Clear Skies,
Mark
PS: This is not a Tommy John HOF campaign, was just curious what others thought.
The list goes:
1. Jim Kaat
2. Robin Roberts
3. Bert Blyleven
4. Fergie Jenkins
5. Early Wynn
7. Tom Glavine
9. Don Sutton
So the question is, why isn't Tommy John in the Hall of Fame? He is a Yankee so one would think that if he was considered borderline, he would be in.
Clear Skies,
Mark
PS: This is not a Tommy John HOF campaign, was just curious what others thought.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
0
Comments
what reasons are those? that the voters are ignorant? or embarassed that let in so many sub-standard players in the past, the true deserving players get the shaft?
He pitched for a long time at a mediocre level. Dave Steib and Bret Saberhagen each had more seasons at an elite level and they never came close
Further, the team you played on only helps with Hall-of-Fame if you have friends on the veterans committee, and niether Winfield nor Jackson is on the committee, so playing for the Yankees is meaningless. Guidry may be a better choice, too. His similarity score with Koufax is 905
<< <i>"he's not in for same reasons Kaat and Blyleven are not in"
what reasons are those? that the voters are ignorant? or embarassed that let in so many sub-standard players in the past, the true deserving players get the shaft? >>
Luis Tiant isn't in either and you could make a case he was outstanding for many years....even now there are a few guys nearing stats like these guys who probably won't get in....Schilling, Smoltz...don't get me wrong I thinkg they all would be worthy but as has been mentioned they were all consistent but didn't have mutiple out of the world type years... and I'm sure this will stir up the Braves fans and Red Sox Nation.
Smoltz is a lock for the HOF by the way. as a starter./reliever he absolutely dominated, won a cy young, reliever of the year, post season stud.
sucked in the 80's and 90's for a reason!
JS
In their careers, John and Kaat were in the top 5 in the "good" categories (not counting HR allowed and the like) a total of 35 and 39 times, respectively. They allowed 183 and 131 runs less than an average pitcher, respectively. Those are good numbers.
Blyleven was in the top 5 99 times and allowed 326 runs less than an average pitcher - in both cases better than John and Kaat combined. Those are HOF numbers for every single person who has ever worn a uniform - except for Blyleven.
And whoever mentioned him was right, Tiant was a better pitcher than John or Kaat, and a borderline HOFer.
<< <i>I think he has a shot just because he had a very good career, not mediocre, and was the first to come back and pitch after a devastating injury witha surgery that is now common in baseball thanks to him. W/O Tommy John pioneering that surgery and actually coming back and pitching at prior levels it never would have become what it is today. Read about how radical it was considered at the time and you'll realize that John was putting his career on the line basically. I think he should be considered a pioneer and a player. >>
The surgeon is the pioneer. Tommy did what im guessing any other player would have done given the option. He should not get any extra credit for that, imo.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
<< <i>We could look at this 100 ways, but here's two that cover a lot of ground.
In their careers, John and Kaat were in the top 5 in the "good" categories (not counting HR allowed and the like) a total of 35 and 39 times, respectively. They allowed 183 and 131 runs less than an average pitcher, respectively. Those are good numbers.
Blyleven was in the top 5 99 times and allowed 326 runs less than an average pitcher - in both cases better than John and Kaat combined. Those are HOF numbers for every single person who has ever worn a uniform - except for Blyleven.
And whoever mentioned him was right, Tiant was a better pitcher than John or Kaat, and a borderline HOFer. >>
This about sums it up in my opinion. John and Kaat were not better then Tiant, so they'd have to let El Tiante in first.
John was very, very good, but these borderline pitchers need a little extra to get them into the hall. That's why I think
Schilling will get into the hall. Even though he's in the same category as the rest of these guys, he has an incredible postseason
career, and an incredible posteason game to add to his resume. Well, I believe Schilling has already made the hall. I think
his sock and a few other things are there.
* C. PASCUAL BASIC #3
* T. PEREZ BASIC #4 100%
* L. TIANT BASIC #1
* DRYSDALE BASIC #4 100%
* MAGIC MASTER #4/BASIC #3
* PALMEIRO MASTER/BASIC #1
* '65 DISNEYLAND #2
* '78 ELVIS PRESLEY #6
* '78 THREE'S COMPANY #1
WaltDisneyBoards
John pitched for the Yankees almost in the middle of his career and had some 20 win seasons if my memory is correct.
Th fact that he was a Yankee has no bearing IMO if he should be in or not.
The reason, IMO, is during his career 1960-1985 (guessing) so many guys won 250+ games and he was caught
in a numbers game. Of 15 or so guys like that at least 10 are in. maybe more
Kaat on the other hand deserves to be in.
<< <i>The surgeon is the pioneer. Tommy did what im guessing any other player would have done given the option. He should not get any extra credit for that, imo >>
I think it took a brave man to take the plunge and do something that radical at the time. John could have just as easily tried to rehab conventionally or other methods. I don't think it was an easy decision to make as his estimate for recovery was placed at 1 in 100 by the doctor and if it failed it meant 0% chance of pitching again.
<< <i>Can we say Jack Morris?? >>
Who is not fit to carry Bert Blyleven's, Tommy John's or Jim Kaat's jockstraps? Jack Morris.
Who is the most overrated pitcher of the past fifty years? Jack Morris.
Who is the luckiest man to ever put on a uniform? Jack Morris.
Yes, I can say "Jack Morris". Three times.
But I can't say his name and "Hall of Fame" in the same sentence. It makes me retch.
All the borderline pitchers in the past 30 years to make the Hall-of-Fame via the writers has some some intangable or uniqueness going for them that should be viewed as greater than being a famous surgical patient.
Drysdale had the consecutive inning streak (along with pitching in five World Series')
We already know what made Eckersly unique
Gossage and Fingers were the best relievers for over a decade for two innings at a time. To put it in perspective how many modern relievers manage that pitching one inning at a time?
Sutter probably isn't deserving, but pioneering a pitch takes more than being in the right place at the right time as pioneering the surgery did
Hunter is easily the worst choice, but winning the World Series every year at least explains it (and Yankees isn't the answer, A's and Reds would have been just as good)(John was 0-3 in the World Series with the Dodgers)
And those pitchers represent the lowest level. While it wouldn't make the Hall-of-Fame any worse, he is certainly below the established line
<< <i>Who is not fit to carry Bert Blyleven's, Tommy John's or Jim Kaat's jockstraps? Jack Morris. >>
But if you compare him with Bill Gullickson and Ed Whitson he looks like a true ace. . .
<< <i>Who is the most overrated pitcher of the past fifty years? Jack Morris. >>
You really think it is more than Ryan?
<< <i>
<< <i>Who is the most overrated pitcher of the past fifty years? Jack Morris. >>
You really think it is more than Ryan? >>
Even if everyone thinks Ryan was better than Walter Johnson, Jack Morris would STILL be the most overrated pitcher of the past fifty years.
Ryan was a GREAT pitcher; sure, he's overrated by the casual fan, but I think he's probably tipping towards underrated by the hardcore fans.
Jack Morris, on the other hand, was barely a GOOD pitcher. He's overrated by just about everybody.
The distance from the middle of the HOF (which is where I'd put Ryan) to the top (where some people think he belongs) is one thing. But the distance from the middle of the pack (which is where Morris belongs) to the bottom of the HOF (and I hope nobody is suggesting he belongs any higher than that) is enormous.
The one positive thing I'll say about Morris is that he was better than Catfish Hunter.
OOPS.
Jack Morris is the SECOND most overrated pitcher of the past 50 years.
<< <i>DA, I think you're way too hard on Jack Morris. He was by pretty much all accounts a "good" pitcher, not just an average one like you seem to be portraying him. Some would even say a "great" pitcher, whatever that is suppose to mean by those who might say it. >>
By pretty much all accounts, Ron Fairly and Gene Tenace were bad players and George Sisler and Pie Traynor were great players. Which is to say that pretty much nobody knows what they're talking about when they rate players. Seriously, there are more people voting to put Jim Rice in the HOF than ever voted for Ron Santo (similar in scale to voting for Jack Clark over Babe Ruth) and I'm supposed to care what the concensus on Jack Morris is?
The word is obviously very subjective, but I will agree that Jack Morris was "good".
I will not agree that he was in the same class as Blyleven, nor that he was anywhere near as good as Stieb, Tiant, John, or Guidry.
He's closer but still clearly not as good as Reuschel, Saberhagen, Hershiser, Wilbur Wood or Sam McDowell.
He's comparable to Cuellar, Pappas, Tanana, or Lolich.
But he was at his best in the postseason! Baloney. His postseason ERA was 3.80, his regular season ERA was 3.90. Considering that he pitched fewer than 100 innings in the postseason, that difference is completely meaningless. His entire postseason reputation rests on one great game; take that game away and he's a 6-4 pitcher with an ERA north of 4.00. Calling a player "great" or putting him in the HOF based on one game is, with all due respect to the Morris lovers, stupid.
There is simply no doubt in my mind that had Morris given up a homer in the ninth inning of one game in one WS, his HOF support would be zero. As it should be, and as it was for all of the other pitchers with similar, better and even much better careers.
Luis Tiant was better than Jack Morris at everything. Everything. And undefeated in the postseason (with an OBP of .400!). Again, with all due respect to anyone who thinks Jack Morris was all that, if you think that Jack Morris was better than Luis Tiant then you are wrong. No "IMO" to be added here; that Luis Tiant was better than Jack Morris is as obviously true as that water is wet. If by all accounts water is dry then so be it, but that will never make it so.
Dallas, one thing you forgot to add in your beautiful rant is one of the biggest myths in the history of baseball....Jack Morris's so called 'ability' to pitch to the score as an explanation for his medicore ERA!