Options
Raines, Morris, and the HOF
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
From SB Nation-I agree with this guy:
It's simple: Raines being out of the Hall of Fame offends me far, far, far, far, far more than Morris being in would offend me........
The people who aren't in, though, gnaw at me. Edgar Martinez. Whitaker. Alan Trammell. Bobby Grich. And, perhaps most of all, Raines. It's like people telling you that your favorite movie was a B-, three-star movie at best. Raines's 1986 was like the scene in Godfather II where Michael closes the door on Kate without saying a word. That didn't move you? That didn't resonate with you? You seriously don't like that movie and/or season? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU GET OUT OF MY HOUSE.
It's simple: Raines being out of the Hall of Fame offends me far, far, far, far, far more than Morris being in would offend me........
The people who aren't in, though, gnaw at me. Edgar Martinez. Whitaker. Alan Trammell. Bobby Grich. And, perhaps most of all, Raines. It's like people telling you that your favorite movie was a B-, three-star movie at best. Raines's 1986 was like the scene in Godfather II where Michael closes the door on Kate without saying a word. That didn't move you? That didn't resonate with you? You seriously don't like that movie and/or season? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU GET OUT OF MY HOUSE.
0
Comments
<< <i>Big fan of Trammel and Whitaker. Watched them plenty of times in Detroit. Neither is of Hall of Fame caliber. >>
In your opinion-and lots of other folks in Whitaker's case. I would vote for either of them before I would vote for Morris.
<< <i>
<< <i>Big fan of Trammel and Whitaker. Watched them plenty of times in Detroit. Neither is of Hall of Fame caliber. >>
In your opinion-and lots of other folks in Whitaker's case. I would vote for either of them before I would vote for Morris. >>
Just reviewed Jack's numbers. Better than decent but not Hall worthy.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Excerpt-
Of everything I've presented here, I believe this is the one point that best refutes the arguments for Jack Morris as a Hall of Famer. We know his raw numbers don't stack up, and we know he has some bonus markers-a no-hitter, Game Seven of the 1991 World Series, three other championship rings. What we now know is that instead of "pitching to the score," as his supporters claim he did, Morris actually put his team behind in 344 of his 527 career starts. All told, Morris blew 136 leads in 527 starts, or about one every four times out, and that's using a generous definition of "blown lead." Take this with a grain of salt, but having gone through the man's career, I wish I had tracked the number of times Morris turned a lead into a tie. He would quite often turn 2-0 into 2-2, then 4-2 into 4-4, before leaving with a 5-4 lead. If I lose my mind at some point, perhaps I'll go back through his career and track those occurrences.
Conclusion
As I said, I don't know what the performance record of someone who had successfully pitched to the score would look like. I am certain, though, that for a pitcher to build his Hall of Fame case on the notion that he did such a thing, he couldn't have put his team behind in nearly two-thirds of his career starts, and he couldn't have blown leads once a month throughout his career.
Jack Morris was a very good pitcher whose primary skill was durability. He benefited from coming up with a number of good players, players who would form the core of a good offense that scored lots of runs for him. He happened to have a career in a down period for starting pitchers, so he stands out among his peers more than someone with his performance record would in the 1970s or 1990s.
He's not a Hall of Famer. As much as I loved watching Game Seven in 1991, and as much as I think the man got cheated by collusion in 1986, he's not a Hall of Famer.
<< <i>If Morris, Parker, Murphy, and Garvey were Yankees they'd be in. Screw the hall of fame. >>
Do you have any evidence to support that or do you just make these things up?
If it is true, why don't similarly weak Yankees candidates make it? Mattingly was better than Garvey and couldn't make it. Nettles was better as well. In nearly 80 years of voting Catfish Hunter and Goose Gossage (still better than Sutter) are the only ones. Hunter is about as bad a choice as Morris, but when he was voted in the next two best pitchers were Jim Bunning and Wilbur Wood. When Morris is on the ballot, he receives more support than other pitchers who were most certainly better than him -- Schilling, Brown, former Yankee Tommy John et cetera.
We'll see how Morris compares this year to Mike Mussina. The Yankees pitcher was far better, yet will most likely earn less votes
(Interestingly, until Bonds, the very best player the Writers overlooked was a Yankees player, Johnny Mize)
Mattingly was better than Garvey, although his career was shorter. If he had another 2 - 3 years of mid 80's level play, he would have been 1st ballot. I have never really understood the voters disdain for Garvey. Mind you, I couldn't stand him as he murdered my Cubbies every chance he got. But, I cant deny that he produced in every different setting (All star games, playoffs, and World Series). He was great in the field, always hit around 300, had some pop in his bat and was one of the most feared clutch hitters in the game.
Somebody tell me exactly what it is that has kept him from even getting close to the Hall (Not enough home runs for a 1st baseman? off field embarrassment?)
And his defense is way overrated. He actually had below average range for a 1B and was a negative dWAR player for his career.
In the end, you're talking a 1B who hit only 272 HRs, with average (at best) defense, that didn't hit .300 for his career, didn't reach 3000 hits, and never put up any monster years.
Was he a very good player? Sure. Did he have excellent postseason numbers? Yep. Was he a GREAT player, one deserving of the HOF? No.
<< <i>The case against Garvey is an easy one to make. He's a 1B who didn't hit that many HRs (30 once, 25 two other times) and who had some very good years but no great ones. Even his MVP year wasn't great.
He did not walk much either. Cey was a more productive hitter, despite the lower batting average.
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
<< <i>Neither belongs in the hall, the least of which is Morris. The idiotic notion of his 'pitching to the score' is so goofy I can't even refute it. Morris has even been brainwashed into believing it. I heard an interview recently where he said he'd stay in games with a big lead and give up a few more runs to save his bullpen. Good lord. >>
Well, he definitely stayed in games longer than most guys. He averaged 264 innings a year from 1980-87* and got as high as 293 one year. So he WAS left in games to save his bullpen, at least somewhat.
But, yeah, the idea that he pitched to the score is just laughable. I grew up watching Jack as a kid and was convinced at the time that he was a HOF'er. I've since seen the error of my ways.
I still think Trammell is a HOF'er though.
Then again, I don't get why Keith Hernandez never generated any support. He dropped off the ballot after his 9th year after getting only 4.3% of the vote in 2004. He never got more than 10.8% of the votes.
Garvey maxed out at 42.6% in his third year on the ballot.
Steve
<< <i>I've never understood the lack of support for Garvey; to me, he's a Hall of Famer.
Steve >>
Me neither. He had a more successful career than Mattingly.
2 all star MVP's
1974 MVP
1978 NLCS MVP(Hit 4 home runs in a 4 game series)
1981 ROBERTO CLEMENTE award
1984 LOU GEHRIG award
1984 NLCS series MVP
Led his teams to 5 World series(338 avg)
And, let's be honest here - if your case for getting the guy in includes the Gehrig and Clemente awards, the guy doesn't belong.
<< <i>Look, to get in the HOF as a 1B, you gotta either hit a bunch of home runs, get 3000 hits, or hit for an average well north of .300. Garvey didn't do any of those things.
>>
Which is ridiculous. At 5'10, Garvey was smaller than most other 1st basemen. So not hitting a ton of home runs is not surprising. If he would've played as long as Rickey Henderson did, he would've had 3000 hits easily. He put up good numbers and all of his hardware he owns should be enough. How many other non-Yankees played in 5 World series? He was truly one of the biggest and most popular stars in his era.
There are 3 other 1st basemen in the hall that did not have 3000 hits, 400 hr's, and hit 300.
<< <i>Garvey is one of the people that supports the argument against judging a player's career based on the position he played. Same numbers at 2B, SS or catcher and he's a HOFer. If he was an outfielder, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Same theory for Dale Murphy. If he stays at catcher and puts up the same numbers adn wins 2 MVPs, he's a first ballot HOFer. >>
So defensive stats are not a factor?
<< <i>Garvey is one of the people that supports the argument against judging a player's career based on the position he played. Same numbers at 2B, SS or catcher and he's a HOFer. If he was an outfielder, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Same theory for Dale Murphy. If he stays at catcher and puts up the same numbers adn wins 2 MVPs, he's a first ballot HOFer. >>
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 believe Garvey backers hang strongly on his popularity and post season play as their main reason for his induction. Garvey was certainly a 'face of the 70s' for baseball.
As an example, Keith Hernandez was better. In similar career lengths(and obviously the same era) Hernandez has him 128 to 117 in OPS+. Hernandez was a better hitter, and a better fielder...and there really isn't a compelling argument against the notion that Hernandez was the better player. That is career length(one can also look at PEAK value and the combination of both).
Hernandez wasn't as well known though, and this is the area where Garvey needs to make up his case for the HOF. Hernandez isn't in the Hall either, so that may be a bad example
if you look at the HOF criteria, three of them are certainly statistical based(Player's record, playing ability, and contributions to the team). Unlike other sports, statistical analysis in baseball is so accurate, that defining one's "Playing ability, player's record, and their contribution to the team" through the use of the comprehensive statistical methods is a very valid method.
Areas where Garvey enhances his HOF criteria merit:
Contribution to the teams: Garvey's post season play does give him more credit as well...it is no doubt a contribution to his teams.
Character. Not talking about his 'squeaky clean image' which was a mirage. Part of someone's character is their reputation, and he had a very high reputation among players, and most certainly among fans. It can certainly be claimed that his reputation was also a contribution to his teams, and to the game of baseball itself. He passes the housewife test(how well he is known).
The question then becomes, how does one decide the balance between the actual play, and the other criteria for the HOF.
One problem with his reputation argument is that he is often overrated by fans statistically, and that is fueling his reputation. Certainly he was an excellent player, but I am certain that many would cry foul at the notion of Keith Hernandez being the better player, because automatically, you will get the "hit totals" argument, etc... Unfortunately, there are far better methods of evaluating a hitter than by BA, or Hit totals.
Considering some of the guys put in the Hall, it wouldn't bother me to have Garvey in there...or Lynn, Mattingly, and Murphy....because those guys, while statistically short, do have other factors going for them(and it isn't like a lot of other guys have that 'it' factor).
PS. "MY HOF" would be a smaller one, adn they wouldn't be in. My post has to do with the HOF and its criteria.
<< <i>Considering some of the guys put in the Hall, it wouldn't bother me to have Garvey in there...or Lynn, Mattingly, and Murphy....because those guys, while statistically short, do have other factors going for them(and it isn't like a lot of other guys have that 'it' factor). >>
Exactly my thoughts. HOF is so watered down now, why not let those players in? The hall is now a museum for the fans and not a true shrine to the best of the best in the history of the game. Let in the fringe players that were loved by the fans.
<< <i>Garvey is one of the people that supports the argument against judging a player's career based on the position he played. Same numbers at 2B, SS or catcher and he's a HOFer. If he was an outfielder, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Same theory for Dale Murphy. If he stays at catcher and puts up the same numbers adn wins 2 MVPs, he's a first ballot HOFer. >>
But position DOES matter. 1B is, by far, the easiest position on the field. Anybody can play it. Because of that, guys who play 1B are held to a higher standard offensively, as they should be.
<< <i>
<< <i>Look, to get in the HOF as a 1B, you gotta either hit a bunch of home runs, get 3000 hits, or hit for an average well north of .300. Garvey didn't do any of those things.
>>
Which is ridiculous. At 5'10, Garvey was smaller than most other 1st basemen. So not hitting a ton of home runs is not surprising. If he would've played as long as Rickey Henderson did, he would've had 3000 hits easily. He put up good numbers and all of his hardware he owns should be enough. How many other non-Yankees played in 5 World series? He was truly one of the biggest and most popular stars in his era.
There are 3 other 1st basemen in the hall that did not have 3000 hits, 400 hr's, and hit 300. >>
Who are the three?
<< <i>
<< <i>Considering some of the guys put in the Hall, it wouldn't bother me to have Garvey in there...or Lynn, Mattingly, and Murphy....because those guys, while statistically short, do have other factors going for them(and it isn't like a lot of other guys have that 'it' factor). >>
Exactly my thoughts. HOF is so watered down now, why not let those players in? The hall is now a museum for the fans and not a true shrine to the best of the best in the history of the game. Let in the fringe players that were loved by the fans. >>
I agree. I look at a guy like Rice, who is in...then I see Murphy, Mattingly, and Lynn who are not. Statistically, the three who are out are either equal to, or within the margin of error statistically...and they have greater reputations, and are/were certainly more known for the greater 'it' factor.
Then, where is the credit for Murphy's integrity, character, and sportsmanship? Guys are being kept out of the Hall for it...yet I never see guys get any credit for it. Mattingly too.
PS Raines and Dave Parker have some issues in character with the drug use(not PED), but still a character issue.
<< <i>
I agree. I look at a guy like Rice, who is in...then I see Murphy, Mattingly, and Lynn who are not. Statistically, the three who are out are either equal to, or within the margin of error statistically...and they have greater reputations, and are/were certainly more known for the greater 'it' factor. >>
Problem with these floating criteria is that there will always be guys left out who have similar numbers to those that are in. Eventually every player that has logged in say 10 years will be a member even if he better .243 lifetime.
I am fighting a losing fight here of course as PEDS are considered to be ok by many and we live in a society where exceptionalism is increasingly frowned upon.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I agree. I look at a guy like Rice, who is in...then I see Murphy, Mattingly, and Lynn who are not. Statistically, the three who are out are either equal to, or within the margin of error statistically...and they have greater reputations, and are/were certainly more known for the greater 'it' factor. >>
Problem with these floating criteria is that there will always be guys left out who have similar numbers to those that are in. Eventually every player that has logged in say 10 years will be a member even if he better .243 lifetime.
I am fighting a losing fight here of course as PEDS are considered to be ok by many and we live in a society where exceptionalism is increasingly frowned upon. >>
Most certainly...it is very hard to gauge integrity, character, and sportsmanship. But in the case of Rice, some of those guy are superior players...and a strong case can be made to have the higher reputation, etc...
<< <i>It's simple: Raines being out of the Hall of Fame offends me far, far, far, far, far more than Morris being in would offend me........
The people who aren't in, though, gnaw at me. Edgar Martinez. Whitaker. Alan Trammell. Bobby Grich. And, perhaps most of all, Raines. It's like people telling you that your favorite movie was a B-, three-star movie at best. Raines's 1986 was like the scene in Godfather II where Michael closes the door on Kate without saying a word. That didn't move you? That didn't resonate with you? You seriously don't like that movie and/or season? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU GET OUT OF MY HOUSE. >>
Brilliantly stated, and I couldn't agree more.
Allow me to make a quick case for Raines:
1) 5th in steals with 808. One could easily argue that he should be bumped a notch. Back in the days of Billy Hamilton, a player was credited with an SB every time he took an extra base on a hit from a teammate (e.g., going from first to third). Apples.....oranges.....inflated numbers. That would leave him behind Hendu, Brock and Cobb. Can you say exclusive company?
2) Continuing with swipes, a staggering 84.7% success rate -- first in MLB history for players with 300+ attempts.
3) Player A - 10,232 PA, 3955 TOB, .388 OBP
Player B - 10,359 PA, 3977 TOB, .385 OBP
Player A - Tony Gwynn
Player B - Tim Raines
4) Eighth-highest JAWS score (69.1) among leftfielders. The average for 19 HOFers at this position: 65.
5) Played in the shadow of Rickey Henderson. His notoriety suffered as a result.
6) Played in Montreal during his prime. His notoriety suffered as a result.
I'll stop there. For my money, the second best leadoff hitter of all time. For my money, a j-o-k-e that he's not in.
Did I sway you, MCMLXXXVfan?
<< <i>There are 3 other 1st basemen in the hall that did not have 3000 hits, 400 hr's, and hit 300.
Who are the three? >>
Orlando Cepeda and Tony Perez are two.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>.
PS Raines and Dave Parker have some issues in character with the drug use(not PED), but still a character issue. >>
Another ridiculous excuse considering many believe that drugs should be legal. And there are plenty of other ways a person can abuse their bodies...cough cough Mantle and Ruth.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>.
PS Raines and Dave Parker have some issues in character with the drug use(not PED), but still a character issue. >>
Another ridiculous excuse considering many believe that drugs should be legal. And there are plenty of other ways a person can abuse their bodies...cough cough Mantle and Ruth. >>
Not sure I have ever seen a dumber statement ever posted on any sports talk forum.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>.
PS Raines and Dave Parker have some issues in character with the drug use(not PED), but still a character issue. >>
>>
I must be the dumbest person on this forum. >>
Agreed.
I know that the integrity, character, and sportsmanship criteria have been largely ignored by the voters(unless it is for the current PED guys)...but it is in their criteria.
If a guy like Ruth was doing something similar to cocaine, it wouldn't really matter much, because it is still just ONE of the criteria, and he is so strong in the others.
<< <i>
<< <i>It's simple: Raines being out of the Hall of Fame offends me far, far, far, far, far more than Morris being in would offend me........
The people who aren't in, though, gnaw at me. Edgar Martinez. Whitaker. Alan Trammell. Bobby Grich. And, perhaps most of all, Raines. It's like people telling you that your favorite movie was a B-, three-star movie at best. Raines's 1986 was like the scene in Godfather II where Michael closes the door on Kate without saying a word. That didn't move you? That didn't resonate with you? You seriously don't like that movie and/or season? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU GET OUT OF MY HOUSE. >>
Brilliantly stated, and I couldn't agree more.
Allow me to make a quick case for Raines:
1) 5th in steals with 808. One could easily argue that he should be bumped a notch. Back in the days of Billy Hamilton, a player was credited with an SB every time he took an extra base on a hit from a teammate (e.g., going from first to third). Apples.....oranges.....inflated numbers. That would leave him behind Hendu, Brock and Cobb. Can you say exclusive company?
2) Continuing with swipes, a staggering 84.7% success rate -- first in MLB history for players with 300+ attempts.
3) Player A - 10,232 PA, 3955 TOB, .388 OBP
Player B - 10,359 PA, 3977 TOB, .385 OBP
Player A - Tony Gwynn
Player B - Tim Raines
4) Eighth-highest JAWS score (69.1) among leftfielders. The average for 19 HOFers at this position: 65.
5) Played in the shadow of Rickey Henderson. His notoriety suffered as a result.
6) Played in Montreal during his prime. His notoriety suffered as a result.
I'll stop there. For my money, the second best leadoff hitter of all time. For my money, a j-o-k-e that he's not in.
Did I sway you, MCMLXXXVfan? >>
His play is certainly Hall worthy compared to a typical HOFer.
And despite what I said above, I personally wouldn't hold the cocaine against him. However, like I said, it is in the HOF criteria, so there is cause for a voter to.
<< <i>Raines was a big time cocaine user. I'm no Angel, nor do I really care what people put in their bodies. But, the HOF has its criteria, and Raines doing illegal drugs is in violation of one of those criteria.
I know that the integrity, character, and sportsmanship criteria have been largely ignored by the voters(unless it is for the current PED guys)...but it is in their criteria.
If a guy like Ruth was doing something similar to cocaine, it wouldn't really matter much, because it is still just ONE of the criteria, and he is so strong in the others. >>
I don't know much about Raines and this is the first time I have heard he abused drugs. Was he ever charged of a crime, or kicked off a team?
<< <i>The baseball hof being watered down is the funniest thing Ive read yet. This isn't the rock or football hall. Now youre talking watered down. >>
You don't think the baseball hall of fame is watered down? So you're assumption is every player in there is a no doubt about it, lock hall of famer?
Even you can't be that dense can you?
<< <i>
<< <i>The baseball hof being watered down is the funniest thing Ive read yet. This isn't the rock or football hall. Now youre talking watered down. >>
You don't think the baseball hall of fame is watered down? So you're assumption is every player in there is a no doubt about it, lock hall of famer?
Even you can't be that dense can you? >>
Who is not worthy? Baseball is the hardest of them all to get in.
Luis Aparicio
Pee Wee Reese
Phil Ruzzito
Bill Mazeroski
Don Sutton
Gaylord Perry (and an admitted cheater!)
Andre Dawson
Catfish Hunter
Jim Rice
Bruce Sutter
Lou Brock
The list goes on and on and on, there are literally DOZENS of players enshrined who are not hall worthy.
Luis Aparicio
Pee Wee Reese
Phil Ruzzito
Bill Mazeroski
Don Sutton
Gaylord Perry (and an admitted cheater!)
Andre Dawson
Catfish Hunter
Jim Rice
Bruce Sutter
Lou Brock
Most of these I would have no problem if they were left looking in.
Jim Rice was my favorite player growing up and he was dominant for about a 5 year period, but I could see a case made for him not being there. Hunter to me can also go either way. I do believe that Dawson showed sustained prowess in the field and at the plate and hit some pretty good barometers (well over 400 hr's, almost 1600 rbi's, almost 2800 hits, over 300 sb's, along with 8 gold gloves, 8 all star selections and an MVP), and is deserving of the Hall.
Brock on the other hand is a no brainer to me. He was the greatest base stealer of his time and arguably one of the best of all time. Over 3000 hits, over 1600 runs, solid career batting average of .293, 2nd all time stolen bases, and incredible career postseason numbers, helping the Cardinals to 2 titles and setting an all time hits record in the lone World Series he did lose.
Phil Niekro would be another one I would be fine with, not being in the Hall. I dont think he was ever a dominant pitcher during the 68 years he pitched. He only got in because he hit the 300 win plateau
<< <i>
<< <i>There are 3 other 1st basemen in the hall that did not have 3000 hits, 400 hr's, and hit 300.
Who are the three? >>
Orlando Cepeda and Tony Perez are two.
Steve >>
A lot of people thought those guys were marginal when elected - and both of them were a lot better candidates than Garvey.
<< <i>Who's not worthy?
Luis Aparicio
Pee Wee Reese
Phil Ruzzito
Bill Mazeroski
Don Sutton
Gaylord Perry (and an admitted cheater!)
Andre Dawson
Catfish Hunter
Jim Rice
Bruce Sutter
Lou Brock
The list goes on and on and on, there are literally DOZENS of players enshrined who are not hall worthy. >>
If you seriously think Brock isn't worthy, then you truly are the dumbest moron on the planet.
Brock is a no brainer. The rest are marginal at best but a good argument can be made for or against any of the rest on that list.
However, it isn't difficult at all to say that Tim Raines was better than Lou Brock...or that Lou Brock's career hit totals often 'make' people overrate his ability/value as a baseball player.
<< <i>All Brock has is his stolen bases which s a vastly overrated stat. Henderson had tons of steals too but that wasn't his one claim to fame. Brock had a nice long career but hardly one which was a no doubt HoF one. >>
3000+ hits and 1600+ runs is a no brainer especially in 1985 (kind of ironically based on this discussion) when he was inducted.
Only one top 10 in OBP shows he wasn't particularly adept at getting on base and he got caught stealing nearly 1/3 of the time. He's like Biggio in that he just hung around forever but was never a high level player among his peers.
<< <i>Raines was a big time cocaine user. I'm no Angel, nor do I really care what people put in their bodies. But, the HOF has its criteria, and Raines doing illegal drugs is in violation of one of those criteria. >>
So why aren't Molitor, Jenkins and Cepeda in violation of this criteria?