Congrats to Jack Morris and Alan Trammell elected to the HOF
Justacommeman
Posts: 22,847 ✭✭✭✭✭
For two men, the all-too-long wait for the National Baseball Hall of Fame came to an end Sunday, as Jack Morris and Alan Trammell were elected into Cooperstown as part of the Modern Era committee’s ballot.
The announcement kicked off baseball’s Winter Meetings in Orlando, where the 16-person Modern Era committee met and voted on 10 names who were getting a second chance at the Hall of Fame. If you’re familiar with the Hall of Fame’s Veterans’ Committee, this is a retooled version of the same thing. The Modern Era committee focused on players from 1970-1987.
Candidates needed 75 percent of the votes for election, or 12 of the 16 votes. The voters included Hall of Famers such as Rod Carew, Dennis Eckersley and Dave Winfield, as well as veteran writers/historians and long-time MLB executives such as Sandy Alderson and Bill DeWitt. This election marked the first time the committees elected a living player since 2001. The vote, quite simply, represents affirmation for Trammell and Morris from their peers after the Baseball Writers Association of America voters didn’t vote them in 15 straight years.
The ballot was full of familiar names and Hall of Fame cases. People like Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy and Dave Parker, all of whom fell short of election. So did Marvin Miller, the exec who fostered free agency and the players’ union, a man who many feel warrants inclusion.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Comments
My daughter and I got Tram’s autograph on our Tigers flags last year, along with a photo with him. Our first HOFer!! Looking forward to Tigersfest again next month!
12 votes were needed for induction (out of 16 voters). According to MLB.com, Morris got 14 votes and Trammell got 13.
Ted Simmons came up one vote short at 11.
Steve
I would have liked to have seen Simmons get in
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Good choice on Trammell, not so good with Morris. I wish simmons would have gotten in as well
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Longtime fan of both players....but, never really liked the secondary election process.
Number 3 and 47 will be retired in August. We’ll be there!
Agree but as long as Trammell got in I'll take it.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Recall the time that Trammell injured himself dressed as Frankenstein around Halloween. Should be a plaque in the Hall just for that!
"""Arthroscopic surgery on Trammell's right shoulder and left knee was performed by Dr. James Andrews in Columbus, Ga.
Trammell injured his knee a year ago. The day after a Halloween party he modeled a Frankenstein costume standing on blocks that raised his height to 7 feet. One of the blocks slipped and he fell and tore cartilage."""
.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
More on Morris
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) -- Fittingly, Jack Morris reached the Hall of Fame in extra innings.
Morris had 254 wins and seven more in the postseason, including his 10-inning shutout in a 1-0 win for Minnesota over Atlanta in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.
''No question it was my defining moment in baseball,'' Morris said. ''I never thought I was in trouble and I knew I could get out of it if I was. So I had the best mindset I've ever had in my entire on that night.''
Morris also pitched for World Series winners in Detroit - with Trammell, in 1984 - and Toronto in 1992. His 3.90 career ERA tops Red Ruffing's 3.80 as the highest of any pitcher in the Hall.
''For years my earned run average has been an issue for a lot of people that thought it was not good enough for Hall of Fame honors, but I never once thought about pitching for an ERA. I always thought about completing games, starting games, eating up innings and trying to win games more importantly than anything else,'' he said. ''Today's generation is different. In my heart of hearts I don't think for a second that guys that are pitching, the elite guys especially that are pitching in the game today, could not do what we did. I know they could. But they haven't been conditioned to it, both physically and mentally.''
His 175 complete games included 20 in 1983. The entire big league total this year was 59, and no pitcher had more than five. He said sabermetrics should not be used to evaluate his era.
''Now I'm getting analyzed by a bunch of numbers and things that didn't exist when I played, he said. ''Had they existed maybe I would have had a better understanding of what it would have meant to not pitch through pain, to not go deeper into games on nights that I told my manager, 'I'm fine' when I wasn't. But I don't regret doing that, because if you go to the wall and never try to push down the wall, you'll never know if you can.''
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Pathetic. Murphy and Parker are more deserving.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
both guys were loyal, dependable, workhorse players but I don't really think HOF'ers. JMHO, but I think this secondary process sort of cheapens entrance for all the guys who made it in during the regular process. both guys were around for a long time so if you are old enough you'll surely remember them. the thing is, I don't recall anything spectacular or really defining about either player.
they both always seemed to be Tigers, they could be counted on to be playing. I don't think that should be the measuring stick, but congratulations to both.
Ahhh the era of the 9 inning pitcher.
Glad the Tigers got some love. Would have liked to have seen Murph get in there but oh well.
175 complete games? 20 in one year? My Gawd, he should have been in long ago just for that accomplishment.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Brick- I tend to agree. I never knew he completed that many games. You don't get those numbers
from Dallas' statistical analysis of Morris.LOL.
I'm sure DA would say complete games are not that big of a deal.
Remember the stat guys ignore any factor that doesn't add to their favorite numbers. What's more they ignore their own numbers if they don't like the player, see Larry Walker.
Minnesota had Morris for one of his better years and of course ended it famously with a tremendous game 7 performance.
I'm not sure about his being a HOFer but he was the kind of pitcher you could count on for 33-35 starts year in and year out and he completed about 1/3 of them!
Sam McDowell gets mentioned in comparison to Morris and had a great 7 year run, about 1/2 as longs as Jack's run as a front line pitcher. McDowell was better for 7 years for sure, but Morris wins with longevity at a pretty high level.
It's not his fault he played on good teams, most HOFers did,
Pitching into the late innings tends to lower the era and reduce the W-L stats as compared to the 6 and 7 inning performers.
not trying to dis Jack Morris, but complete games by a starting pitcher back around 1983 wasn't that unusual, there were actually multiple guys with 10+ complete games every season. that started to change in the early 1990's till we got to where we are today, when a pitcher having five like Kluber and Santana is so impressive that it helps you win the Cy Young award. all those complete games by Morris only helped him finish third, that's how much the game has changed.
I don't think todays pitchers are incapable of pitching complete games, the nature of the game has just changed so much that they don't condition for it and aren't allowed to do it.
Morris getting in isn't as bothersome for me as that era needs more guys in. Its the idiocy above that is bothersome, because a pitchers job is to not give up runs, which has been always known in ANY era, and yes, do the other things he mentioned too. To use that as a defense for being a very hittable pitcher is hogwash, and holds no water. We already know he didn't pitch to the score, or his first inning ERA wouldn't be 4.23 for his career. Jack, is it ever a good idea to give up a 4.23 ERA in the first inning? Is that your job too, surrendering the lead?
So if guys from that era didn't think about their ERA, or not worrying if they gave up runs...then why did Tom Seaver 'choose' to have a lifetime 2.86 ERA and pitch 4,783 innings and 231 complete games?? We knew then, just as we know now, that if the pitcher gave up less runs, then they have a better chance of winning. Was Jack Morris not smart enough to realize that, and that is why he 'chose' to give up runs to the tune of a 4.23 ERA in the first inning? And 3.90 for the career??
Does he not realize that if he gave up only 2.90, that he would win MORE games, which is the job he is describing??? Is he then a moron for not realizing that??
His 3.90 comes 100% purely from his effectiveness as a pitcher in getting guys out and preventing runs. That measurues ihs value. His win totals measure's his team's offense first, and then his value second. Him saying that it wasn't his job to have a low ERA makes him an idiot, because everyone in the world knows that giving up LESS runs means MORE wins(which he is saying winning is his job). Pure idiocy.
Anyone that can't see the idiocy in it, is probably an idiot too, or moron at best.
That doesn't mean pitching a lot of innings and complete games are without meaning. THey have their value(especially the IP totals)....and his IP during his prime are what gives him the value he has, in conjunction of being above average in performance.
And being a player doesn't mean you also have a sharp analytical mind to go along with it...and Morris's comments illustrate that well.
Some have Trammell rated as the 11th best SS of all time. Ripken, Yount and Trammell to a lesser degree transformed the position be actually being able to field the position and hit. Really hit
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
If there was ever an occasion for Jack Morris to pitch to the score, to use his 'ability' to 'know how to win', it is when his team was struggling to score runs. What greater opportunity for the Ace to step up, take the bull by the horns, and lead their team to victory when the team is struggling to put runs on the board.
Here is what Morris did when his team needed him most, when they scored zero to two runs in a game:
Jack Morris was 17 wins, 109 losses, and a 3.98 ERA.
Jack Morris proved right there that he was NOT able to win with low run support, and that he needed his offense to be one of the top offenses in the game for 'him' to win to the degree he did. Lucky for him, his offenses were elite...almost every season and every team he was on, and that is why he was able to amass a lot of wins that he should not have gotten based on him being quite hittable (hittable in any and EVERY situation, score, inning, high leverage, low leverage).
It would be hard to win if your team is shutout. Just curious. What is his record when his team scored 1-2 runs?
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
That's a telling stat on his record when his team scored two or fewer runs. Where does it rank? Who was the best starter at winning without much run support? Wish I had the skills to figure stuff out like that myself!
His team was shutout through 9 against Atlanta.
Managed to pull that one out.
The only foul ball that I ever got was one hit by Alan Trammell
Lafayette Grading Set
Dave Stieb and the Blue Jays won only 22 less games than the Tigers for the entire decade.
Erik
Everyone is giving Jack Morris all these accolades due to him winning 254 games, and the reason why he won that many games despite being a very hittable pitcher, is because he got more run support than most pitchers.
Run Support is the primary reason he won that many games, NOT Jack Morris's ability. If it indeed was Jack Morris's ability as the primary reason why he was credited with 254 wins, and if Jack Morris did indeed have the ability to 'pitch to the score' like everyone believes....then he would not be 17 and 109 with s 3.98 ERA when his team gave him two or fewer runs of run support.
Yes, it is correct, NO starting pitcher is going to have a good record with two or fewer runs of run support, and that isn't primarily their fault that they don't win those games, just like they arent the only reason why they DO win when they get seven runs of run support....and that is why you don't measure pitchers on Win totals because the main variable in that stat is run support from the offense, of which has nothing to do with the ability of the pitcher.
Some examples:
Pitchers with 0-2 runs of run support:
Jack Morris WP% .135, ERA 3.98
1982 American league average WP% .102, ERA 4.49
1983 American league average WP% .117, ERA 4.23
1984 American League Average WP% .121, ERA 4.30
Just as you would expect, Morris was just a little better than league average, and that is expected because so was his ERA. And without even looking, since Morris was on one of the best hitting teams every year, you can bet that he had more of the games where he received one or two runs, while the crappy hitting teams got the zero runs more often. I'm not even going to bother looking that up, because at this point, only an idiot could still believe other than what is and has been presented on showing that Morris did NOT pitch to the score, and his win totals are not an accurate reflection of HIS ability.
Basically, Morris was simply a product of his run support, both when it was good or bad, as his lifetime ERA+ of 105 suggests, he was a few ticks above average.
Some other pitcher examples with that 0-2 run support:
Seaver WP% .262, ERA 2.52
Carlton WP% .223, ERA 2.99
BLyleven WP% .183, ERA 3.34
TIant WP% .209, ERA 3.13
Guidry WP% .180, ERA 3.45
Orel WP% .171, ERA 3.15
MORRIS 3.98 ERA! If ever a time a guy needed to pitch to the score, that was it! 3.98. Three Nine EIght.
MORRIS WINNING PERCENTAGE .135!!!! .135. ONE THREE FIVE!
awesome! Thanks for showing what good pitchers achieve when their team really needs them.
Your numbers definitely show how great Tom Seaver was when he got very little run support.
I always thought he was the best pitcher from my days as a youth,
better than Carlton, Palmer, Gibson, Ryan etc. and I think his numbers back that up.
I agree.
As for Jack Morris, with the run support he received, and with these supposed morphing abilities of 'pitching to the score', he should have won 325 games...if he was as good as people are saying he is, or actually did have those abilities. The reality is that he was a little above average for his career, much like his 105 ERA+ shows.
He did NOT have a high ERA because he let up when he had a big lead, that has been proven wrong, as his ERA was around 4.00 early in the games, in innings when the games were within one run, and in games when his team was scoring two or fewer runs.
Run support was the reason why he had a good win total and winning percentage despite having a high ERA. It is that simple.
His prime was more than a little above average, but not anything special or HOF worthy, and not the best in his league. Unfortunately for him, he had some pretty poor seasons sprinkled throughout, and those can't be ignored, hence his career 105 ERA+.
As for his post season, he had a couple great starts, and a couple horrendous starts too. In the end, his 3.80 ERA in the postseason is nothing special. THere are many players with better post season numbers than him, including wins and winning percentage.
I think baseball fans just have to face the fact that its a watered down Hall of Fame.
It isn't just the all time greats that are getting in. To me its been that way for many years
so Morris getting in isn't that big of a deal. I always liked Trammell so I'm glad he got in,
but with marginal candidates getting in, where do you draw the line? Should Dale Murphy
be in but not Don Mattingly? Or vice versa? Its just so hard to tell now who is hall of fame worthy.
If they had just stuck with the all time greats in the first place it wouldn't be such a problem now.
Is there a sports HOF that isn't watered down? The golf HOF is so bad I've heard proposals for tiers of HOFers, with each tier getting a separate floor in the HOF.
I feel pretty much the same. I simply enjoying debunking some of the ridiculous notions(such as the jack morris stuff).
Dale Murphy, Fred Lynn, Dave Parker...one can go on and on about guys who were from the same era as Rice, Sutter, or Morris, and were more deserving, yet don't get voted in....and it is usually from misconceptions, such as Morris pitching to the score, or Rice's inflated RBI totals, that lead to the mistakes.
I couldn't care less about Jack Morris and Alan Trammell getting the call, but I do find the entire process with the Modern Baseball Era Committee to be fascinating. If Morris received 14 of 16, that means more than one reverable inductee felt he was deserving of the ultimate plaudit. For those who are seething, what exactly are you going to say to a guy like George Brett? Or Rod Carew? Or Sutton? Or Eck? Or Winfield? Or Yount?
I don't know who voted for whom, but at least four of the aforementioned names propelled JM into the Hall. And therein lies the reason why I find this so compelling. We're no longer talking about 70-something-year-olds who don't know baseball from the potato chips they are inhaling. We're talking about guys who played at an elite level for the duration of an MLB career, and as a result were bestowed the game's highest honor themselves.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Stephen, I would assert that those who are blessed with the god given talent to play baseball at an elite level are not necessarily as adept at evaluating the talent of players around them. We see this often with former athletes in front office roles. I'm sure personal feelings factor into the evaluation, as well, especially in cases where the candidate was your peer or pal. And in a game where winning is the ultimate goal for the team, the win total can be very misleading, more a byproduct of run support and how good the team playing behind you is.
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.
I get that, Tim, but I find it very hard to believe that Brett, Carew, et al. are incapable of setting aside personal biases and unable to evaluate the game beyond what they personally did on the field. Just not buying it. I've heard most of those guys talk baseball before and it became readily apparent that they've forgotten more than I'll ever know. I am going to give each and every one of them the benefit of the doubt and say they are in that esteemed position for a very deserving reason.
But for the sake of discussion, let's say you're right. Let's say there are HoFers on the committee who don't take their duty seriously and aren't nearly as sagacious as they should be, and because of that they're allowing guys in who otherwise shouldn't be there. If that is indeed the case, we've now entered the realm of mockery as it pertains to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Why even follow it anymore?
Personally, I choose to accept this for what it is -- an extremely subjective process. Go toss a card up across the street, hide the flip and ask everyone what they think the grade is. The responses will be all over the map from guys who have been in the hobby for decades. Hall voting is no different. If it were that cut and dry, there would be two outcomes for candidates -- 100% or nada. But it doesn't work that way, and I'm perfectly fine with that. The human element will forever play a crucial -- and inescapable -- role.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
It's also telling that as far what's been published that Murphy, Garvey and Parker received 6 votes or lower. Does anyone have the exact number? The article stopped at 7 ( Marvin Miller)
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Morris was a very good pitcher who had the good fortune to play on very good teams with excellent run support. The stats tell the story in his case, though I give him credit for that memorable Game 7 shutout. But even with those 10 innings of shutout ball factored in, his postseason ERA of 3.80 is average. I understand the romantic notion of Morris being a big game pitcher but we also forget he was downright awful in the 87 and 92 postseasons, too. I'll take stats over recollections any day, even when they are coming from guys like the ones you mentioned, because the truly elite pitchers are not undermined by those stats, but affirmed by them.
The HOF as an institution already has its share of questionable members, Morris included, but I still enjoy the debates over which players are worthy or not and where they rank in the pantheon of greatness.
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.
Coaches once voted Rafael Palmeiro the gold glove at 1B, despite him being a DH like 85% of the time that year.
Many athletes fall under the same umbrella of misconceptions. No doubt during Morris's prime he was a workhorse and the Ace of his staff. He was good for a time. He has the most 'wins' of the 80's. Add that to some misconceptions, and there is your answer. If they had read all the information provided here, and they don't at least raise their eyebrow, then they are either stubborn, have an agenda, or just aren't that bright.
For the record, I believe that once a player exceeds the limit of the normal election process, he should be excluded. The truly great players don't have to wait the decision of a later committee. Hell, 1984 was a third of a century ago.
Having said that, the HOF does have a system of adding veterans to the Hall. To suggest that players of the highest caliber are not honest enough or competent to make these decisions is ludicrous.
The history of the Veteran's committee illustrates otherwise.
Heck, Morris being inducted into the Hall of Fame illustrates that, as well.
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.
Guys like Trammell and Morris (and others) get in because of decade-based thinking: if you're one of the best players during your decade (esp. at a position like SS), throughout a certain decade, and you have the accumulated career counting stats on top of that, then you should get in. It's the same reasoning that got Jim Rice in. I'm not saying I agree with this reasoning, but if you accept the decade argument as a premise, then you have to let Trammell et al. in.
Guys like Dale Murphy don't meet the second criteria - accumulated counting stats. This is the Dick Allen/Tony Oliva category.
Frankly, I don't think Trammell meets the accumulated counting stats criteria either. But I never saw him play, so the "winning player" factor may be bigger than I think.
Isn't Dwight Evans just a flat out a better player than Alan Trammell, controlling for everything?
Dick Allen and Tony Oliva should both be in.
I like Allen a lot. Olivia is close. Evans was my favorite player but I think he falls a little short. Murphy sort of close but no cigar. Trammell falls within the 11 to 15 greatest SS of all time. Coming up with Ripken and Young hurt his stock a little. He could have won 15 gloves in a different era. He formed the best double play combination in the history of baseball for 20 years with Lou Whitaker ( He actually has stats similar to second baseman in the hall). Trammell belongs. All IMHO of course
Nice post
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I mentioned in another thread the vet committee former players were all predominately AL'ers.
Is it a coincidence they elected two AL players and the NL players didn't get much support?
And one of the members is David Glass, owner of the Royals. AL team.
Not that they can't be objective, but they did see a lot more of Trammell and Morris where
the NLer's they mostly saw at the annual All Star game.
Germs of truth to be sure. You know what you know.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Dick Allen's stats as a hitter are Hall worthy, especially his peak, though his career was a bit short and he did miss a number of games. And though fielding isn't usually a real factor in these evaluations, Allen was a particularly bad fielder.
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.
That's a rather friendly group of ballot casters for those two, lol..
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.
Coaches once voted Rafael Palmeiro the gold glove at 1B, despite him being a DH like 85% of the time that year.
Makes sense. He probably had fewer errors.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph