saw these guys are going thru the HOF Modern Baseball committee.

Jack Morris
Don Mattingly
Luis Tiant
Alan Trammell
Steve Garvey
former MLBPA head Marvin Miller
Tommy John
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Al Simmons

they will be voted on by 16-member committees comprised of writers, executives and Hall of Fame players and managers.

It'll be interesting to see if a guy like a Jack Morris gets in now. I'd kind of guess him and Marvin Miller quite possibly would be the 2.

Ugh - Morris?! He basically had one great season (83) and a handful of very good seasons, but because he played for a million years he's got 250 wins and a decent cumulative WAR. Never had an ERA below 3 and only came close once. He is simply not HOF material.

Miller absolutely belongs. John's elbow is way more important than his stats. Can they elect a body part? Garvey kind of another longevity guy - he had a few great seasons but he had way more bad ones. Murphy, I think, deserves in. His career kind of looks like Garvey's but his highs were way higher.

it's an interesting time for Morris to come up for consideration. I mean, given guys like Darvish and McCullers couldn't get thru 3 innings in game 7- Morris with his 10 inning game in the game 7 in 1991 is really interesting.

Well, it's definitely interesting, and proves his mettle I guess. But is it really HOF worthy? Are we ready to say he's an all time great because he was able to throw a lot of innings, knowing all those innings ended up with a lifetime ERA just under 4?

Not to be a grinch, but if I had a HOF vote and that was the list, my vote would be none of the above.

On the other hand, if we were voting for the Hall of Very Good rather than the Hall of Fame, I'd vote for at least a few of those players.

(11-06-2017 07:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Not to be a grinch, but if I had a HOF vote and that was the list, my vote would be none of the above.

On the other hand, if we were voting for the Hall of Very Good rather than the Hall of Fame, I'd vote for at least a few of those players.

Even Miller? He's got to be one of the most influential people in the history of the game.

All of the players belong in the Hall of Very Good, imho there are too many very good players in the HOF already. The HOF should be for the very very great.

As for Marvin Miller, he helped destabilize the game into what to has become today. Thank him for higher ticket prices, player strikes and higher salaries.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(11-06-2017 07:13 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 07:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Not to be a grinch, but if I had a HOF vote and that was the list, my vote would be none of the above.

On the other hand, if we were voting for the Hall of Very Good rather than the Hall of Fame, I'd vote for at least a few of those players.

Even Miller? He's got to be one of the most influential people in the history of the game.

Miller was very influential, but I don't have a handle or an opinion on how to evaluate someone who wasn't a player or manager for the HOF. The NFL practice of putting owners in their Hall seems odd to me.

(11-06-2017 07:30 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  All of the players belong in the Hall of Very Good, imho there are too many very good players in the HOF already. The HOF should be for the very very great.

As for Marvin Miller, he helped destabilize the game into what to has become today. Thank him for higher ticket prices, player strikes and higher salaries.

He also arguably helped usher the sport from the relative Dark Ages to prosperity. The era of baseball prior to free agency was marked by frequent instability amongst the franchises (remember the Seattle Pilots?) resulting from the major leagues' inability to embrace TV as a new medium for the game. The reforms of the seventies really helped push the game in a positive direction to adapt and combat the other major sports, the strike had nothing to do with him imo.

One interesting anecdote from Miller's tenure was during the arbitration era when Charles Finley, not wanting to move to free agency since it'd decimate the A's, at one point during negotiations yelled "make 'em all free agents!" in frustration. Miller later recalled that he was paralyzed in fear of that actually happening since it'd flood the labor market and depress player salaries, though no one else took Finley seriously and it died.

It's utterly amazing how many folks on FG slam Jack Morris. He was the #1 AL pitcher in the entire decade of the 80s by fWAR. Normally if you are the pitcher of the decade- you make the hall of fame.

He had one great (or maybe only very good) fWAR season - a 6.2 in 1983. Never came close that again, with several 4ish seasons. He was basically a good to very good pitcher for a long time; that's it.

(11-16-2017 10:07 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  He had one great (or maybe only very good) fWAR season - a 6.2 in 1983. Never came close that again, with several 4ish seasons. He was basically a good to very good pitcher for a long time; that's it.

agree, I don't think he had nearly enough HOF caliber seasons to warrant election

(11-16-2017 01:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  It's utterly amazing how many folks on FG slam Jack Morris. He was the #1 AL pitcher in the entire decade of the 80s by fWAR. Normally if you are the pitcher of the decade- you make the hall of fame.

he also made the most starts of that decade, which explains why he had the highest WAR. Clemens was third in WAR, despite making 158 fewer starts. Saberhagen was 6th and made 154 fewer. In fact, Blyleven made 332 starts; only 8 pitchers in the entire decade made more than 300 starts and five of them are in the top 14 in WAR.

(11-16-2017 03:15 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(11-16-2017 01:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  It's utterly amazing how many folks on FG slam Jack Morris. He was the #1 AL pitcher in the entire decade of the 80s by fWAR. Normally if you are the pitcher of the decade- you make the hall of fame.

he also made the most starts of that decade, which explains why he had the highest WAR. Clemens was third in WAR, despite making 158 fewer starts. Saberhagen was 6th and made 154 fewer. In fact, Blyleven made 332 starts; only 8 pitchers in the entire decade made more than 300 starts and five of them are in the top 14 in WAR.

He made 1 more start than Steib but had over 100 more innings than him.

I've never seen a guy make folks so disgusted if he were to get elected to the HOF.

A guy who can churn out hundreds of quality innings is absolutely the kind of guy you want on your team, but does it really make him elite? Is there an endurance number where you go from "really good for a long time" to "elite volume of effort"? Is this where we discuss guys like Phil Niekro and Gaylord Perry? (who also had multiple elite level seasons each)

Morris isn't close to those guys.

(11-16-2017 03:44 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-16-2017 03:15 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(11-16-2017 01:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  It's utterly amazing how many folks on FG slam Jack Morris. He was the #1 AL pitcher in the entire decade of the 80s by fWAR. Normally if you are the pitcher of the decade- you make the hall of fame.

he also made the most starts of that decade, which explains why he had the highest WAR. Clemens was third in WAR, despite making 158 fewer starts. Saberhagen was 6th and made 154 fewer. In fact, Blyleven made 332 starts; only 8 pitchers in the entire decade made more than 300 starts and five of them are in the top 14 in WAR.

He made 1 more start than Steib but had over 100 more innings than him.

I've never seen a guy make folks so disgusted if he were to get elected to the HOF.

So he was a better pitcher than Dave Stieb? That isn't news, nor does it really make him hall worthy

(11-16-2017 04:01 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  A guy who can churn out hundreds of quality innings is absolutely the kind of guy you want on your team, but does it really make him elite? Is there an endurance number where you go from "really good for a long time" to "elite volume of effort"? Is this where we discuss guys like Phil Niekro and Gaylord Perry? (who also had multiple elite level seasons each)

Morris isn't close to those guys.

i lean more towards peak performance than longevity when considering a hall of fame resume. No idea how he can be elected before Mussina and Schilling.

(11-16-2017 04:11 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(11-16-2017 04:01 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  A guy who can churn out hundreds of quality innings is absolutely the kind of guy you want on your team, but does it really make him elite? Is there an endurance number where you go from "really good for a long time" to "elite volume of effort"? Is this where we discuss guys like Phil Niekro and Gaylord Perry? (who also had multiple elite level seasons each)

Morris isn't close to those guys.

i lean more towards peak performance than longevity when considering a hall of fame resume. No idea how he can be elected before Mussina and Schilling.

To me, Mussina is right on the margin - I can see the arguments both ways. Schilling? USA Today (of all places) said it best: He pitched his way into the Hall of Fame and talked his way out.

what a f*ckin' joke

sorry but I totally get Morris going into the Hall of Fame. He was the #1 pitcher of the 80's for the American League. If you are the top pitcher for a decade, you generally should be in the hall of fame. It's that simple.