HOF BBWAA Ballot (Henderson & Jim Rice)

[Bruce Miles]

Why no love for McGwire?

 

 

It's a good and fair question and one I'm going to have to confront pretty soon. I had always gone with the Rolling Stones song of time being on my side here when it comes to considering McGwire. But as my friend Joe Sheean of BP points out, that's probably no longer a good approach because we're probably not going to get any more info on McGwire and steroids.

 

Can I ask why you voted for Jack Morris? The main thing I always hear about is that he was awesome in the 1991 World Series. But overall, his postseason numbers are good but not great, and I would classify his career regular season numbers as "pretty good". But definitely not HOF material.

 

"...defintely note HOF material" is your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth. Morris: Five-time all-star; 254-186 record; 175 CG; member of three world champion teams; led all pitchers in the '80s in wins (ducks to avoid flying objects); held AL record for most consecutive starting assignments (515) before Clemens broke it; 28 shutouts. I've also talked with people such as Ernie Harwell, Sparky Anderson and Alan Trammell about Morris. To me, he qualifies.

[Bruce Miles]

NSBB gets a little shout-out in today's blog entry about the Hall:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1236

 

Enjoy

[OleMissCub]

You could argue conversely that alleged PED use helped cut McGwire's career short, more than cancelling out any advantage they gave him in the arbitrary years prior.

 

I dunno, 245 HR in just 4 years is nuts. Besides, I think Mac had injury issues even before his steroid years. He only played 74 games over a 2 year stretch between 93-94.

[Warpticon]

Headline candidates for the HOF over the next 3 years:

 

2010: Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Andres Galarraga, Robin Ventura, Fred McGriff

2011: Jeff Bagwell, Rafael Palmeiro, John Franco, John Olerud, Juan Gonzalez, Kevin Brown, Al Leiter, Tino Martinez

2012: Javy Lopez, Carl Everett, Bernie Williams, Eric Young, JT Snow, Terry Mulholland

 

Just wondering, will they combine the vote totals for Fred McGriff and Fred McGriff, or just average them out?

 

I honestly can't understand why Raines, Trammell, and Blyleven keep getting left out.

[OleMissCub]

NSBB gets a little shout-out in today's blog entry about the Hall:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1236

 

Enjoy

 

when players such as Ron Santo and Frank Howard (who has been compared with Rice, by way of tearing down Rice)

:blush:

[Bruce Miles]

NSBB gets a little shout-out in today's blog entry about the Hall:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1236

 

Enjoy

 

when players such as Ron Santo and Frank Howard (who has been compared with Rice, by way of tearing down Rice)

:blush:

 

Not saying, just saying. No foul intended.

[OleMissCub]

NSBB gets a little shout-out in today's blog entry about the Hall:

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1236

 

Enjoy

 

when players such as Ron Santo and Frank Howard (who has been compared with Rice, by way of tearing down Rice)

:blush:

 

Not saying, just saying. No foul intended.

 

That Howard-Rice comparison was ripped off from another website, but the WARP3 research and subsequent indictment (pretty much the lowest ever for an elected HOFer) was all mine though. :-)

[SouthSideRyan]

Using quick and dirty stats that are readily available and understood by most people here: (ERA+ and IP)

 

Jim Kaat, Frank Tanana, Rick Reuschel, Dennis Martinez, Charlie Hough, and Jamie Moyer are all either equal or better than Morris in career value.(You can eliminate Kaat if you want as his and Morris's careers only overlapped by ~5 years.)

 

This isn't meant to denigrate any of the pitchers above, but out of them, Kaat is the only one who's received any real consideration(I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to project Moyer will whiff) They're just simply good pitchers who were reliable, went out and threw a ton of innings at an above average rate. I understand that there's value in that, I've argued that Marquis has been well worth the money we gave him for what he's produced, but while valuable, eating innings is not a primary trait to base a HOF bid on.

 

Going to peak doesn't do much for Morris either.

 

He never finished higher than 3rd in Cy Young, never finished in the top 10 in MVP. The only thing his case seems to be based on is a gaudy win total, and one playoff game. I don't get it.

[OleMissCub]

member of three world champion teams

 

I believe he was the No.1 Starter on all three of those teams during the seasons.

[SouthSideRyan]

member of three world champion teams

 

I believe he was the No.1 Starter on all three of those teams during the seasons.

 

It's possible he was designated as such, but he wasn't the best pitcher on any of those teams.

[OleMissCub]

member of three world champion teams

 

I believe he was the No.1 Starter on all three of those teams during the seasons.

 

It's possible he was designated as such, but he wasn't the best pitcher on any of those teams.

 

I wasn't making a judgment on him one way or another, I was just pointing that out. I personally don't think he's a HOF pitcher.

[Bruce Miles]

member of three world champion teams

 

I believe he was the No.1 Starter on all three of those teams during the seasons.

 

It's possible he was designated as such, but he wasn't the best pitcher on any of those teams.

 

It's close in '84, but I'll still take Morris over Petry. Morris tossed two complete game victories in the '84 Series. In his World Series career, Morris was 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA.

[Tracer Bullet]

So uhhhh, Bruce who you vote for.

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1231

 

Rickey Henderson

Jim Rice

Andre Dawson

Bert Blyleven

Tommy John

Jack Morris

Tim Raines

Lee Smith

 

 

Bruce, I'm glad to see that you were among the 22% that voted for Raines.

 

Bruce - I don't want to jump down your throat b/c I appreciate you posting your votes. But, unless my eyes deceive me, Alan Trammel isn't among your vote-getters. Would you mind explaining your thoughts on that?

[The Voice of Reason]

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=olney_buster&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2findex%3fname%3dolney_buster

 

Agree with Buster on McGwire but not on Bonds and Clemens.

 

Mark McGwire's vote percentage in the Hall of Fame balloting went down from a high of 23.6 percent to 21.9 percent this year.

 

Digestion: So much for the theory that McGwire's vote total would climb after his first year of eligibility. I've voted for McGwire in each of his three years of eligibility. But whether you think McGwire should be in or out, it is evident that a large core of Hall of Fame voters will never cast ballots for the slugger because of his prominent connection to the issue of performance-enhancing drugs.

 

This is why I don't think either Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens will ever be elected to the Hall of Fame once their names begin to appear on the ballot.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Raines only got 22 percent? That's crazy talk.

[Bruce Miles]

So uhhhh, Bruce who you vote for.

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1231

 

Rickey Henderson

Jim Rice

Andre Dawson

Bert Blyleven

Tommy John

Jack Morris

Tim Raines

Lee Smith

 

 

Bruce, I'm glad to see that you were among the 22% that voted for Raines.

 

Bruce - I don't want to jump down your throat b/c I appreciate you posting your votes. But, unless my eyes deceive me, Alan Trammel isn't among your vote-getters. Would you mind explaining your thoughts on that?

 

Well, Tram hasn't jumped down my throat yet. Seriously, this is another good question and one I'll have to reconsider. I'm leaning toward voting for him.

[B]

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=olney_buster&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2findex%3fname%3dolney_buster

 

Agree with Buster on McGwire but not on Bonds and Clemens.

 

Mark McGwire's vote percentage in the Hall of Fame balloting went down from a high of 23.6 percent to 21.9 percent this year.

 

Digestion: So much for the theory that McGwire's vote total would climb after his first year of eligibility. I've voted for McGwire in each of his three years of eligibility. But whether you think McGwire should be in or out, it is evident that a large core of Hall of Fame voters will never cast ballots for the slugger because of his prominent connection to the issue of performance-enhancing drugs.

 

This is why I don't think either Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens will ever be elected to the Hall of Fame once their names begin to appear on the ballot.

 

Out of the ESPN voters; Stark, Olney, Gammons, and Kurkjian; only Gammons didn't vote for McGwire. What do you think his vote would be if McGwire would have played for Boston?

[NewUserName]

Bruce I am glad to hear that you take time and reflect on this issue. I really do hope that all HOF voters do the same. I also have a couple of questions about your votes. I obviously dont agree with you on all of them but I really wanted to hear your thoughts on these questions.

 

1. Why no Alan Trammell? I think it has been asked already, but he is a very good candidate.

2. You sight World Championships as part of you reason for including Jack Morris. I have heard from others that is one of the reasons that Santo doesnt make it. The Red Sox never won a title during Rice's career and I think only made 1 WS during his prime(he was hurt and didnt play that postseason either). I guess my question is if Rice is a border line candidate, what other aspects of his career did you use to vote for him?

[Tracer Bullet]

So uhhhh, Bruce who you vote for.

 

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1231

 

Rickey Henderson

Jim Rice

Andre Dawson

Bert Blyleven

Tommy John

Jack Morris

Tim Raines

Lee Smith

 

 

Bruce, I'm glad to see that you were among the 22% that voted for Raines.

 

Bruce - I don't want to jump down your throat b/c I appreciate you posting your votes. But, unless my eyes deceive me, Alan Trammel isn't among your vote-getters. Would you mind explaining your thoughts on that?

 

Well, Tram hasn't jumped down my throat yet. Seriously, this is another good question and one I'll have to reconsider. I'm leaning toward voting for him.

 

Never jumped down your throat? Would you mind explaining a bit about how you come up with the guys you vote for? I saw your blog posts on the topic, but I guess I'm surprised that you wouldn't vote for Trammell. Someone here (I think in this thread) linked to a really good piece about Trammell and his hall worthiness (discussing Jaffe's JAWS, google returns links to a couple different articles). I guess I'm just surprised to see a guy like Rice on your list but Trammell left off.

[Tracer Bullet]

Why no love for McGwire?

 

 

It's a good and fair question and one I'm going to have to confront pretty soon. I had always gone with the Rolling Stones song of time being on my side here when it comes to considering McGwire. But as my friend Joe Sheean of BP points out, that's probably no longer a good approach because we're probably not going to get any more info on McGwire and steroids.

 

Can I ask why you voted for Jack Morris? The main thing I always hear about is that he was awesome in the 1991 World Series. But overall, his postseason numbers are good but not great, and I would classify his career regular season numbers as "pretty good". But definitely not HOF material.

 

"...defintely note HOF material" is your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth. Morris: Five-time all-star; 254-186 record; 175 CG; member of three world champion teams; led all pitchers in the '80s in wins (ducks to avoid flying objects); held AL record for most consecutive starting assignments (515) before Clemens broke it; 28 shutouts. I've also talked with people such as Ernie Harwell, Sparky Anderson and Alan Trammell about Morris. To me, he qualifies.

 

This isn't meant to be snarky, but those seem like really bad justifications for Morris. All-Star voting is a crock. It probably wasn't as bad before online voting made it so easy to vote thousands of times, but it still should have absolutely no weight in evaluating a player. I imagine there are a number of guys that won 3 WS rings that aren't good enough for the Hall. He pitched a long time and his arm could withstand going deep in games. Those are valuable things, but lots of mediocre pitchers have those abilities. He did pitch well in some WS games, but WS or not, that doesn't seem like enough to overcome the overwhelming blandness of his complete picture.

 

Did you tell Trammell you weren't voting for him when you asked him about Morris? :wink:

[Bruce Miles]

Why no love for McGwire?

 

 

It's a good and fair question and one I'm going to have to confront pretty soon. I had always gone with the Rolling Stones song of time being on my side here when it comes to considering McGwire. But as my friend Joe Sheean of BP points out, that's probably no longer a good approach because we're probably not going to get any more info on McGwire and steroids.

 

Can I ask why you voted for Jack Morris? The main thing I always hear about is that he was awesome in the 1991 World Series. But overall, his postseason numbers are good but not great, and I would classify his career regular season numbers as "pretty good". But definitely not HOF material.

 

"...defintely note HOF material" is your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth. Morris: Five-time all-star; 254-186 record; 175 CG; member of three world champion teams; led all pitchers in the '80s in wins (ducks to avoid flying objects); held AL record for most consecutive starting assignments (515) before Clemens broke it; 28 shutouts. I've also talked with people such as Ernie Harwell, Sparky Anderson and Alan Trammell about Morris. To me, he qualifies.

 

This isn't meant to be snarky, but those seem like really bad justifications for Morris. All-Star voting is a crock. It probably wasn't as bad before online voting made it so easy to vote thousands of times, but it still should have absolutely no weight in evaluating a player. I imagine there are a number of guys that won 3 WS rings that aren't good enough for the Hall. He pitched a long time and his arm could withstand going deep in games. Those are valuable things, but lots of mediocre pitchers have those abilities. He did pitch well in some WS games, but WS or not, that doesn't seem like enough to overcome the overwhelming blandness of his complete picture.

 

Did you tell Trammell you weren't voting for him when you asked him about Morris? :wink:

 

You're right about all-star voting being a crock. Being a pitcher, Morris wasn't subject to it. His all-star manager, based on input from other baseball people (presumably who knew the game the kind of pitcher Morris was) chose him.

 

No, didn't tell Tram. Don't think he'd care anyway.

[Tracer Bullet]

Why no love for McGwire?

 

 

It's a good and fair question and one I'm going to have to confront pretty soon. I had always gone with the Rolling Stones song of time being on my side here when it comes to considering McGwire. But as my friend Joe Sheean of BP points out, that's probably no longer a good approach because we're probably not going to get any more info on McGwire and steroids.

 

Can I ask why you voted for Jack Morris? The main thing I always hear about is that he was awesome in the 1991 World Series. But overall, his postseason numbers are good but not great, and I would classify his career regular season numbers as "pretty good". But definitely not HOF material.

 

"...defintely note HOF material" is your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth. Morris: Five-time all-star; 254-186 record; 175 CG; member of three world champion teams; led all pitchers in the '80s in wins (ducks to avoid flying objects); held AL record for most consecutive starting assignments (515) before Clemens broke it; 28 shutouts. I've also talked with people such as Ernie Harwell, Sparky Anderson and Alan Trammell about Morris. To me, he qualifies.

 

This isn't meant to be snarky, but those seem like really bad justifications for Morris. All-Star voting is a crock. It probably wasn't as bad before online voting made it so easy to vote thousands of times, but it still should have absolutely no weight in evaluating a player. I imagine there are a number of guys that won 3 WS rings that aren't good enough for the Hall. He pitched a long time and his arm could withstand going deep in games. Those are valuable things, but lots of mediocre pitchers have those abilities. He did pitch well in some WS games, but WS or not, that doesn't seem like enough to overcome the overwhelming blandness of his complete picture.

 

Did you tell Trammell you weren't voting for him when you asked him about Morris? :wink:

 

You're right about all-star voting being a crock. Being a pitcher, Morris wasn't subject to it. His all-star manager, based on input from other baseball people (presumably who knew the game the kind of pitcher Morris was) chose him.

 

No, didn't tell Tram. Don't think he'd care anyway.

 

I should have been more clear. All Star selection, generally, is a crock. Whether it's managers or fans doing the selecting. But that's a pretty minor point in Morris' candidacy.

 

And I hope you knew I was joking about Trammell. He certainly doesn't seem like he would care. He seems like a real great guy (which makes his poor showing in HOF voting even more difficult for me to understand, I guess).

[Bruce Miles]

Why no love for McGwire?

 

 

It's a good and fair question and one I'm going to have to confront pretty soon. I had always gone with the Rolling Stones song of time being on my side here when it comes to considering McGwire. But as my friend Joe Sheean of BP points out, that's probably no longer a good approach because we're probably not going to get any more info on McGwire and steroids.

 

Can I ask why you voted for Jack Morris? The main thing I always hear about is that he was awesome in the 1991 World Series. But overall, his postseason numbers are good but not great, and I would classify his career regular season numbers as "pretty good". But definitely not HOF material.

 

"...defintely note HOF material" is your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth. Morris: Five-time all-star; 254-186 record; 175 CG; member of three world champion teams; led all pitchers in the '80s in wins (ducks to avoid flying objects); held AL record for most consecutive starting assignments (515) before Clemens broke it; 28 shutouts. I've also talked with people such as Ernie Harwell, Sparky Anderson and Alan Trammell about Morris. To me, he qualifies.

 

This isn't meant to be snarky, but those seem like really bad justifications for Morris. All-Star voting is a crock. It probably wasn't as bad before online voting made it so easy to vote thousands of times, but it still should have absolutely no weight in evaluating a player. I imagine there are a number of guys that won 3 WS rings that aren't good enough for the Hall. He pitched a long time and his arm could withstand going deep in games. Those are valuable things, but lots of mediocre pitchers have those abilities. He did pitch well in some WS games, but WS or not, that doesn't seem like enough to overcome the overwhelming blandness of his complete picture.

 

Did you tell Trammell you weren't voting for him when you asked him about Morris? :wink:

 

You're right about all-star voting being a crock. Being a pitcher, Morris wasn't subject to it. His all-star manager, based on input from other baseball people (presumably who knew the game the kind of pitcher Morris was) chose him.

 

No, didn't tell Tram. Don't think he'd care anyway.

 

I should have been more clear. All Star selection, generally, is a crock. Whether it's managers or fans doing the selecting. But that's a pretty minor point in Morris' candidacy.

 

And I hope you knew I was joking about Trammell. He certainly doesn't seem like he would care. He seems like a real great guy (which makes his poor showing in HOF voting even more difficult for me to understand, I guess).

 

Oh, I know you were kidding about Trammell. He is a great guy. When I started covering baseball in 1989, I did a story on the Tigers. Trammell was one of the best, never big-timing anybody. Sparky Anderson was tremendous, too.

 

And I don't mind the debate about Morris, either. We've all got our points of view.

[jersey cubs fan]

I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth.

 

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball.

[Bruce Miles]

I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth.

 

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball.

 

Well, I actually looked at some of the "comparables" to Morris over at baseballreference.com. My first thought, without looking, was Jim Bunning, a Hall of Famer. He was on the list, along with Bob Feller, Bob Gibson and Burleigh Grimes, all Hall of Famers. Then I ran the numbers. Morris' compare pretty well, except for ERA (he played in a DH era, though) and WHIP. Wow, I'm citing stats. No, I do take a balanced approached. Maybe I should have delineated all the stats I consider.