The official 2014 Baseball Hall of Fame thread

[43211234]

http://deadspin.com/greg-maddux-will-not-be-a-unanimous-hall-of-famer-1496300490

 

By the way, Maddux and Morris had their careers overlap for 9 seasons.

[Boxcar]

Jesus. Well, I think these idiots are shooting themselves in the foot by making these absurd moral stands. After this vote, I really feel like something's gotta give with all these idiots being allowed to vote. They should have to justify their votes.

[Terminator]

Look at his criteria lol:

 

• 20 win seasons
  
• CY VOTES, that's VOTES, not actual awards
  
• MVP votes
  

 

Here's his rationale:

 

Morris has flaws — a 3.90 ERA, for example. But he gets my vote for more than a decade of ace performance that included three 20-win seasons, Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons and Most Valuable Players votes in five. As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won't vote for any of them.

[z3r0s]

Morris has flaws — a 3.90 ERA, for example. But he gets my vote for more than a decade of ace performance that included three 20-win seasons, Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons and Most Valuable Players votes in five. As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won't vote for any of them.

 

Maddux was just jacked up on roids... only reason he was good.

 

oh wait...

 

Maddux should get bonus votes for pitching in the steroid era.

[bendera3]

I don't know this guys background but from going to school for communication I can tell you what I know about most (mostly fellows) who want to be sports journalists: they are goddamn awful at math. Chances are this man uses things like wins and Cy Young votes because he doesn't understand more complicated statistics.

 

Also, there's been some sort of performance enhancing drugs in baseball for a long time. Cocaine in the 60s-80s, anabolic steroids later. And to be fair, no one can be certain when steroids started being prevalent in baseball.

 

If Jack Morris gets in Dave Stieb should be in too.

[Caper]

I think he just wants to watch a nerd freak on twitter.

[bendera3]

I love how the types of voters who use these numbers are the same ones who say our statistics are bastardizing the game. Just because your stats have been around since the 1880s doesn't make them any less statistical or any more warm and personable. The argument for Jack Morris is that he pitched a 10-inning WS-clinching shutout and was an ace workhorse guy that your team knew they could count on. He won multiple titles and his managers knew to start him in Game 1s because he could get the job done. He was a killer when it counted and everyone in baseball was scared of him. That's what you have to lean on. Once you bring Morris' stats into the fray its over, since they clearly don't match up.

 

This Ken Gurnick guy isn't even one of those crusty 80-year olds who don't follow the game anymore, whose habits draw more attention to the process than the individual. He's MLB.com's active Dodgers writer. My goodness what a moron.

 

I have no problem bring in his reputation if he is a borderline Hall of Fame candidate. To be fair he has a great reputation. But as you said, his stats are not Hall of Fame worthy, so this reputation shouldn't not even need to come into play.

[Caper]

Wins baby! Its all about the wins. I will take dah wins over all else. #Winners

 

If I knew before hand that a pitcher would give me 25 wins and 5 loses...... I wouldn't care if they through underhand.

[TwistedLogic]

Looks like Gurnick has decided that he isn't going to vote for the Hall ever again. A year too late it seems, stupid moron. Good riddance.

[saskjayfan]

If I knew before hand that a pitcher would give me 25 wins and 5 loses...... I wouldn't care if they through underhand.

 

As difficult as it is to determine the criteria of who deserves to get into the hall, it's even difficult to determine the criteria of which reporters get a ballot for the hall of fame voting. The players that get into the hall are suppose to elite, but it seems any tom, dick or hairy can get a ballot to vote. Some of these reporters have no clue...most follow several sports. They should just have baseball executives who have some clue about the game vote players into the hall.

[GeorgiaPeach]

Maddux was just jacked up on roids....

 

If saggy ass is a side effect of roid usage, then yeah Maddux was jacked.

[GeorgiaPeach]

Wins baby! Its all about the wins. I will take dah wins over all else. #Winners

 

What about the entire Tiger team who helped Morris get those wins, but likely none of them will be enshrined in the Hall.

[Angrioter]

Jack, we're winning this games 10-0, you need allow couple of runs to make this game more interesting!!

[over500]

http://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/2013/12/12/images/mlbf_31265505_th_43.jpg

[Boxcar]

Okay boys, I'm throwing strikes with this lead, f*** painting the black, lets get out of here and get drunk- Jack Morris

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=morrija02&year=Career&t=p#rs_extra

[TheHurl]

He did this on purpose. His intention was to stop voting altogether...if he does that this year he doesn't get to make any statement about it. Now he gets noticed, then announces he won't be voting any more in the future.

[BabbaGanoush]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=morrija02&year=Career&t=p#rs_extra

 

Seems like the numbers support what he says about about pitching to the scoreboard.

[GeorgiaPeach]

http://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/2013/12/12/images/mlbf_31265505_th_43.jpg

 

Jerry Howarth's bum-buddy brother

[TheHurl]

Wouldn't Maddux being a unanimous be a slap in the face to all the better players who weren't. It's not like he's going to cost Maddux entry. It also looks like he won't be enough to get Morris in. It's just another nothing ballot.

[TwistedLogic]

I've read for a long time that the player most likely to get a unanimous hall of fame induction is Mariano Rivera, but this moron said that he wouldn't have voted for Rivera either. As long as the BBWAA is run by guys like this, nobody is ever going to get a unanimous induction.

[Boxcar]

Seems like the numbers support what he says about about pitching to the scoreboard.

 

....you saw the same table as everyone else?

[Key22]

The Hall of fame is a bit useless. Comparing players in different eras is problematic because you don't know how they would do in a different era. In today's era with all the video footage and high tech replay is it possible that perhaps a pitcher who was a hall of famer in the 1940s get lit up in year two if something was discovered from an opposing team in the guy's delivery - theoretically goes from Hall of Famer to the scrap pile in 3 years.

 

So you probably should look at the individual's era and see what their numbers were like against the competition at the time. So if you took Jack's number over his time pitching against league average at his time and you say well - Jack would make his eras top 5 starting pitchers - then he should be given serious consideration (as well as the other 4).

 

Sort of how they do the compensation - you say -- the top X percent of a given era (the player's time in the show) with certain minimum qualifiers like IP or something.

 

I liked Jack but I honestly think the ONLY reason he gets this much consideration is for his game 7 win. Without that game - he'd probably be off the ballot.

[KingKat]

The Hall of fame is a bit useless. Comparing players in different eras is problematic because you don't know how they would do in a different era. In today's era with all the video footage and high tech replay is it possible that perhaps a pitcher who was a hall of famer in the 1940s get lit up in year two if something was discovered from an opposing team in the guy's delivery - theoretically goes from Hall of Famer to the scrap pile in 3 years.

 

So you probably should look at the individual's era and see what their numbers were like against the competition at the time. So if you took Jack's number over his time pitching against league average at his time and you say well - Jack would make his eras top 5 starting pitchers - then he should be given serious consideration (as well as the other 4).

 

Sort of how they do the compensation - you say -- the top X percent of a given era (the player's time in the show) with certain minimum qualifiers like IP or something.

 

I liked Jack but I honestly think the ONLY reason he gets this much consideration is for his game 7 win. Without that game - he'd probably be off the ballot.

 

As far as I'm concerned, it's completely useless. We have analytics now that help us measure value across different positions and different eras. Those tools are far from perfect but it's infinetely better than the voting process of a an annointed group of so-called experts many of which don't even cover the game. Even if HOF voting wasn't such a farce, the HOF would still be irrelevant in my mind because it's bascially obsolete. I'd rather look at a WAR leaderboard.

[NorthOf49]

I'm confused at how Tom Glavine is going to waltz past Schilling and Mussina and get in on his first ballot. Yes, he has 300 wins, but as an overall candidate he's inferior to those two and also to Kevin Brown (who didn't even get 5%!). Had Jack Morris pitched a couple more prime years and an extra mediocre at end, reaching the magic 300, he'd be Tom Glavine. Very similar pitchers, Glavine just has more longevity.

 

Yet Glavine isn't been written up as a longevity play; even all the statheads have him high on their ballots and call him a legit first-ballot guy. A player's reputation seems to have incredible influence on every voter, not just the old-school guys, and the reputation isn't based on big games or clubhouse authority. It's a weird thing that happens spontaneously... players are either always seen by everyone as historically significant players or they aren't. Not that Glavine isn't a Hall of Famer in his own right -- he certainly is.

[Angrioter]

I'm confused at how Tom Glavine is going to waltz past Schilling and Mussina and get in on his first ballot. Yes, he has 300 wins, but as an overall candidate he's inferior to those two and also to Kevin Brown (who didn't even get 5%!). Had Jack Morris pitched a couple more prime years and an extra mediocre at end, reaching the magic 300, he'd be Tom Glavine. Very similar pitchers, Glavine just has more longevity.

 

Yet Glavine isn't been written up as a longevity play; even all the statheads have him high on their ballots and call him a legit first-ballot guy. A player's reputation seems to have incredible influence on every voter, not just the old-school guys, and the reputation isn't based on big games or clubhouse authority. It's a weird thing that happens spontaneously... players are either always seen by everyone as historically significant players or they aren't. Not that Glavine isn't a Hall of Famer in his own right -- he certainly is.

 

Sosa could be excluded from the ballot #RoidGuy

[Boxcar]

The Hall of fame is a bit useless. Comparing players in different eras is problematic because you don't know how they would do in a different era. In today's era with all the video footage and high tech replay is it possible that perhaps a pitcher who was a hall of famer in the 1940s get lit up in year two if something was discovered from an opposing team in the guy's delivery - theoretically goes from Hall of Famer to the scrap pile in 3 years.

 

So you probably should look at the individual's era and see what their numbers were like against the competition at the time. So if you took Jack's number over his time pitching against league average at his time and you say well - Jack would make his eras top 5 starting pitchers - then he should be given serious consideration (as well as the other 4).

 

Sort of how they do the compensation - you say -- the top X percent of a given era (the player's time in the show) with certain minimum qualifiers like IP or something.

 

I liked Jack but I honestly think the ONLY reason he gets this much consideration is for his game 7 win. Without that game - he'd probably be off the ballot.

 

Ranked by WAR, Morris was the 7th most valuable pitcher of the 80s, behind guys like Ryan, Blyleven and Gooden. Guess who else? Dave Stieb. Morris threw the highest sheer number of innings in the 80s as well, so much of his value came from durability and longevity rather than pure skill. You let Morris in, then Mussina Should be a lock and probably guys like Pettitte too. Then how do you leave out Kevin Brown, especially with how fast he fell off the ballot?

[KingKat]

Ranked by WAR, Morris was the 7th most valuable pitcher of the 80s, behind guys like Ryan, Blyleven and Gooden. Guess who else? Dave Stieb. Morris threw the highest sheer number of innings in the 80s as well, so much of his value came from durability and longevity rather than pure skill. You let Morris in, then Mussina Should be a lock and probably guys like Pettitte too. Then how do you leave out Kevin Brown, especially with how fast he fell off the ballot?

 

Both Stieb and Brown were one and done I believe. Also, Stieb is just awesome. Halladay will be the first Jays pitcher in the HOF but he might not even be the best Jays pitcher for his career.

[Angrioter]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2014.shtml

 

Moisés Alou - 1st

Jeff Bagwell - 4th

Armando Benítez - 1st

Craig Biggio - 2nd

Barry Bonds - 2nd

Sean Casey - 1st

Roger Clemens - 2nd

Ray Durham - 1st

Éric Gagné - 1st

Tom Glavine - 1st

Luis Gonzalez - 1st

Jacque Jones - 1st

Todd Jones - 1st

Jeff Kent - 1st

Paul Lo Duca - 1st

Greg Maddux - 1st

Edgar Martínez - 5th

Don Mattingly - 14th

Fred McGriff - 5th

Mark McGwire - 8th

Jack Morris - 15th

Mike Mussina - 1st

Hideo Nomo - 1st

Rafael Palmeiro - 4th

Mike Piazza - 2nd

Tim Raines - 7th

Kenny Rogers - 1st

Curt Schilling - 2nd

Richie Sexson - 1st

Lee Smith - 12th

T. Snow - 1st

Sammy Sosa - 2nd

Frank Thomas - 1st

Mike Timlin - 1st

Alan Trammell - 13th

Larry Walker - 4th

[Angrioter]

My ballot

1-Bonds

2-Clemens

3-Maddux

4-Schilling

5-Edgar Martinez

6-Raines

7-Mussina

8-Bagwell

9-Glavine

10-Thomas

 

Sosa, RP's and Morris out of the ballot

[Convo]

Morris has flaws — a 3.90 ERA, for example. But he gets my vote for more than a decade of ace performance that included three 20-win seasons, Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons and Most Valuable Players votes in five. As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won't vote for any of them.