2011 HOF ballot

Who's in and who's out?

Bert Blyleven
Roberto Alomar
Jack Morris
Barry Larkin
Lee Smith
Edgar Martinez
Tim Raines
Mark McGwire
Alan Trammell
Fred McGriff
Don Mattingly
Dave Parker
Dale Murphy
Harold Baines
Carlos Baerga
Jeff Bagwell
Brett Boone
Kevin Brown
John Franco
Juan Gonzalez
Marquis Grissom
Lenny Harris
Bobby Higginson
Charles Johnson
Al Leiter
Tino Martinez
Raul Mondesi
John Olerud
Rafael Palmeiro
Kirk Rueter
Benito Santiago
B.J. Surhoff
Larry Walker

Bert Blyleven ---------YES
Roberto Alomar ------YES
Jack Morris----------- YES
Barry Larkin ----------YES
Lee Smith ----------- YES
Edgar Martinez -------YES
Tim Raines ------------YES
Mark McGwire --------NO
Alan Trammell --------NO
Fred McGriff ----------YES
Don Mattingly ---------NO
Dave Parker ----------NO
Dale Murphy ----------NO
Harold Baines ---------NO
Carlos Baerga --------NO
Jeff Bagwell ----------YES
Brett Boone ----------NO
Kevin Brown ----------NO
John Franco ----------NO
Juan Gonzalez --------NO
Marquis Grissom ------NO
Lenny Harris ----------NO
Bobby Higginson ------NO
Charles Johnson ------NO
Al Leiter ---------------NO
Tino Martinez----------NO
Raul Mondesi----------NO
John Olerud-----------NO
Rafael Palmeiro -------NO
Kirk Reuter----------- NO
Benito Santiago ------NO
B.J. Surhoff ----------NO
Larry Walker----------YES

sabrjay wrote:Who's in and who's out?

Bert Blyleven
Roberto Alomar
Barry Larkin
Tim Raines

my votes. i don't like palmeiro so left him out. mcgwire is iffy to me he was a one trick pony with the 'roid helping him so no.

could make the cases for several others but 4 is enough for 1 year (don't wanna sit through speeches the whole day).

larry walker definitely no. not enough stats and his home/away split is jarring.

I was surprised at how many I picked. Walker is kind of iffy but he was one of the best hitters in the game. I'm sure a lot of voters will penalize him since most of those numbers were generated in CO before the humidor. Smith is sort of borderline too. The rest were top players at what they did when they played and should be in.

No to Morris, his career ERA is 3.90 in a pitcher's era. Also Smith's ERA of 3.00 not great for a closer, comparer it to Mo's 2.23. No to Walker due to Rockies stat inflation. Yes to Alomar, Larkin and Blyleven. No to McGriff, not big enough numbers for a 1b, yes to Bagwell. Yes to Rock Raines, too.

jbonie wrote: No to McGriff, not big enough numbers for a 1b,

I don't know Jamie. The Crime Dog was pretty stellar and very worthy imo.

2490 - career hits
493 - career hr's
1550 - career rbi's
.284 - career ba

McGriff OBP .377/SLG .509 not very strong numbers compared to Bagwell's .408/.540. Though McGriff did have him on longevity. I view Crime Dog as very good but not quite good enough for a hitter's era 1b-man. McGriff may have been a better defensive 1b-man, I don't know in that regard, but it is close.
J

Morris was not in pitcher's era. Relative to today's game, it looks like it, but it really wasn't. There really wasn't a better big game pitcher during era. He would get you a win when you needed it and was the anchor for two WS champions. He also pitched arguably the greatest game in WS series history.

McGriff is in. There isn't even a whiff of controversy around the numbers he put up. Bagwell most likely was juicing along with everyone else in that era. He put 7 consecutive HR seasons at a time when a 30 HR season still meant something.

Smith is sort of iffy but longevity counts too. Comparing him to Mariano Rivera is fair. It's not fair to compare any reliever to him. During his career, he held his own against the likes of Quiz, Sutter, Goosage, etc.

Good points, Jay, I will concede that about Smith and McGriff, their longevity, and yeah Bags probably was juicing, good point there. But Jack Morris? NO WAY, my friend, NO WAY.

i read some very convincing pieces from people that know alot more about baseball than me on jack morris and the myth of "big game pitcher"...so that always stuck with me that he's not HOF material. if you put very good guys like mcgriff in then you have to consider others like jim rice, oh wait...

i think jay, tbob have their minnesota bias that's why they want morris in . i'm not gonna even go into relief pitchers and designated hitters...but edgar and lee prolly deserve to get in some year when the field is really weak

Look, I'm a Yankees fan, and would I like to see Don Mattingly in the Hall of Fame? Absolutely, he's a class act and led the Yankees resurrection. But does he really belong there? Not really. He belongs to the Hall of Very Good along with guys like Morris, etc. We can be sentimental towards them, but their numbers indicate they weren't good enough to be in the Hall of Fame. It's the modern era and there were 28-32 teams, lots of players, softer competition than past eras. A guys numbers should have to be GREAT to make it.

Even without the MN bias I say Morris gets in. When he was with the Tigers the pitcher I hated to see was Morris because you knew it wasn't going to be good for the Twins. If you look at his similarity score, 8 of the top 10 pitchers on the list are in the HOF.

People get too wrapped up in comparing modern pitching stats to those of previous eras, but it just doesn't work. You can't even do that with batters. The best you can do is look at their contemporaries and if they were better than them, then deserve to go in and Morris was better than just about everyone in his era.

Softer competition is big myth too. The worst of today's pros would be superstars if they were transported back in time. You can't say that about the worst of the Deadball era. They wouldn't even make it out of the Sally League. Today's athletes are better conditioned and better trained. Matty the Big Trian would be great pitchers today too, but I doubt you'd see numbers anything like what they posted during their career.

sabrjay wrote:

People get too wrapped up in comparing modern pitching stats to those of previous eras, but it just doesn't work. You can't even do that with batters. The best you can do is look at their contemporaries and if they were better than them, then deserve to go in and Morris was better than just about everyone in his era.

ok, so WAR among his contemporaries...


Rank WAR
62 Rick Reuschel 58
64 Dave Stieb 58
72 Frank Tanana 55
81 Jimmy Key 53
90 Dennis Martinez 52
95 Jack Morris 51

would you put any of these guys AHEAD of morris in the hall?

the best argument might be comparing him to other eras

Rank WAR
95 Jack Morris 51
98 Herb Pennock 51
100 Burleigh Grimes 50
101 Bob Lemon 50
104 Chief Bender 50
130 Jesse Haines 46
131 Catfish Hunter 46
135 Jack Chesbro 45
138 Dizzy Dean 45
160 Rube Marquard 40

all below morris and hof'ers

Beautiful demonstration, Quan, but I think it's all a moot point. Morris got 50% vote last year, needs 75% to get in. That means half of the sportswriters who voted no need to change their minds. Jay's got a long campaign ahead of him.

Plus, he pitched one great Game 7 but the rest of his postseason stats weren't that good. I don't see it happening.

We are becoming dangerously close to having a Hall of Meh.

None of those names jump out at me. But, to be fair when you look at who is already in here I'd go ahead and put Lee Smith, Barry Larkin, and Roberto Alomar in.

If I had to narrow my choices, I'd have to go with Blyleven, Raines, Larkin, Martinez and Alomar.

Blyleven - His 1973 season is listed by Bill James as one of the five nest ever. Most also agree that he had the best curve ball ever and is number 5 on the all-time strikeout list. As much hype as Ks get, how do leave out the #5 guy of all-time?

Raines - If not for Rickey Henderson we would all be talking about Tim Raines as the greatest leadoff hitter of our lifetime.

Larkin - The first of great fielding, power hitting SS and he could steal bases too.

Martinez - If ever a DH deserved to go in, it's him.

Alomar - Probably the greatest all-around 2B ever. I doubt LAjoie was anywhere near goo defensively as Alomar. The guy was Ozzie Smith 2B.

Deleted

sabrjay wrote:
Alomar - Probably the greatest all-around 2B ever. I doubt LAjoie was anywhere near goo defensively as Alomar. The guy was Ozzie Smith 2B.

Jay, Rogers Hornsby just called looking for you. He sounded pissed.

Hornsby was the best bat at the position, but his defense sucked. So all-around, he wasn't that great.

Gimme a break. Alomar couldn't hold Hornsby's jock--nor Eddie Collins' either.

I'll preface these quotes by saying I have not fact-checked them and that Wikipedia itself is not the greatest suurce. Still, if these are properly attributed, consider:

"In addition to his hitting accomplishments, Hornsby was well respected as a fielder. In 1918, a reporter for the Washington Post described Hornsby as the outstanding fielding shortstop in the western circuit of the National League and perhaps the finest fielding shortstop in the entire league. In 1920, Hornsby led the league in putouts, assists, and double plays. In an August 26, 1925 article in the Los Angeles Times, Hall of Fame manager Hughie Jennings described Hornsby as one of the best-fielding second basemen in the game. Hornsby's average of 3.31 assists per game is the seventh-highest of any second baseman in baseball history."

"Hornsby was also renowned for his speed. In a January 8, 1963 article in the Chicago American, Hall of Fame player and manager Al Lopez said of Hornsby, "he was one of the speediest men we ever had in baseball." Hall of Famer Pie Traynor, who saw both Hornsby and Mickey Mantle play, insisted that Hornsby would have beaten Mantle to first base from the right hand batter's box. Christy Mathewson once stated that he believed that Hornsby was faster than Maurice Archdeacon, a player who in the 1920s was believed to have been the fastest player to have played Major League Baseball. During the 1922 season, Hornsby won a 100-yard dash against Pro Football Hall of Fame running back Bo McMillin at Sportsman's Park in St. Louis. Hornsby did not try to steal very often, but used his speed to take extra bases. Between 1916 and 1927 Hornsby had 30 inside-the-park home runs, and led the league with 17 triples in 1917 and 18 triples in 1921; he had 20 triples in 1920."

The guy was one of the greatest players of all time at any position.

i admire jay's courage for coming to a prewar board and saying roberto alomar was better than rogers hornsby. whether you agree or disagree that takes massive balls.

In fairness, Roberto Alomar has a much higher SAR than Rogers Hornsby.

What's SAR you might be wondering? Spits Above Replacement.

nolemmings wrote:Hornsby...was one of the greatest players of all time at any position.

Hornsby was a great hitter, but (like Jay) I can't agree with your broader statement. There is certainly some controversy around assessing Hornsby's fielding.

Bill James (who has Hornsby as only the 3rd best second baseman of all time...Joe Morgan #1 and Eddie Collins #2) said this about Hornsby's fielding:

"The Win Shares system actually does not see Hornsby as a terrible defensive second baseman. The Win Shares system sees Hornsby as a more or less average defensive second baseman - but also as the worst defensive second baseman who had a long career at the position. There are 71 second basemen in baseball history who played an estimated 10,000 innings or more at second base. Among those 71 players, Hornsby rates dead last in terms of Win Shares per defensive inning."

He essentially says that ole Rogers got to keep his job so long at second base because of his stick.

I agree that both Morgan and Eddie Collins were better.