Goose Gossage Newest Member of Hall of Fame

Rice just barely missed. If Rice is left out, the Hall will not be missing anything, other than a lot of GIDP's. It was nice to see Trammell and Morris see an increase in their votes. Raines should have gotten more votes. McGwire has no support. Why did Lee Smith get so many votes? And alas, the vaunted Dave Concepcion failed to make it in his last year of eligibility - it will now take the wise old Veterans Committee to right such an injustice.

 

I agree about on Rice not making it. I have no opinion on Trammell or Smith, am undecided about Raines and I don't think Jack Morris should be there. I'm also firmly in the camp that says Concepcion shouldn't be there.

I have no huge issue with McGwire not being there as long as everybody else who did steroids is out, too.

 

Dawson , Smith, morris, & trammel should all get in.

Will they??? That is anybodies guess.

 

I don't see why Morris should get in. Are you giving him Hall status because he pitched one great game in the postseason? Pitching one great game does not a Hall of Fame career make.

 

You never know what the writers are going to do. Goose is a good example. One year up, next year down. Trammel's vote totals surprised me. A very good player who is just lost in a myriad of all-time great SS.

Speaking of Concepcion and the VC, word is that his peers esteem him very highly. Johnny Bench has been quoted as saying that there is a strong push among Hall members to have Davey in and that the VC would "right the wrong." Time will tell.

As usual, some of the most deserving fail to get votes, or their proper votes.

Smith? He has more saves and a better ERA and ERA+ than the Eck (.50 better than the Eck). 2nd most saves all time. Rivera could catch him, but will he? 147 more saves than Rollie. 8 times led or 2nd in saves. MHOF has him right at being a lock. I think Smith was great. Was he great enough? Debatable. I won't argue much either way, but I don't know what makes someone more HOF worthy one year as opposed to another.

 

I think Morris got debunked over the summer. Maybe in a few days I'll do the analysis of his numbers. I don't think he rates highly in his era.

 

No, there is more than just that game, even in the postseason. He has 4 WS rings. He was the 1991 WS MVP, and he was also the deserved 1984 WS MVP (they gave it to Trammell, but Morris deserved it more or they should have shared it - go look at his stats that series - two complete game dominating wins). He had 254 wins and a .577 winning %. His ERA isn't great, but he threw a lot of innings (which is very valuable), because he knew how to pitch to the situation. If he was up 6-0, he would let the other team hit. So yes, he gave up some runs, but when he needed to shut the other team down, he did it. He was a winner. He could be very dominating and often was. He is a Hall of Famer.

 

Relief pitchers like Lee Smith need to do more than rack up saves. Lee Smith choked in his only 2 postseason appearances. If you put Smith in, then you need to put in guys like Jeff Reardon and John Franco, which would make a mockery of the Hall of Fame.

 

I call baloney on your "pitch to the situation" statement. There's no bigger situation than pitching in the WS., and as sensational as he was in the '91 WS, he was abysmal in the '92 WS, going 0-2 for an 8.44 ERA. Overall in the postseason, Morris was 7-4 with a 3.80 ERA, including a 4.87 ERA in 6 LCS games.

Excluding the playoffs, Jack Morris' career ERA+ is 105. The average is 100 and we're not talking about the average Hall of Famer. For example, Jamie Moyer's ERA+ is 105. Jack never finished in the top 4 in ERA in his league and never had an ERA under 3. Jack had 0 seasons with a WHIP below 1.16, which is an arbitrary cutoff point, but Bert Blyleven, who inexplicably isn't in the Hall of Fame, had 9 seasons with a WHIP under 1.16.

Pitching one sensational Game 7 doesn't make Jack Morris a Hall of Famer.

 

cc, I guess if ERA and WHIP are your only standards, then Morris doesn't deserve to be in. 254 career wins in the 80's-90's era is very significant, though. Carrying two teams (84 Tigers and 91 Twins) to two WS championships is very significant, too. Lots and Lots of innings is pretty good, too. And yes, Morris did pitch to the situation. I bet that I watched or listened to more of his games than anyone on this board. And I've heard other guys who watch baseball for a living (Peter Gammons) say the same thing.

 

Actually, they are not all that different. Reardon was just as dominating as Smith during his prime, although his career saves are not as high because he spent time as a setup man. Franco's stats are better than both Smith and Reardon. Saves are one of the most meaningless stats in baseball. Did you know that when Texas beat Balt this year 30-3 that a Texas pitcher actually got a save for that game? What a joke.

 

Aren't ERA and WHIP a part of your standards when determining whether a pitcher is a Hall of Famer?

254 wins is a great thing, and I'm not discounting it. It's not enough to sway me considering his high ERA and low ERA+.

Funny thing about that.

1984 Detroit Tigers SP ERA+
121 Dan Petry
113 Juan Berenguer
109 Jack Morris

1991 Minnesota Twins SP ERA+
143 Kevin Tapani
134 Scott Erickson
124 Jack Morris

1992 Toronto Blue Jays SP ERA+
156 Juan Guzman
116 Jimmy Key
102 Jack Morris

Morris was the 3rd best pitcher on his own team every year they won the WS. But, he pitched a fantastic Game 7 in the '91 World Series, so people assume that he's better then he was.

When did pitching a lot of innings become a major criteria to determine who's a Hall of Famer? I can think of at least one pitcher who pitched 1,100 innings more, and pitched better than Morris, but isn't in the Hall of Fame.

See earlier post about the '92 World Series.

Does Peter Gammons say that Jack Morris is a Hall of Famer? I don't know if he does or not, but now I'm interested to find out.

 

They play a part in my determination, but they are not the only part. Apparently to you, they are the only thing to look at, especially when you say Morris was the 3rd best pitcher on the 84 Tigers. That is so laughable. Look at the win totals for the 84 Tigers. Look at the innings logged. And yes, innings pitched is very important. Give me a guy with 4.00 ERA who can pitch 8 innings every start over the guy who can only pitch 5 innings with a 3.00 ERA.

My point about Morris for 84 and 91 was his MVP performances in both series. It's about more than just one game. It's about 254 wins and 4 WS titles.

Yes, he does. See this interesting link that shows how all the ESPN baseball writers voted this year:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof08/news/story?id=3177278

 

I agree with Andy on Trammel, I think a case could be made for Morris but its not a real strong one.

 

I call baloney again. Morris had a career 3.90 ERA, but that obviously doesn't matter to you.

Again, this just goes to my contention that the Game 7 performance in '91 has people thinking that Morris was more dominating than he actually was. I'm sorry you don't like the stats I posted.

See, here it is again. You bring up win totals, then complain when I bring up a high ERA (3.60 for '84). It's a very good thing for Jack that he was on teams with high-powered offenses. In 17 seasons, 13 of the teams he was on were better-than-average run-scoring teams. 7 of those teams finished either 1st or 2nd in the league in runs scored. When you allow a lot of runs, you better have a lot of run support in order to win games.

4 WS titles? I only see the '84 Tigers, '91 Twins and '92 Bluejays. Where's the 4th? And 1 of those titles ('92) was when he pitched terribly.

254 wins means that Morris was a very good pitcher. 254 wins with a 3.90 ERA means that he was a very good pitcher who got a lot of run support.

Morris wouldn't be the least deserving pitcher to get in the Hall of Fame, but he sure wouldn't be the most deserving either.

 

He played on the 93 Blue Jays, too.

I think he is somewhat marginal, but I'd give him the nod to the Hall.

 

He must have been injured, because there are no pitching stats for him in the '93 World Series. Here's the link.

You sure about this? Just for fun, I did the math on these 2 pitchers.

***********************************************************
If Pitcher A has a 4.00 ERA and gives you 8 innings per start, that means he gives up 3.56 ER per start.

4.00 ERA = (ER*9)/8

Multiply 4 by 8 and divide it by 9 to get 3.56 ER/start

Assuming 33 starts, that's 264 IP and 117 ER allowed.
***********************************************************

If Pitcher B has a 3.00 ERA and only gives you 5 innings, it works out to 1.67 ER/start.

3.00 = (ER*9)/5

Multiply by 5 and divide 15 by 9.

Assuming 33 starts, that's 165 IP and 55 ER allowed.
***********************************************************

Since he allows 2 fewer runs per start, Pitcher B gives me a better chance to win.

 

Your math is missing an important factor. What happens in innings 5-8 when pitcher B is out? You have to go to the bullpen, and that is a lot to ask of your pen. Pitcher A in the long run proves to be more valuable to a team over a 162 game schedule.