HOF '12: Larkin's in. Who's the ONE eligible player on the ballot who most deserved to join hiim?
| Jeff Bagwell |  67 (24.01%) |
| Jack Morris | 19 (6.81%) |
| Tim Raines | 121 (43.37%) |
| Lee Smith | 3 (1.08%) |
| Edgar Martinez | 6 (2.15%) |
| Fred McGriff | 15 (5.38%) |
| Alan Trammell | 13 (4.66%) |
| Dale Murphy | 2 (0.72%) |
| Don Mattingly | 5 (1.79%) |
| Larry Walker | 28 (10.04%) |
279 votes | 21 featured comments
Larkin and Trammell ar the two best shortstops of my lifetime (I don't think of Yount and A-Rod primarily as "just" a SS, same way I don't Ernie Banks) and both need to be in the Hall. But I'm a big Hall guy and would probably put every guy listed there on my ballott, if I had one. The onlye ones I would even pause on -- and just for a moment, then -- are Smith, Walker and Martinez.
Disappointing to see Raines, Trammell, McGriff and Walker do so poorly.
http://bbwaa.com/
http://bbwaa.com/
I've seen the argument made for others, but isn't Ripken worth mentioning as the best in your lifetime?
Ripken was a step down from Larkin and Trammel, but was at least two steps up on everyone else. It will be strange to think that, of the three, Trammel may not get in.
Aweb, great point. I admit, I had categorized Cal Jr. as I did Yount (OF) and A-Rod (3B) -- not "just a shortstop. But looking at his statlines, he played "just" 675 games at 3B, and I would have guesses (and misremembered, obviously) far more than that.
Still, like Richard SS, I think Cal was just a noodge below Larkin and Trammell, but probably can and should be grouped in that as a trio.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue for Lakin or Trammell over Cal.
Larkin had a 116 OPS+ compared to Cal's 112 [Trammell is at 110], but Cal put that up in over 3800 PA's more than Barry and 3500 more than Trammell.
I believe that in most defensive metrics, Cal does better than either of the other two, both of whom were above average glovemen.
Although WAR is a flawed stat, Cal dwarfs the other two with 90 vs 69 [Larkin] and 67 [Trammell]. Ripken has a strong case for greatest shortstop ever in a non-Wagnerian universe while Larkin/Trammell are somewhere in the top 5 to 15 area.
Larkin had a 116 OPS+ compared to Cal's 112 [Trammell is at 110], but Cal put that up in over 3800 PA's more than Barry and 3500 more than Trammell.
I believe that in most defensive metrics, Cal does better than either of the other two, both of whom were above average glovemen.
Although WAR is a flawed stat, Cal dwarfs the other two with 90 vs 69 [Larkin] and 67 [Trammell]. Ripken has a strong case for greatest shortstop ever in a non-Wagnerian universe while Larkin/Trammell are somewhere in the top 5 to 15 area.
The only ones I would even pause on -- and just for a moment, then -- are Smith, Walker and Martinez.
I suppose I'm a big Hall guy, too. But I'm a definite NO on Lee Smith, and I'm not really sold on Murphy and Mattingly. And not 100 percent on Morris, come to think of it. But I'm getting there. People don't like Morris almost entirely because of his ERAs, which certainly don't blow you away. One of the reasons they weren't all that great is because his managers (generally Sparky) would leave him in the game to allow runs, and eat up innings, when he was getting beat. Morris didn't lose quite as many games in his career as Dennis Martinez, a contemporary with similar career numbers. But Morris pitched 100 more innings than Martinez in games he lost, and allowed more than 100 more runs in his 186 losses than Martinez did in his 193 losses.
Which didn't do much for Morris' ERA. But what does it mean? He gives up more runs when he loses than other pitchers when they lose? So what?
I suppose I'm a big Hall guy, too. But I'm a definite NO on Lee Smith, and I'm not really sold on Murphy and Mattingly. And not 100 percent on Morris, come to think of it. But I'm getting there. People don't like Morris almost entirely because of his ERAs, which certainly don't blow you away. One of the reasons they weren't all that great is because his managers (generally Sparky) would leave him in the game to allow runs, and eat up innings, when he was getting beat. Morris didn't lose quite as many games in his career as Dennis Martinez, a contemporary with similar career numbers. But Morris pitched 100 more innings than Martinez in games he lost, and allowed more than 100 more runs in his 186 losses than Martinez did in his 193 losses.
Which didn't do much for Morris' ERA. But what does it mean? He gives up more runs when he loses than other pitchers when they lose? So what?
The facts: Jack Morris' career ERA in innings 1-3 was
3.94. Tommy John's was 3.45. Dennis Martinez' was
3.79. Morris' ERA in innings 4-6 was 4.01. John's in innings
4-6 was 3.26. If the issue was that Sparky left him in after he had given
up a lot of runs, you would anticipate that his career ERA lower in the first 3
innings than overall. It wasn't so. Morris actually didn't pitch that many innings per start. What he did do was make 34-37 starts every year but one between 1982 and 1992.
People keeping coming up with excuses for him. I don't get it as he wasn't even likable; I guess the myth of the warhorse starting pitcher lives on. Jack Morris was nothing more than a good pitcher who was consistent for a 10 year period and benefited from playing with Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Kirk Gibson et. al.
If the issue was that Sparky left him in after he had given up a lot of runs, you would anticipate that his career ERA lower in the first 3 innings than overall.
I don't know about that! And I also don't believe that Kirk Gibson did anything to help his ERA (I did see Gibson throw out a baserunner once, which must make me one of the few.)
I do think that there are some similarities between Morris and Jim Rice, in that while they were active they were perceived as great, elite players. And once they weren't, the wrecking crew arrived.
Another thing - of his entire generation of pitchers, Morris is the one who lasted. A lot of guys were better for a while - Stieb, Soto, Guidry - but none of those guys lasted long enough to win even 200 games. Morris and Dennis Martinez were the only exceptions. That seems odd to me, although I'm not sure it really is.
I don't know about that! And I also don't believe that Kirk Gibson did anything to help his ERA (I did see Gibson throw out a baserunner once, which must make me one of the few.)
I do think that there are some similarities between Morris and Jim Rice, in that while they were active they were perceived as great, elite players. And once they weren't, the wrecking crew arrived.
Another thing - of his entire generation of pitchers, Morris is the one who lasted. A lot of guys were better for a while - Stieb, Soto, Guidry - but none of those guys lasted long enough to win even 200 games. Morris and Dennis Martinez were the only exceptions. That seems odd to me, although I'm not sure it really is.
Unlike Jim Rice who merely put fear into the heart of opposing team's pitchers, Kirk Gibson terrified entire opposing clubs. Occasionally, he would hit a homer to help the Tigers score 14 runs when Jack Morris was having an off day, but that, of course, is hardly worth mentioning...
Bill James wrote an article in the mid-80s in one of the Abstracts suggesting that "we may want to rethink the idea that Jim Rice is a great player". It probably started when he was comparing the road statistics of Jose Cruz Sr. with those of Jim Rice. He also said (presciently as usual) that Jack Morris was the kind of pitcher that Hall of Fame voters like and Dave Stieb wasn't, even though Stieb was actually better.
Bill James wrote an article in the mid-80s in one of the Abstracts suggesting that "we may want to rethink the idea that Jim Rice is a great player". It probably started when he was comparing the road statistics of Jose Cruz Sr. with those of Jim Rice. He also said (presciently as usual) that Jack Morris was the kind of pitcher that Hall of Fame voters like and Dave Stieb wasn't, even though Stieb was actually better.
I miss the Abstract era Bill James. I miss the enlightening things he said that seem obvious now but were not so obvious 25-30 years ago. And I do recall the Cruz/Rice comp and the whoa rush I got reading that way back when.
Morris pitched 100 more innings than Martinez in games he lost, and
allowed more than 100 more runs in his 186 losses than Martinez did in
his 193 losses.
I've seen a lot written about Morris, but I've never seen anyone trying to give him credit for pitching worse during losses than Dennis Martinez. Morris also pitched worse in wins, as measured by ERA, than Dennis Martinez. He also had a worse ERA than Martinez in No Decisions. Dennis Martinez pitched more innings in his career. Dennis Martinez was a better pitcher than Jack Morris. Or, at worst, about the same (Martinez did have better defenses). Morris - 7.1 IP/start, Martinez 6.6 IP/start. Morris saved his bullpen a whopping 1 out and change per start in his career, and that's the only thing I can find that make him look better. But I'm not sure why Morris, unlike anyone else, gets credit for pitching extra innings while not pitching well.
The problem with Morris that annoys/angers so many of us is that in his era, he's no better than several other pitchers that didn't get consideration, at all (Martinez, Stieb, Reuschel, Hershiser, I'm sure others could add to the list). I think his momentum is simple from being, aside from Nolan Ryan (a direct contemporary except his career was a decade longer and far more impressive), the only pitcher of his "era" on the ballot. Era here is narrowly defined as peaking post Seaver/Carlton, but pre Clemens/Maddox, I guess guys who retired in the early 1990's . Frankly, I'm fine with 1980's pitching being represented by Ryan, Seaver, Blyleven, Carlton, Sutton, Clemens (assuming he goes in eventually), Eckersley, Niekro, and a few closers. No need for Morris at all.
There is no gap in the hall that cries out for representation by Morris. Lots of HoFers who started before him had long careers (i.e., Seaver, Ryan, Carlton, Sutton, Jenkins, Perry, Blyleven). Some guys who came after him did as well (i.e., Clemens, Maddox, Glavine, Johnson). Others with highly overlapping careers pitched as much or more and better (Kaat, John, Tanana, Martinez, Koosman). Morris would just be such an odd choice, given the usual pitching standards...
I've seen a lot written about Morris, but I've never seen anyone trying to give him credit for pitching worse during losses than Dennis Martinez. Morris also pitched worse in wins, as measured by ERA, than Dennis Martinez. He also had a worse ERA than Martinez in No Decisions. Dennis Martinez pitched more innings in his career. Dennis Martinez was a better pitcher than Jack Morris. Or, at worst, about the same (Martinez did have better defenses). Morris - 7.1 IP/start, Martinez 6.6 IP/start. Morris saved his bullpen a whopping 1 out and change per start in his career, and that's the only thing I can find that make him look better. But I'm not sure why Morris, unlike anyone else, gets credit for pitching extra innings while not pitching well.
The problem with Morris that annoys/angers so many of us is that in his era, he's no better than several other pitchers that didn't get consideration, at all (Martinez, Stieb, Reuschel, Hershiser, I'm sure others could add to the list). I think his momentum is simple from being, aside from Nolan Ryan (a direct contemporary except his career was a decade longer and far more impressive), the only pitcher of his "era" on the ballot. Era here is narrowly defined as peaking post Seaver/Carlton, but pre Clemens/Maddox, I guess guys who retired in the early 1990's . Frankly, I'm fine with 1980's pitching being represented by Ryan, Seaver, Blyleven, Carlton, Sutton, Clemens (assuming he goes in eventually), Eckersley, Niekro, and a few closers. No need for Morris at all.
There is no gap in the hall that cries out for representation by Morris. Lots of HoFers who started before him had long careers (i.e., Seaver, Ryan, Carlton, Sutton, Jenkins, Perry, Blyleven). Some guys who came after him did as well (i.e., Clemens, Maddox, Glavine, Johnson). Others with highly overlapping careers pitched as much or more and better (Kaat, John, Tanana, Martinez, Koosman). Morris would just be such an odd choice, given the usual pitching standards...
Well said, AWeb. The only thing to add is that Whitaker didn't remain on the ballot after getting less than 5% and Trammell may never break 40%; they were both far better players than Morris and much more important to the Tigers' success, such as it was, in the 80s.
Morris also pitched worse in wins, as measured by ERA, than Dennis Martinez. He also had a worse ERA than Martinez in No Decisions.
Leaving aside the always mystifying question of whether or not ERA really is the be-all and end-all of pitching excellence (it's certainly the be-all and end-all of the argument against Morris), I'd just point out that Dennis Martinez pitched more than 1700 innings in the National League, where his ERA was a full run better than it was in the AL.
I'm not sure why Morris, unlike anyone else, gets credit for pitching extra innings while not pitching well.
I wouldn't exactly give him credit for it - it's just one of the reasons his ERAs aren't particularly impressive.
Leaving aside the always mystifying question of whether or not ERA really is the be-all and end-all of pitching excellence (it's certainly the be-all and end-all of the argument against Morris), I'd just point out that Dennis Martinez pitched more than 1700 innings in the National League, where his ERA was a full run better than it was in the AL.
I'm not sure why Morris, unlike anyone else, gets credit for pitching extra innings while not pitching well.
I wouldn't exactly give him credit for it - it's just one of the reasons his ERAs aren't particularly impressive.
Frankly, I'm fine with 1980's pitching being represented by Ryan, Seaver, Blyleven, Carlton, Sutton, Clemens (assuming he goes in eventually), Eckersley, Niekro, and a few closers.
Those are the pitchers of the 1980s? A bunch of leftovers from the 1970s? (Most of those guys actually started out in the 1960s.) Not that it actually matters, of course, and strictly speaking Morris' generation doesn't need to be represented at all. None of them had a historically impressive peak, with the possible exception of Guidry, and Morris and Martinez are the only ones who really endured.
Those are the pitchers of the 1980s? A bunch of leftovers from the 1970s? (Most of those guys actually started out in the 1960s.) Not that it actually matters, of course, and strictly speaking Morris' generation doesn't need to be represented at all. None of them had a historically impressive peak, with the possible exception of Guidry, and Morris and Martinez are the only ones who really endured.
Yep, halfway through your post, I already had a "what about Guidry, Morris and Martinez?" response in my head half-drafted. But I see you have cleverly dismissed that!!!
WooHOOOOooooooooo! More than 175 votes into this thing, and someone finally votes for <ee Arthur Smith! I call upon you, sir or madam, whoever you are, to step forth and describe for us how it felt after you clicked the vote button and realized you were Big Lee's first and only Bauxite supporter???
But on a serious note -- everyone on the list now has at least one vote as "Most deserving" -- except one guy. Now, I expected the great Canadian love for Raines and Walker, and am generally unsurprised by the support for Bagwell. But two questions for discussion ... (1) is anyone else on the ballot not shown here who deserves a vote? And (2) Seriously, NO love for Dale Murphy? This sisn't David Murphy, quality big league bench guy, here, this is Dale Murphy, two-time NL MVP and multi-position regular (C, 1B and CF? Anyone else ever done that?) and multiple All-Star/ We here at Baux Central got NOTHING for Dale?
For the record, and this will surprise nobody, I voted for Trammell. But if I had a HOF vote, again -- I'd vote 'em all in. Dale Murphy may be the greatest Atlanta Brave of all time, for position players almost certainly (Hank did much of his Brave damage in Milwaukee, recall.) Does this man not deserve to be enshrined? Would another two homers have made a difference (if I recall, he retired with 398)? Did the eggs he laid in Philly and Colorado (briefly) really hurt him that much?
I'm pretty sure Magpie kidding, but my point kind of was that pitching of the 1980's was best represented by guys associated with other decades. Ryan, of course, could be aligned with the 1980's (as did Eckersley), since he pitched every year. But he's odd, since he spans 4 decades, did a lot of damage in the 70s, and put the legend in cement in the 90s. My point was the 1980s featured a lot of great pitchers, it's just that they weren't typically at their best the longest those years. Ah well, weird clumps and gaps happen. Look at the next three ballots - Maddox, Johnson, Clemens, Martinez, Smoltz, Glavine, Schilling, Mussina all appear. All better than Morris.
Murphy is a borderline guy to me, maybe choice number 10 or 11 on the ballot (counting Larkin). I would fill a ballot with these choices though.... Aside from the baffling choices (i.e., Rice) or the unusual injuries that get missing year credit for some reason(i.e. Puckett), the writers are usually pretty clear - you better be good for a long time. Bad knees or back destroy you in your early 30s? Too ordinary.
Murphy is a borderline guy to me, maybe choice number 10 or 11 on the ballot (counting Larkin). I would fill a ballot with these choices though.... Aside from the baffling choices (i.e., Rice) or the unusual injuries that get missing year credit for some reason(i.e. Puckett), the writers are usually pretty clear - you better be good for a long time. Bad knees or back destroy you in your early 30s? Too ordinary.
Yeah, the writers have been weird with the HOF and it is about to get weirder.
In since 2006: Sutter, Ripken, Gwynn, Gossage, Henderson, Rice, Dawson, Alomar, Blyleven, and Larkin
Out: Raines, Bagwell, Trammell, Martinez, McGriff, and Smith
Smith vs Sutter & Gossage
Smith had the saves record, 7 ASG, led in saves 4 times
Sutter: 6 ASG, led in saves 5 times
Gossage: 9 ASG, led in saves 3 times
So on the measures of how they were viewed while active (ASG) and how often they led in what they are paid to lead in (saves) Smith is right there. But Smith didn't have a cool look or 'invent' a pitch.
Raines vs Gwynn: both leadoff hitters mainly, job was to get on and work your way around. Raines got on more often (walk/hit/hbp) and stole more bases at a better rate. Why was Gwynn a 1st ballot and Raines begging for attention? Gwynn stayed in San Diego while Raines spent his best years in Montreal then his worst in media centres (NY, Chicago). Don't get us started on Rice...ick.
Bagwell: special case of 'maybe did steroids' even though no one said a word about it until he was up for the HOF
Trammell vs Larkin...
Larkin: 12 ASG, 3 GG, 2340 hits, 198 HR
Trammell: 6 ASG, 4 GG, 2365 hits, 185 HR
Interesting eh? Both clear HOF'ers as shortstops but one is in and the other waits and waits and waits.
In since 2006: Sutter, Ripken, Gwynn, Gossage, Henderson, Rice, Dawson, Alomar, Blyleven, and Larkin
Out: Raines, Bagwell, Trammell, Martinez, McGriff, and Smith
Smith vs Sutter & Gossage
Smith had the saves record, 7 ASG, led in saves 4 times
Sutter: 6 ASG, led in saves 5 times
Gossage: 9 ASG, led in saves 3 times
So on the measures of how they were viewed while active (ASG) and how often they led in what they are paid to lead in (saves) Smith is right there. But Smith didn't have a cool look or 'invent' a pitch.
Raines vs Gwynn: both leadoff hitters mainly, job was to get on and work your way around. Raines got on more often (walk/hit/hbp) and stole more bases at a better rate. Why was Gwynn a 1st ballot and Raines begging for attention? Gwynn stayed in San Diego while Raines spent his best years in Montreal then his worst in media centres (NY, Chicago). Don't get us started on Rice...ick.
Bagwell: special case of 'maybe did steroids' even though no one said a word about it until he was up for the HOF
Trammell vs Larkin...
Larkin: 12 ASG, 3 GG, 2340 hits, 198 HR
Trammell: 6 ASG, 4 GG, 2365 hits, 185 HR
Interesting eh? Both clear HOF'ers as shortstops but one is in and the other waits and waits and waits.
Whitaker getting less than 5% was shocking. In about 1984, Bill James (and I hate to harp on this) wrote something like: "Sportswriters are going to wake up one day and realize- DAMN, that Lou Whitaker can play ball". It hasn't happened yet.