The Hall of Fame...

[Chevy Chase]

2nd most Winning pitcher of the 90's? No votes for Stieb.

I remember manny years when Trammel was the best in the game. Surprised he isn't getting more votes.

As for the Steroid guys, lets not fret about missing out in the first few years. Joe Dimaggio didn't get in the first two years. Actually, the HoF had to have a sit down with the BBWAA to tell them not to hold today's great players to the standard of the Ruth-Gerring era.

And I still have an issue with Sosa. Forget about the steriods, he was caught using a corked bat. I never bought the whole "I used a batting practice toy bat by mistake" argument. I think many of those home runs came from that bat.

[Parataxis]

2nd most Winning pitcher of the 90's? No votes for Stieb.

Stieb's advanced stats were (from what I understand) fantastic. Unfortunately, he retired too early for that to make a difference 20 years from now, the veteran's committee may look at it differently.

[UN-Owen]

I looked at Stieb's numbers a few weeks ago

He pitched something like 23 complete games one season

And pitched approx. 550 innings over a 2 year period

It's no wonder he didn't have a prolonged career

[SharoneWright]

If there's a HOF for the world's tallest people:



It's a "sham" without them! They are really tall. And we can't have shams.

[Randle McMurphy]

It's usually funny when people pretend to have a clue about things they really have no idea about (and I find this especially applies with the PEDs in baseball/sports issue). In the BBWAA's case with the power and privilege they have, though, their lack of knowledge and perspective is just rather depressing. If there was ever a sign that the HOF voting process needed changing, this vote was it.

[SharoneWright]

It's usually funny when people pretend to have a clue about things they really have no idea about (and I find this especially applies with the PEDs in baseball/sports issue). In the BBWAA's case with the power and privilege they have, though, their lack of knowledge and perspective is just rather depressing. If there was ever a sign that the HOF voting process needed changing, this vote was it.

I personally think they got Alomar right.

[Randle McMurphy]

It's usually funny when people pretend to have a clue about things they really have no idea about (and I find this especially applies with the PEDs in baseball/sports issue). In the BBWAA's case with the power and privilege they have, though, their lack of knowledge and perspective is just rather depressing. If there was ever a sign that the HOF voting process needed changing, this vote was it.

I personally think they got Alomar right.

A year longer than it should have taken because of the first ballot nonsense.

Really, anything has to be better than giving these bunch of know-nothing, holier-than-thou hypocrites the power to say that the greatest baseball player any of us have ever and probably will ever see isn't HOF-caliber.

[tecumseh18]

But the fact is there is a subjective element to it.

BTW, tocall something subjective 'a fact' is actually a contradiction of terms.

I'm not calling something subjective "a fact" (although it is a "fact" that religions exist). I'm saying that it is a fact that there will always be a subjective element to MVP/HOF voting. It will never be a case of - "ok he's got a 80 WAR lifetime, he's automatically in. You engage in it yourself by admitting that there is an argument for putting Morris in the Hall, presumably on the basis of his playoff performances.

Oddly, for all your talk of advance stats, the only actual stat you refer to is ERA. Yes, Morris had a lifetime 3.90 ERA. His lifetime ERA+ is 105. His cumulative WAR is only 34.4 over his career. He can't compare to say, Curt Schilling at all. And personally, I don't even like the guy. Sure he went 21-6 in the regular season for us in 1992, but that was with a 4.04 ERA (101 ERA+). And let's not talk about the 1992 playoffs/Series.

Let's face it, Morris wasn't as good as Blyleven, another notable innings eater, who only made it to the Hall by the skin of his teeth. So it's hard to argue that Morris and his 10 seasons of 240+ IP (Blyleven had 11) should be in there. But it's such a lost art in this day and age, I'm simply expressing the desire that there be a formal way to honour such an achievement.

[edit] Just to restate my point, it is that there are certain positive externalities to one's team that come from having the ability to pitch that many innings season after season. Conventional or advanced stats don't quite capture that. But maybe they could.

[The_Hater]

[Morris had a lifetime 3.90 ERA. His lifetime ERA+ is 105. .

Considering 100 is average, how does presenting an ERA+ of 105 make your argument look better?

I was actually giving him more credit than that, I think that he was a very good pitcher but not a HOF quality player. You' actually just presented a # that screams 'slightly above average".

As I was trying to say, he had a poor ERA in what was predominately a dead ball era. He's very lucky to have been playing in Detroit because his career would have been quickly forgotten had he played for a team with a much weaker offense. Instead he was given an opportunity to produce an inflated win total followed by some very impressive post season moments. I don't deny that last part one bit.

[The_Hater]

2nd most Winning pitcher of the 90's? No votes for Stieb.

Stieb's advanced stats were (from what I understand) fantastic. Unfortunately, he retired too early for that to make a difference 20 years from now, the veteran's committee may look at it differently.

Yup, great advanced stats but a short peak, a short overall career and only 176 total wins. In this case, I think that even the vet committee will dismiss him rather quickly.

The guys that were completely overlooked from the past few years that advanced stats do justice too are guys like Dwight Evans, Darrell Evans, Jimmy Wynn, Dick Allen, Whitaker and Trammell, Graig Nettles, Kenny Lofton,

For those that haven't seen it, the Think Factory has the Hall of Merit which they vote for 4 players a year predomintely on advanced stats (and ignoring steroids, gambling etc...) and they've got a lot of interesting guys in there that didn't even get a smell from the BBWAA.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/hall_of_merit/discussion/the_hall_of_merit_plaque_room

I think that if advanced stats were available 100 years ago, we'd be viewing quite a few players from baseball history differently, both positively and negatively. Instead raw numbers and the always biased media ended up shaping people's minds for decades.

[tecumseh18]

[Morris had a lifetime 3.90 ERA. His lifetime ERA+ is 105. .

Considering 100 is average, how does presenting an ERA+ of 105 make your argument look better?

Try reading that paragraph again, and hey, go ahead and read all my posts in this thread again, and try to grasp my relatively simple point. Or don't. Just stop twisting my words into a straw man for you to whack at.

Man, you really live up to your handle. You're trying to create an argument where none exists, and being as snarky as possible while doing it. I'd really look in the mirror if I were you.

[The_Hater]

[Morris had a lifetime 3.90 ERA. His lifetime ERA+ is 105. .

Considering 100 is average, how does presenting an ERA+ of 105 make your argument look better?

Try reading that paragraph again, and hey, go ahead and read all my posts in this thread again, and try to grasp my relatively simple point. Or don't. Just stop twisting my words into a straw man for you to whack at.

Man, you really live up to your handle. You're trying to create an argument where none exists, and being as snarky as possible while doing it. I'd really look in the mirror if I were you.

I'm not sure what you're angry about here. I was being snarky in my previous post, not this one. Right after you got all snarky with me talking about prima donna pitchers and such. And you're the one that started this debate in the first place, not me. See how things evolve sometimes?

Either way, my apologies for being that way.

Just to recap, initially, I said that Morris didn't have the stats to get into the HOF and you replied to my post objecting to that specific statement. That's pretty much the only thing I've really been debating all along although we have gone off on a couple of tangents along the way.

As I mentioned prior to your post, I still don't think that IP's is a good counter argument to my saying that his stats that aren't very good. And I haven't really seen you present any other stats, either advanced or otherwise, to support your side. And the reason I commented on the ERA+ number is because it supports my side of the argument so I found it ironic that you were the one bringing it up.