DragonAsh:
A sentiment that can be applied to a number of slam-dunk HoF candidates over the past few decades. Idiots who didn’t vote for those should have had their voting privileges revokes long ago.
That’s because there were so many homers hit in the years between '94 and '98 or so. McGwire himself had hit 58 in 1997, and there was such a big increase in 50-homer seasons around this period that it seemed kind of inevitable someone was going to hit 62.
I think it’s fair to include the player’s overall standing in the game - that’ll be part of Ichiro’s Hall of Fame case, for example - but the problem here is that Raines was a better player than McGwire, and for how long was McGwire the best at what he did? Maybe two years?
This is also true. 28 writers didn’t vote for Rickey Henderson.
One thing Raines did better than Henderson was steal bases. Of the 160 players with at least 300 stolen bases, only Carlos Beltran (308/86.5%) has a better success percentage than Raines (808/84.7%). He hit for higher average too, though nobody cares about that anymore.
One of the most exciting players ever to watch. I hope he gets in.
I’d add Biggio to your list, and then agree with it.
Every one of the guys you mention except Kaat was significantly better than Jack Morris. You could argue that freaking Dennis Martinez was a better pitcher than Morris (better K/BB ratios, lower ERA, slightly higher ERA+, nearly as many wins playing for crappy or mediocre teams, four all-star games), and nobody wants El Presidente in the Hall. I don’t understand how Morris made it to the second ballot, let alone gets 60%+ of the vote.
Getting to the Series, and winning there, makes a difference, is why. The regular season is only about qualifying and preparing for the games that matter, in October, and basing your judgment only on that six-month qualifying round is going to distort your conclusions. Morris came up big when it mattered most, so did Schilling and Pettitte and Mussina, arguably a few other candidates. Kaat and Martinez weren’t great enough to be Winners.
By the same token, Maddux and Glavine didn’t do all that much in October despite all their opportunities. That’s going to hurt their vote totals, and it should.
Because 1991 World Series, of course. Also, the ridiculous “most wins in the 80s!” argument. I’d also add David Cone to your list of better pitchers. And he’s not Hall worthy either.
The “six month qualifying round” is when 90% of baseball is played.
I am aware that this argument exists in the same sad and resigned way that I know some people believe in dowsing and Sylvia Browne, but I have no more interest in engaging it than in any other similarly faith-based argument. This, however:
Needs dispensing. Greg Maddux was a much, much, much better postseason pitcher than Jack Morris.
Morris had, by my count, 7 great postseason games. (he also got his shit absolutely pushed in repeatedly in October, including laying a total egg in the 1992 postseason, but I guess we just ignore that when we christen someone a capital-W “Winner”). Maddux has as many great postseason games in nearly any given 3-year span throughout his career, and far fewer egg-drops proportionally speaking. In terms of postseason performance, Jack Morris’ record would embarass Greg Maddux.
Glavine was only 2 muches better than Morris.
But don’t get your nasty Jack Morris stink all over the postseason records of two much better pitchers.
Jesus, I can’t believe I’m sitting here writing good things about two guys that I hated for their entire careers.
I voted for only three. I have some homework to do on a few other players, but the ones I had no trouble voting for are:
Greg Maddux
Craig Biggio
Mike Piazza
Guys I won’t vote for because of issues with PEDs:
Bonds
McGwire
Sosa
Clemens
Palmeiro
A few guys I’m on the fence with I won’t list until if and when I get a chance to look at their stats. I may be selectively remembering things about some players.
For the record, I believe that if the PED issue isn’t taken into account, all of the guys on my list would be given a vote. I simply won’t vote them in because I believe they cheated. YMMV, and i know many people will vote for these guys.
Bonds and Clemens are two guys that would have been in the HoF if they never took anything, as they both were multiple MVP and Cy Young winners before they started taking shots, so I almost voted for them. However, the way they both lied about it and denied it to the end was pathetic and insulting. If they can’t admit to having two sets of statistics (one pre- and one post- PED’s, then they want me to look at their work as one large body, and not two separate works. They lose my vote because of this.
It’s my logic, so I won’t defend it here. It just makes sense to me, so thats what I went with.
Now, I’ll go back and look at everyone else’s comments.
Thanks for posting this. Great list and a very cool poll. An amazing group of talent, some of who I don’t think will ever get in the hall as long as they live. (Or as long as Pete Rose is out)
Jack Morris pitched 3,824 regular season innings. If he was a borderline candidate based on his regular season performance, then perhaps his postseason work could push him over the top. But his 92 innings of work in October are just a tiny blip.
Subtract the stellar 23 innings he pitched in the 1991 World Series, and he has a 4.67 ERA for the rest of his postseason appearances.
I just don’t think the “October Argument” can be made for Morris. Schilling, on the other hand, was a much better pitcher across the board than Morris, except for his total number of wins. His far more impressive postseason work is a good example of an October Argument that could push him over the top.
Down the road, there is one guy whose PHENOMENAL postseason stats could put him over the top, even though he’s not a no-brainer:
John Smoltz
MOST of the time, “clutchiness” is a mirage. As a rule, if you look at the stats more carefully, you find that most guys put up similar stats in the regular season and the post season over the long run.
But John Smoltz’s numbers from the postseason are remarkably good.
Smoltz was a .579 winner and had an ERA of 3.33 in the regular season. In the playoffs, however, when he got the decision his record was .789 and had a 2.67 ERA against what one would assume to be much tougher opposition.
So… yeah.
Couldn’t agree more. Ernie Banks may have hit 500+ homers, but how many of them came in the postseason, huh? Nary a one. He should never have been allowed in. Ted Williams stunk up the joint in his one WS appearance–a slugging percentage of .200, for God’s sakes, plus one measly single in the 1948 tiebreaker in which he led his team to defeat. Loser. Kick the bum out.
Now Phil Garner–there was a gamer. Lifetime postseason BA of .500, lifetime OBP of .571. Make room in Cooperstown for Phil, please. And Billy Hatcher of the Reds of course, thanks!
Your point, please? If it’s that those games matter as much, or more, then we got a problem here. If it’s that a larger statistical data base is inherently more meaningful, then we got a problem there, too.
When’s the last time your team had a champagne party and a parade for what they did in the so-called “regular season”?
As if anyone needed to be reminded: It’s the Hall of Fame.
No, storyteller0910 is right. It’s better if I ignore this. It’s like arguing about dowsing or psychics, but even less interesting. Please continue serving up baseball cliche salad.
Maddox, Piazza, and a bunch of ‘so close, maybes…’ I guess my list is (probably nonsensically) restricted to guys that I saw play and I knew during their careers “this player is a **lock **for the Hall, just that much head and shoulders above the rest”.
The nigh-on endless list of teams that won championships following unsuccessful “regular seasons” backs your point up almost as well as the scare quotes (?) around the words.
What’s an “unsuccessful regular season”? Do you mean something other than “failed to qualify for the knockout round”? You must, or your statement makes no sense.
There’s actually a shorter answer: Scoreboard.
Your acknowledgment of not having a defensible point is noted. 