2013 HOF Ballot: Who Gets Your Vote?

[Spoonless]

I get wanting to make a point by not putting in Bonds and Clemens fist ballot (though I personally would have voted for them). What's the evidence against Bagwell, Piazza, and Biggio?

Anyway, I always thought the HoF should be more like a museum of baseball history. You can't pretend the "steroid era" didn't happen; you can't ignore Bonds, Clemens, et al. just because you don't like them. There are guys in the HoF right now who cheated. There are undoubtedly players in the HoF who used PED. It always seemed to me that this is about the voters holding up the players of their youths, the heroes they grew up with, above the current generation of players. We start the Steroid Era in the mid-80's so as to conveniently be able to pretend that heroes of the 60's and 70's could have never used steroids, even though they were prevalent in other sports, and were most certainly being used in baseball long before the "Steroid Era".

It's BS. Put them all in. At the display, have it written that they tested positive or admitted to using after their career was over, or however you want to put it in order to feel better about putting them in. I don't care. But having a "Hall of Fame" without Clemens and Bonds is not representative of baseball history.

[Rene88]

The results of this vote were nothing short of appalling. I think MLB needs to take a look at the voting process and how it is determined.

[MurphDogg]

Here is the question I want to ask Jack Morris voters. If he had pitched for the Cleveland Indians for his whole career, would he even make a second ballot? I'm not asking whether he would be a Hall of Famer, but whether he would even get 5 percent. I don't think he would, and he certainly wouldn't get 20 percent. He was a good pitcher on some great teams. He won a lot of games because he pitched on teams that won a lot of games. He gets some bonus points for the 1984 and 1991 World Series but it isn't nearly enough to put him over the top.

[Rene88]

Here is the question I want to ask Jack Morris voters. If he had pitched for the Cleveland Indians for his whole career, would he even make a second ballot? I'm not asking whether he would be a Hall of Famer, but whether he would even get 5 percent. I don't think he would, and he certainly wouldn't get 20 percent. He was a good pitcher on some great teams. He won a lot of games because he pitched on teams that won a lot of games. He gets some bonus points for the 1984 and 1991 World Series but it isn't nearly enough to put him over the top.

Amen!

The fact he is #2 on this ballot is absurd. Not to mention that Bruce Sutter is even in the HOF. Lee Smith IMO should be in before Sutter but I digress...

Schilling over Bonds/Clemens? Yep-they cheated. They cheated like dogs and Bonds resembled a freak of nature. However, both were HOF talents and the majority of MLB was using (including Bagwell-nope, no proof but I am not an idiot).

You must use some common sense with the steroids area but this is one area the writers feel they can preserve baseball innocence. I think it is absurd. The writers are not more important than the players or the game.

Need I remind you, the "game" turned a blind eye to steroids.

[getfoul]

Here is the question I want to ask Jack Morris voters. If he had pitched for the Cleveland Indians for his whole career, would he even make a second ballot? I'm not asking whether he would be a Hall of Famer, but whether he would even get 5 percent. I don't think he would, and he certainly wouldn't get 20 percent. He was a good pitcher on some great teams. He won a lot of games because he pitched on teams that won a lot of games. He gets some bonus points for the 1984 and 1991 World Series but it isn't nearly enough to put him over the top.

I think Morris is one of those guys that transcends the numbers. I know people will disagree with this, but pitchers used to take the mound with one thing in mind--get a W.

He pitched deep in almost every game. He averaged 7 1/3 innings for 14 years, averaging 33 starts a year.

I'm not going to defend his 3.90 career ERA, but 1979-1992, he averaged 17-12, 3.71 ERA over 241 innings. Nobody else in this time frame really compares as far as durability. Some pitchers were better than Morris, but without the longevity. Dennis Martinez was the closest, but without the postseason success. Oh yeah, he also made his mark on the history of the game in the postseason.

He's not Seaver or Maddux, but I think Jack Morris made a mark on the game that deserves enshrinement. If that means he's the lowest ranked starting pitcher of the modern era in the Hall, so be it.

That said, it doesn't look like he'll be getting in any time soon. He won't crack 75% next year, and then he'll probably either not get in, or he'll get in when he's dead in 40 years.

[MurphDogg]

Some pitchers were better than Morris, but without the longevity. Dennis Martinez was the closest, but without the postseason success.

You mean the Dennis Martinez that got 3.2 percent of the vote his lone time on the ballot? Also, Morris was great in the '84 and '91 World Series and in the one game he pitched in the ALCS, his other postseason series were terrible and his postseason numbers weren't actually any better than his regular season numbers. You can't jump from a 3 percent player to the Hall of Fame on the basis of 5 World Series starts (especially when he could have easily cost Toronto the '92 series with his two terrible starts).

[scOtt]

This is my first post in this thread so I didn't vote.

So I was right. Right?

[Rene88]

You mean the Dennis Martinez that got 3.2 percent of the vote his lone time on the ballot? Also, Morris was great in the '84 and '91 World Series and in the one game he pitched in the ALCS, his other postseason series were terrible and his postseason numbers weren't actually any better than his regular season numbers. You can't jump from a 3 percent player to the Hall of Fame on the basis of 5 World Series starts (especially when he could have easily cost Toronto the '92 series with his two terrible starts).

Your not crazy, Jack Morris is not a HOFer. End of story. The fact that he got as many votes as he did shows that MLB HOF voting is out of control.

[Moose Milligan]

Jack Morris is not a Hall of Famer.

Anyway, this article is great: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/47091/the-fallacy-of-the-baseball-hall-of-fame

[DrungoHazewood]

I think Morris is one of those guys that transcends the numbers. I know people will disagree with this, but pitchers used to take the mound with one thing in mind--get a W.

The thing I hate about pitchers today is the fact they're all looking for the L. Ah, the good ol' days...

He pitched deep in almost every game. He averaged 7 1/3 innings for 14 years, averaging 33 starts a year.

I'm not going to defend his 3.90 career ERA, but 1979-1992, he averaged 17-12, 3.71 ERA over 241 innings. Nobody else in this time frame really compares as far as durability. Some pitchers were better than Morris, but without the longevity. Dennis Martinez was the closest, but without the postseason success. Oh yeah, he also made his mark on the history of the game in the postseason.

Actually, I'd compare him to his peer Rick Reuschel, who fell off the ballot 15 years ago. Reuschel had two less starts, a few less innings, but an ERA a half a run lower and an ERA+ considerably better, all while pitching for crappy teams. If you want an answer to what Morris would be if he pitched for the Indians his whole career you don't have to look any further than Reuschel. He'd have gotten three HOF votes in 1997 and nobody would have ever talked about him again.

He's not Seaver or Maddux, but I think Jack Morris made a mark on the game that deserves enshrinement. If that means he's the lowest ranked starting pitcher of the modern era in the Hall, so be it.

That said, it doesn't look like he'll be getting in any time soon. He won't crack 75% next year, and then he'll probably either not get in, or he'll get in when he's dead in 40 years.

I think he falls off the ballot altogether next year (if not elected) since he'll have been on for 15 years. And if he does go in, then we're going to have to start beating the drum for the other 15ish pitchers who were his contemporaries who provided more value, like Bret Saberhagen, and Frank Viola, Dennis Martinez, Reuschel, Steib, Guidry, Vida Blue, Hershiser, Koosman, John, Wood, Cone, Langston, Welch...

[DrungoHazewood]

Jack Morris is not a Hall of Famer.

Anyway, this article is great: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/47091/the-fallacy-of-the-baseball-hall-of-fame

Over on Tango's blog he breaks down the public votes a bunch of ways. One bizarre thing to me is the fact there were several ballots turned in with only Jack Morris' name.

[getfoul]

The thing I hate about pitchers today is the fact they're all looking for the L. Ah, the good ol' days...

Yeah, because that's what I think about today's pitchers....

I'm not saying pitchers don't want to get the W, but the mindset back then was more focused on staying in the game longer to try to get the win.

Today's mindset is "give my team a chance to win", which means give the team 5-6 quality innings and turn it over to the bullpen. My opinion is that if Morris wanted to think about 5-7 innings a start, he could have focused more on less innings but a lower ERA.

I just think the amount of innings he logged, the W stat that actually meant more back then, and the postseason success in his own era was enough. Yes, I know he had some bad games in the postseason, but he made his mark on the game. I think he deserves to be in. Now, if he doesn't get to 75% next year, obviously not enough people think that. I can live with that.

[skanar]

Over on Tango's blog he breaks down the public votes a bunch of ways. One bizarre thing to me is the fact there were several ballots turned in with only Jack Morris' name.

Murray Chass! http://www.murraychass.com/?p=5663

(He voted only for Morris and plans to do so again next year, so no Maddux, Glavine, et al, and then never vote again. At least he's making one correct decision.)

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm not saying pitchers don't want to get the W, but the mindset back then was more focused on staying in the game longer to try to get the win.

Today's mindset is "give my team a chance to win", which means give the team 5-6 quality innings and turn it over to the bullpen. My opinion is that if Morris wanted to think about 5-7 innings a start, he could have focused more on less innings but a lower ERA.

You're right, that was the mindset. All good, durable starters in that era tried to go as deep into the game as possible. They all, to some extent, paced themselves by not throwing their best stuff 100% of the time to that end.

And Jack Morris had the 38th-best park adjusted ERA of the 1975-95 timeframe. Frank Tanana pitched more innings in that timeframe than Morris, and had a better ERA+. Dennis Martinez and Charlie Hough and Nolan Ryan and Phil Neikro all pitched about as many innings as Morris, but had better ERA+'s. Mike Boddicker averaged almost seven innings a start and had a better ERA+ than Morris.

You're saying that if Morris had sacrificed a bit of durability for per-inning performance he might be recognized as a better candidate. I don't think so. The list of pitchers who were his direct peers who had a little less durability than Morris but better ERAs include Tom Candiotti, John Candeleria, Doug Drabek, Danny Darwin, Dennis Leonard, Reuschel, Mark Gubicza... lots and lots of pitchers who didn't sniff the Hall despite being better (sometimes much better) per-inning than Morris.

[MurphDogg]

Murray Chass! http://www.murraychass.com/?p=5663

(He voted only for Morris and plans to do so again next year, so no Maddux, Glavine, et al, and then never vote again. At least he's making one correct decision.)

An altruistic sportswriter who wasn't otherwise going to vote for Morris should talk to Chass and vote for Morris so Chass's otherwise blank ballot doesn't hurt the rest of the candidate's chances.