Would you have matched SEA offer to keep Cruz an Oriole?

[SteveA]

34 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the Morris election was the Vet's way of sticking it to the Sabermetric crowd.

I have no problem with giving bonus points to a guy who comes up big in the postseason.   It's a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Reaching A Particular Statistical Threshold.

And he came up big in several postseasons with multiple teams (and yes, had the bad one too).

But those big moments are watched and remembered by millions.   I'm not saying they should automatically put in you, not at all.   But a guy with a very good career and some what of a case, I have no problem with great postseason moments putting him over the top.   His Game 7 10 inning game will be remembered long after most of the rest of that season will be forgotten.

People who want to boil it down to some sort of WAR threshold for the HOF, I say -- set up your Hall of WAR Achievement and put guys whoever meet the threshold in.    It will be a respected list but I doubt fans will ever enjoy it as much as the Hall.

And I know that there are guys in there who clearly don't belong and guys out who clearly do belong.   I just don't think that regular season WAR should be the end-all and be-all criteria, which it seems like a lot of people do.   The postseason is special.   And yeah, it's not "fair" that some guys never got tot he postseason or that due to small sample size they didn't do well and other guys did do well.   So what?   Them's the breaks.   Archie Manning was a great QB who never had a good team around him and he'll never touch the NFL HoF (with the exception of a couple sperm cells).   He was a way better QB than Joe Namath, to pick one example.

But the postseason matters, a lot, and it should matter for the HoF too.

[DrungoHazewood]

8 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I have no problem with giving bonus points to a guy who comes up big in the postseason.   It's a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Reaching A Particular Statistical Threshold.

And he came up big in several postseasons with multiple teams (and yes, had the bad one too).

But those big moments are watched and remembered by millions.   I'm not saying they should automatically put in you, not at all.   But a guy with a very good career and some what of a case, I have no problem with great postseason moments putting him over the top.   His Game 7 10 inning game will be remembered long after most of the rest of that season will be forgotten.

People who want to boil it down to some sort of WAR threshold for the HOF, I say -- set up your Hall of WAR Achievement and put guys whoever meet the threshold in.    It will be a respected list but I doubt fans will ever enjoy it as much as the Hall.

And I know that there are guys in there who clearly don't belong and guys out who clearly do belong.   I just don't think that regular season WAR should be the end-all and be-all criteria, which it seems like a lot of people do.   The postseason is special.   And yeah, it's not "fair" that some guys never got tot he postseason or that due to small sample size they didn't do well and other guys did do well.   So what?   Them's the breaks.   Archie Manning was a great QB who never had a good team around him and he'll never touch the NFL HoF (with the exception of a couple sperm cells).   He was a way better QB than Joe Namath, to pick one example.

But the postseason matters, a lot, and it should matter for the HoF too.

My issue with it being a literal Hall of Fame is that you can construct an argument for hundreds and hundreds of players that's just as valid as Jack Morris or Harold Baines or Jim Rice.  And you have to consider the Hall's own behavior, which is to induct any number of players who aren't famous until the Hall makes them so.

A few years ago the Hall inducted Deacon White.  If you went around OPACY in 2000 (heck, 2019!) and asked every single one of the fans in the stands who Deacon White was likely not a single person could have told you.  Not unless I'd been there that day.  White has been dead for 80 years.

So, no let's not make it a WAR leaderboard.  But I'd like to have some kind of standards.  When you put Harold Baines and Jack Morris in but exclude dozens or even hundreds of players who were better and arguably just as famous it makes for good discussions, but doesn't do much for logic and sense.  At least in my opinion.  I could certainly write a few pages on why each of Jimmy Key, Frank Viola, Dave Steib, Jim Kaat, Billy Pearce, Dwight Gooden, Tommy John and at least 20 others were better than and as famous as Jack Morris.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the Morris election was the Vet's way of sticking it to the Sabermetric crowd.

I love (read: find it insane) that the hundreds of BBWAA members said no to Morris for 15 years, then a group of like a dozen old guys overruled them sitting around a table in a committee meeting.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, MCO'sFan said:

That and his politics. Since the HOF has turned into more of a place for very good players (IMHO) and I get that they need to put in players every year to keep the money rolling into town. I think Schilling should be in. I would rather have him pitch in a big game than ole' I did my job by giving my team a chance to win, Mike Mussina. 

The Hall's first class was 1936.  Depending on your point of view the first group of non-inner circle (i.e. very good) inductees happened in either 1939 or 1945.  By 1950 there were something like a dozen guys in Cooperstown who were no better than, say, Jimmy Key and John Olerud.

[Philip]

8 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

  At least in my opinion.  I could certainly write a few pages on why each of Jimmy Key, Frank Viola, Dave Steib, Jim Kaat, Billy Pearce, Dwight Gooden, Tommy John and at least 20 others were better than and as famous as Jack Morris.

Add Julio Franco, Buddy Bell, Dave Parker, maybe even Kevin Brown, Who was really underrated.

[DrungoHazewood]

11 minutes ago, Philip said:

Add Julio Franco, Buddy Bell, Dave Parker, maybe even Kevin Brown, Who was really underrated.

I'd have a special wing of the Hall for players who had epic, far-wandering careers like Julio Franco.  You know that in 2001 he hit .437 in the Mexican League?  He debuted in Rookie ball in Montana in 1978, and played his last pro game for a Fort Worth indy league team in 2014.  And in the middle he played 23 years in the majors.  Plus stints in Korea and Japan.

[makoman]

18 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

My issue with it being a literal Hall of Fame is that you can construct an argument for hundreds and hundreds of players that's just as valid as Jack Morris or Harold Baines or Jim Rice.  And you have to consider the Hall's own behavior, which is to induct any number of players who aren't famous until the Hall makes them so.

A few years ago the Hall inducted Deacon White.  If you went around OPACY in 2000 (heck, 2019!) and asked every single one of the fans in the stands who Deacon White was likely not a single person could have told you.  Not unless I'd been there that day.  White has been dead for 80 years.

So, no let's not make it a WAR leaderboard.  But I'd like to have some kind of standards.  When you put Harold Baines and Jack Morris in but exclude dozens or even hundreds of players who were better and arguably just as famous it makes for good discussions, but doesn't do much for logic and sense.  At least in my opinion.  I could certainly write a few pages on why each of Jimmy Key, Frank Viola, Dave Steib, Jim Kaat, Billy Pearce, Dwight Gooden, Tommy John and at least 20 others were better than and as famous as Jack Morris.

The weird thing is many of those guys like Key and Viola (WS MVP!) and Stieb and Chuck Finley and even David Cone (5 rings!) and Gooden and Saberhagen (WS MVP!) and Kevin Brown got like 10 votes and were off the ballot their first year, like it was a no brainer that they no way no how deserved to be in. Yet Morris who was probably-maybe-slightly-better-or-maybe-not lived on, due I guess to wins and 1 night in 1991.  

[OsEatAlEast]

44 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I love (read: find it insane) that the hundreds of BBWAA members said no to Morris for 15 years, then a group of like a dozen old guys overruled them sitting around a table in a committee meeting.

I think that's how the world in general works. The needs of the few outweigh the many.

[DrungoHazewood]

12 minutes ago, OsEatAlEast said:

I think that's how the world in general works. The needs of the few outweigh the many.

As a relatively old guy who sits in a lot of meetings, we're asked to make decisions because all the smarter people ran away and want nothing to do with far reaching decisions half of everyone hates. 

But in the Hall's case I wish they'd take their job a little more seriously than just hanging out and voting for dudes they like.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

As a relatively old guy who sits in a lot of meetings, we're asked to make decisions because all the smarter people ran away and want nothing to do with far reaching decisions half of everyone hates. 

But in the Hall's case I wish they'd take their job a little more seriously than just hanging out and voting for dudes they like.

I think the Morris vote, as well as the Baines vote now that I think about it, was to troll the stat guys.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the Morris vote, as well as the Baines vote now that I think about it, was to troll the stat guys.

There has to be a very, very long list of decisions made in the history of the world by old guys in power giving the middle finger to new guys who've figured out a better way.

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, MCO'sFan said:

I had not remembered it that way. Should've done more research. I guess that's what I get for trusting my memory.

Morris was 7-1, 2.60 in the postseason prior to his poor run in 1992.   So, he did deserve his reputation for being good in the postseason, but then he undid it.   

Objectively, he was a very good pitcher but probably a little short of what I’d expect from a Hall of Famer.  But it doesn’t offend me that he’s in there.   
 

[sportsfan8703]

It just sucks because losing Cruz led to us trading Tarpley and Brault for Snider.  Then we compounded the mistake even further by trading Davies for Parra.  

[DrungoHazewood]

48 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Objectively, he was a very good pitcher but probably a little short of what I’d expect from a Hall of Famer.  But it doesn’t offend me that he’s in there.  

Me, either.  What (slightly) offends me is the 56 other guys who were just as good who aren't.

[NCRaven]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the Morris vote, as well as the Baines vote now that I think about it, was to troll the stat guys.

I think it was more about Reinsdorf and LaRussa being leaders at the table.  He was their guy and they championed him hard.