No one to the hall this year

[757690]

Interesting article from former Post and Citybeat writer Bill Peterson:

http://www.labigleagues.com/2013/01/...rter-into.html

It now is 2013, of course, and we haven't inducted a starting pitcher who debuted in 1971 or later. Now, every starting pitcher who debuted from 1971 through 1983 has come and gone, barely without acknowledgement on any Hall of Fame ballot, except Morris. The next debut year up for discussion is 1984, the year Roger Clemens broke in, and that one is going to be deferred, at least for a while. The next debut year that stands to have launched a starting pitcher towards the Hall of Fame is 1986, the year Greg Maddux began with the Chicago Cubs.

So, we're looking at a window of 15 years, 1971 through 1985, a full generation of starting pitchers, that we have deemed unsuitable for the Hall of Fame. Obviously, no pitcher from that generation produced obvious Hall of Fame numbers. Morris is the only one who has even come close, and the case for him can't be said to rest easily in the statistics. One would believe that our great nation produced a crop of complete pitching deadbeats in the birth years 1952 through 1965. And it is true that in the 1980s, managers and pitching coaches began complaining about a shortage of quality pitchers.

[M2]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Discredited is another strong term. This is the same test which forced ARod to come clean. There is some credit to the report. Which, to me, makes the case stronger against him that the other 2. Even though I have my own view of some others.

And it's the same story the New York Times sports editor later admitted he shouldn't have printed because he couldn't verify that the sources weren't just looking to stir the poop. There's even a question about whether the samples were specifically labeled from that test (e.g. what the sources claimed was Sosa might just be Chicago Cub #3). What got printed was innuendo dressed up as fact. No one's ever been able to verify or add to the allegation on Sosa, and I'll guarantee it's not for lack of trying. Sad that one shoddy piece of reporting is enough to bury a guy.

Meanwhile Pearlman has Piazza using roids straight from the horse's mouth and Bagwell square inside the nexus of one of the dirtiest clubhouses in the majors.

Ultimately all of that adds up to bupkis. You can spend all day drilling homes through those allegations. What's happening is the shaky allegation attached to Sosa is treated as airtight while the shaky allegations on Piazza and Bagwell are considered shaky.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Red in Chicago

Not everyone loved Sammy in Chicago. He wore out his welcome. His bunny hopping, self indulgent behavior wore thin in the clubhouse. Add to that his walking out on the last game of the year and corked bat incident, he was far from the patron saint some of the bleacher bums thought he was. I would say his pathetic appearance before congress played the biggest role in keeping his vote count so low. No sympathy from me - my least favorite Cub of all time.

How dare he play with enthusiasm. Just like when that punk Jose Reyes was always smiling when he was on the Mets, what a bastard.

I question how thin Sosa wore on the clubhouse seeing that the team unraveled after he left.

And less favorite than Carlos Zambrano or Milton Bradley?

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by M2

And it's the same story the New York Times sports editor later admitted he shouldn't have printed because he couldn't verify that the sources weren't just looking to stir the poop. There's even a question about whether the samples were specifically labeled from that test (e.g. what the sources claimed was Sosa might just be Chicago Cub #3). What got printed was innuendo dressed up as fact. No one's ever been able to verify or add to the allegation on Sosa, and I'll guarantee it's not for lack of trying. Sad that one shoddy piece of reporting is enough to bury a guy.

Meanwhile Pearlman has Piazza using roids straight from the horse's mouth and Bagwell square inside the nexus of one of the dirtiest clubhouses in the majors.

Ultimately all of that adds up to bupkis. You can spend all day drilling homes through those allegations. What's happening is the shaky allegation attached to Sosa is treated as airtight while the shaky allegations on Piazza and Bagwell are considered shaky.

You have a source for the admission of the editor?

Sosa was named in the Grimsley affidavit for amphetamine usage. And he was nailed dead to rights on corking his bat. Lots of smoke.

[Red in Chicago]

Originally Posted by M2

How dare he play with enthusiasm. Just like when that punk Jose Reyes was always smiling when he was on the Mets, what a bastard.

I question how thin Sosa wore on the clubhouse seeing that the team unraveled after he left.

And less favorite than Carlos Zambrano or Milton Bradley?

Ask his boom box

Yes, even less than Z or MB, whose short term in blue is hardly worth referencing.

[M2]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

You have a source for the admission of the editor?

It got play in Boston because some Sox were in that whole kerfuffle. Happened two or three years ago, want to say it was during a J school roundtable in Boston on whether sports reporting is actual reporting (short answer: generally it's not). Can't dredge up a link at the moment.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Red in Chicago

Ask his boom box

Yes, even less than Z or MB, whose short term in blue is hardly worth referencing.

A little bit of Milton Bradley goes a long way.

[RedEye]

I'm surprised. I thought at least Biggio would make it.

[powersackers]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Morris isn't a hall of famer, or close to it. His career ERA+ is 105. That is barely above average. The best he ever had was a 133.

By Reds standards, a 105 ERA+ was far worse than any Reds starter this year (113 was the worst - Arroyo). The 133 for his career best was a little worse than what Sam LeCure did this season.

Morris was an above-average starter in his prime, but I don't think he was ever an elite pitcher in his time. 1979 was the only time he was ever in the Top 5 in the American League in ERA+.

4 WS titles. Dominate when it mattered most. Longevity. Leadership. There are more factors to the HoF than regular season stats. They matter of course but they are factors in an equation.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by powersackers

4 WS titles. Dominate when it mattered most. Longevity. Leadership. There are more factors to the HoF than regular season stats. They matter of course but they are factors in an equation.

Of course. In the case of Morris though, I don't think they tip the equation quite far enough. A lot of his reputation is actually based on one ridiculously good World Series performance.

[kaldaniels]

That Morris article at the top of this page is interesting.

Was he the best pitcher born from 1952-1965 as the article implies?

[FlightRick]

Originally Posted by RedEye

I'm surprised. I thought at least Biggio would make it.

Not to pick on you, specifically, as I've had this come up in conversation a few times today. And my basic response each time was, "Why?"

Then, because I am not a total jerk, I amplified my response to include a few more thoughts. Chief among them is the fact that the closest recent comps to Biggio are Larkin, Alomar, and Sandberg, and not a one of them got in on the first ballot.

And in all honesty, they are "comps," but I think all three are demonstrably better than Biggio. Other than in terms of longevity/at-bats (which allowed Biggio to collect the counting stats), all three were better offensively; and without any qualification, all three were superior defensively. Two of the other three have MVP awards (and all three have more MVP shares, despire Biggio playing more years). Biggio has the fewest all-star games of the bunch (despite playing more years). Post-season? Two of the other three won world series, Biggio did not. And so on....

Personally, I have my issues with the whole notion of the "first ballot specialness" or whatever you want to call it. But the writers have shown that it's important to them, and I can roll with that, if I have to. And if Larkin and Sandberg only got 50% on their first ballots, why act surprised that Biggio didn't get in? If anything, you should be surprised that he got 68%, which is probably higher than it "should" be (given past voting patterns) and indicates at least some voters changed their criteria because they felt they had to vote for SOMEbody, since they were disqualifying Bonds/Clemens/etc....


Rick

[Roy Tucker]

Nothing against the well-thought-out comments in here, but I find the whole PED-related aspect a crappy topic of discussion. Probably needs to be talked about, but there is no joy and no happiness and no enjoyment in the whole mess.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

Nothing against the well-thought-out comments in here, but I find the whole PED-related aspect a crappy topic of discussion. Probably needs to be talked about, but there is no joy and no happiness and no enjoyment in the whole mess.

Agreed. One of the reasons I like baseball so much is the sheer number of smart, thoughtful people who write about the game and everything related to the game. Those people are all over the map on this issue, which shows how many different ways there are to look at it. Like you, I wish we didn't need to.

I also feel bad for the Hall itself, it's in a no-win situation. No matter what happens with Bonds and Clemens and the like, the institution will be devalued in many peoples' minds. Either because the best baseball players aren't in it, or cheaters are.

[VR]

I always wondered how Piazza put up such great offensive numbers in Dodger stadium his first year after never sniffing that level in the minors, and being downright Bilardello-esque his first few years in the minors.