The results for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame come out today. There are really only two candidates worth mentioning who deserve to be elected, one of whom most certainly will be and that is Ricky Henderson.
I'm not going to make a debate about why Ricky should be in. His credentials as the greatest leadoff hitter in MLB history attest for themselves and he is a lock to be elected today.
That being said, lets talk about some of the other candidates for whom arguments are being made. The are Bert "be home" Blyleven, Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Jack Morris and Lee Smith.
To me the first four are relatively easy arguments. None of them have the numbers that are worth of The Hall. Blyleven has 287 wins. That's a nice number but lets look as his career. He only won 20 games once. That's one more 20 win season than I have. He is 37 games over .500 for his career. That means he won 1.5 more games than he lost for a season for 22 years. Not even close in my book. Blyleven is a perfect example of a guy who was a decent pitcher/ballplayer who also stayed relatively healthy for a long time so that he amassed decent career numbers, but a dominant pitcher? Not even close. He wasn't an ace on any staff and although hitters knew he was above average, I don't think too many of them were afraid of him.
Morris is almost the opposite. A shorter career so less stellar numbers. A very pedestrian .390 ERA and only three 20 win seasons. Morris is best know for his great world series game against the Braves where he pitched a complete 10 inning shutout to clinch the series for the Twins. I still remember listening to that game on the radio and it was ultra thrilling and Morris had balls that clanked that night but if a decent career and one great game put you in the Hall then they'd better start adding on. He was intimidating on the mound and was the ace of the staff wherever he went but still the numbers just aren't there as attested by his ERA. He is 60 games over .500 for his career and struck out twice as many batters as he faced. Between Bert and Jack, if I was forced to vote for one (and by forced I mean a gun in my mouth or I'm dead and nothing less) I'd vote for Morris. A much stronger case can be made for him but I still don't think he is deserving.
The argument against Rice and Dawson is very simple. They don't have the numbers. Not even friggin close and if Dawson doesn't spend a few years in Chicago and Rice doesn't play in the softball park in Boston, their names aren't even going to be mentioned. Playing in media centers is always better for a players career and they get more accolades than they deserve (see Sandberg, Ryan) and these two guys are no exceptions. Between the two of them they only have 7 seasons of 30+ home runs. Seven. Ken Griffey Jr. has nine all by himself. This shouldn't even be an argument. They were good ball players. They weren't great even for the time they played and if Rice played in Kansas City and Dawson never leaves Montreal than I would be blogging about something else.
The case for Lee Smith is this. He was absolutely dominating as a pitcher in his time and was money in the bank. When Smith retired, he was the all time leader in saves and that record stood for several years. Like Goose Gossage, Smith didn't come into a game to face one man and get a save. He pitched in 50+ games 13 times in his career and pitched more than 70 innings 11 times in that span including 90+ innings six times and averaged one strike out per inning for his career. He is third on the all-time save list behind Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SV_career.shtml) both of whom are still playing. Those numbers are worthy and Smith became the prototype for the relievers we see today. I would take Lee Smith in his prime over ANYONE who has been a reliever including the two guys mentioned. He was that good.
So good luck to everyone on the ballot today. I hope the voters use common sense and rational thought when making their selections. Afterall, this isn't Canton. Art Monk? Really?
Monday, January 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Jack Morris: "...struck out twice as many batters as he faced." -No guns necessary, that feat alone is Hall of Fame worthy.
While I readily admit that The Pro Football Hall of Fame has far too liberal of an election process, it does not include a mistake in Art Monk. Players should be measured against their peers in the era in which they played. At the time of his retirement, no player had caught more passes than Art Monk and only two other players had received passes for more yards. I also learned today that he converted 2/3 of his catches into First Downs. Art Monk was a very productive player in his era, and his teams were highly successful in that era. He aslo performed well in the Post-Season for those same teams. He is not the example of the problem with Canton, rather the backlash player that couldn't get in because so many other non-worthy candidates have won the popularity contest while Art Monk's career numbers have continued to be diminished by a fundamental change in the way offenses play the game. His accomplishments at the time of retirement were Hall Worthy without Question.
I'll give you my Art Monk argument at a later date if I have the time to research it. But my two word for being a member of the hall of any fame are "dominant player". Are Monk wasn't one. Michael Irving was. Thems the facts.
"His accomplishments at the time of retirement were Hall Worthy without Question."
Then why did it take so long? Tell me how he compared to his contemperaries. A good receiver not a great one and he proves my point about Canton. If Art Monk is worthy then Warner will be in a couple of more years of productivity as well.
Just a note on Warner, If he wins a SuperBowl with the Cardinals which is not unthinkable at this point in the season. How can you not look at him as a Hall of Fame candidate? He would have 2 rings and an MVP to his name. More than alot of guys who most certainly will be in.
And Lay off Jim Rice he was one of my favorite Red Sox as kid.
Alright... Finally some action in this blog. I could care less if Art Monk went into the HOF, and I do think he lobbied a little too much, but what I'm still trying to figure out is how in the hell Jack Morris struck out twice the men he faced?
I do however believe your argument for "dominating player" is flawed. Case in point. Terell Davis. In or Out?
Jack Morris struck out twice as many guys as he faced because he was that good. Twice as many as he walked. My bad.
Terrell Davis in the Hall? Really? I didn't think he was that dominating for a long enough period. Christ, I had to think about who the hell he was for a minute.
Sorry 5 but as I stated, if Rice plays in Houston, you wouldn't know who the hell he is.
For a 4 Year Period Terell Davis averaged 1900 yards from Scrimmage and 15 TD's a Season. I would think that meets the definition of "dominant"? I agree that players who's careers are shorten by injury, (Sandy Koufax, Gale Sayers) or by choice (Jim Brown, Barry Sanders) should still be given the "dominant player" waiver card, and consideration outside of their career accomplishments should be granted. However, it shouldn't be applied as a deduction to a player who's career numbers rank him at the top of his profession. And 5-wood, Jim Rice applies to neither of these categories! He can sit in the 5-Wood HOF alongside Mark Duper
The list in 5 wood HOF is long and distinguished. Nothing wrong with that.
Shouldn't Terrell Davis get negative consideration for getting John Elway two Super Bowl Rings. Of course he did stop Farve from getting a second so I guess that is possitive consideration. I don't know this higher math is getting to me.
Post a Comment