Hall Of Fame 2013

28, why do you ask?

Music is art, baseball is a competition, those two HOF are not comparable.

28, why do you ask?

Because you were only five years old when the 80's ended, so I'm wondering how you could say this:

"Jeff I understand your opinion but I believe there were only 3 pitchers better than Morris during that era, two are in the hall and one went on steroids. Again, stats are a good supporting argument to what A person see's when watching him pitch. I felt he was dominant in that era"

You'll have to excuse me for trusting the baseball judgment of a baby, a preschooler, and finally in 1989, a kindergartener. I don't think you really have anything to go by except for statistics when judging a player in this era, and he clearly doesn't have Hall credentials based on this criteria.

It's called ESPN Classic and evaluating information given to me by what I consider smart sports minds. Someone can experience something and totally lack the logistics even if he were there.

Also, it's very unlikely a person can watch every game seeing the amount of time and management it would take. Taking a sample of watching the games over the course of a career is more feasible than using statistics. Statistics are only valuable if you understand the context and variables influencing them. Were there any influences on Morris' statistics over his career in your opinion?

Jeff

I was there in the 80's and that was the general perception.  He was one of those guys you didn't want to face.  there were gusy who had better indiviual years like Sutcliff and that was the best of Godden for example, but if you asked someone who the "best pitcher in the league" was Morris would have probable been the answer.  It may or may not be fair, but perception is part of the process.

Now you make a compelling case for both Biggio and Morris, but it's purely a statistcal case, then Hall is not all about stats.  It's a "totality of the Player" case.  He was percieved at least by the writers(and most baseball observes) as one of if not the best pitcher of the 80's and went on to have a borderline HOF career.  I can't and won't try to argue the stats, and we can agree to disagree, i think he should just squeek in, and you think he should miss the cut.  It'a an honest difference, and I respect your opinoin.

As far a Biggio, while you make a compelling statistical case, most of those stats are career stats for a guy who played a long time.  He falls short of greatness because there was never a time when he was"the best player in the league".  I don't think there was ever a time when he was the best player on his team.  early in his career Bagwell was the best players, then Berkman and Bagewell were better, and he might even have been 4th when El caballo got there.  Now for a team that was a good not great team, it'a hard to argue that their 3rd or 4th best player is a 1st ballot HOF guy.  Heck Santo never even made the hall(by the writers vote) even though his stats were better than Robinson's, mostly because of the perception that you could not really have 3 HOF guys in the line up of a team that did not ultimately win anything.  I agree with you that he had a HOF career, but I understand that if you have a standard as it currently stands for first ballot HOF players, I can certainly understand why he did not make it.  Now if he doesn't make it next year I will agree with you tahat it would be a travesty. 

Another factor for Biggio is that even though he is not dirrectly implicated in the PED debate,  there are certainly a cloud over all players of that era, especially guys who sem to have a lot more power than you would expect, and had a much more extended career.  Fair or not, I suspect that may have influenced a few writers(guilty till proven innocent).

As far as your PED argument.  If you have a specific accusation for the amphetamines, then make it, otherwise it really doesn't further the discussion, but for the sake of argument let's assume everyone from the turn of the century till 1990 was using amphetamines.  It's irrelevant, as guys in the "steroid era" were also using them, so there was no change in the baseline.  The change was the steroid and the HGH.  Amphetamine has a slight improvement in performance, it improves reflexes slightly, and mostly improves focus(you have better focus at the plate).  Steroids add muscle and power, big difference.  HGH also improves strength, but also changes muscle composition to add more fast twich fibers(something even the steroids can't do). It also improves reflexes, reduces reaction time, and improves eye sight.  To compare the slight advantage from amphetamines to that is comparing a hand grenade to a nuclear weapon.  yes they could both be considered WMD's but there's no real comparison in the effect.  That's why there has to be some acknowledgement made that you can't compare players from that era to players before or after.  I also don't think you should reward their bad behavior with baseball's highest honor.  IMHO. 

INterestng discussion. 

 If you have a specific accusation for the amphetamines, then make it, otherwise it really doesn't further the discussion

Pete Rose gave him two pills. It was his first Major League game, and during batting practice Rose introduced himself to him (they were on opposing teams). Rose was familiar with him because he was a top catching prospect at the time. Rose asked him how he was, he said, "Fine, just a bit tired from the flight." Rose gave him two pills. My friend said he didn't sleep for two days straight.

The Hall of Fame is all about a players popularity with sports writers.  If you treat the writers like garbage and put up stats good enough to get you in then you might eventually make it in once that generations sports writers move on.  But if you have marginal stats and are best friends with the beat writers for the Tribune, Post and Journal you will get in very soon after eligibility.

That is the main issue.  All of these players are voted on by mostly unathletic people that get paid to do what we are doing on this board.

Split the voting up into 3 groups: 50 Writers, 50 Hall of Famers and a Committee of 50 Managers from the past 30 years.  Election requires 101 votes (just over 2/3rds majority).

Jeffrey,

I trust everything that Pastor Dave tells me, because he is 2000 years old and personally walked with Jesus!

Dang man, is that a story of Piazza taking creatine, AKA the high school football players shortcut from benching 100 lbs to 300 lbs in 3 months.

Dang man, is that a story of Piazza taking creatine, AKA the high school football players shortcut from benching 100 lbs to 300 lbs in 3 months.

LOL no, this was the 70's.

Sounds like the method hasn't changed