2007 Baseball HOF Ballot... (1 Viewer)

[Funkley]

' date='Nov 27 2006, 12:42 PM' post='5967796']JIM RICE

Then Andre Dawson should get in too.

Rice was considered by many to be the best and most feared hitter in the game for a decade.Dawson never was. He was always considered very good and had some MVP type seasons (he won once), but I rarely thought he was the best in the game.

Dawson has the better career numbers but he played 5 more seasons. They were very similar though. Both 8 time all stars, both won the MVP once. They were both considered to be feared hitters but Rice spent his seasons playing on a lot of good teams in Boston while Dawson was tucked away in Montreal with a lot less lineup help than Rice had.Rice was one of my favorite players as a kid btw.

 

[Dave Baker]

Did anyone ever vote in this - I thought it was awesome and looks better than the real HOF.

http://doug.obscurestuff.com/vhof.html

I love the fact they have Ron Santo in. He deserves it big time. But no Brooks Robinson? C'mon. Odd to see Tim Raines made their list.

 

[Dave Baker]

' date='Nov 27 2006, 12:42 PM' post='5967796']JIM RICE

Then Andre Dawson should get in too.

Rice was considered by many to be the best and most feared hitter in the game for a decade.Dawson never was. He was always considered very good and had some MVP type seasons (he won once), but I rarely thought he was the best in the game.

Dawson has the better career numbers but he played 5 more seasons. They were very similar though. Both 8 time all stars, both won the MVP once. They were both considered to be feared hitters but Rice spent his seasons playing on a lot of good teams in Boston while Dawson was tucked away in Montreal with a lot less lineup help than Rice had.Rice was one of my favorite players as a kid btw.

They might have been similar but Rice was the better power hitter, producing more RBIs with a higher batting average and OBP. Dawson was a better fielder. But hitting wise, I don't think Dawson was that close to Rice as far as being a dominant player.

 

[Funkley]

' date='Nov 27 2006, 12:42 PM' post='5967796']JIM RICE

Then Andre Dawson should get in too.

Rice was considered by many to be the best and most feared hitter in the game for a decade.Dawson never was. He was always considered very good and had some MVP type seasons (he won once), but I rarely thought he was the best in the game.

Dawson has the better career numbers but he played 5 more seasons. They were very similar though. Both 8 time all stars, both won the MVP once. They were both considered to be feared hitters but Rice spent his seasons playing on a lot of good teams in Boston while Dawson was tucked away in Montreal with a lot less lineup help than Rice had.Rice was one of my favorite players as a kid btw.

They might have been similar but Rice was the better power hitter, producing more RBIs with a higher batting average and OBP. Dawson was a better fielder. But hitting wise, I don't think Dawson was that close to Rice as far as being a dominant player.

Closer than you'd think. Rice was a career .502 slugger while Dawson is a career .482. Rice hit for a higher career average but neither one of them ever saw a pitch they didn't like as they both posted fairly weak OBP's for 'elite' hitters. Rice was a better hitter but it's not the gap that you seem to think it is.

 

[Dave Baker]

Closer than you'd think. Rice was a career .502 slugger while Dawson is a career .482. Rice hit for a higher career average but neither one of them ever saw a pitch they didn't like as they both posted fairly weak OBP's for 'elite' hitters. Rice was a better hitter but it's not the gap that you seem to think it is.

I think of it as a significant gap across the board, or at least telling. I don't want to get hung up on words like significant.It's just to me, every time I looked up Rice was hitting a game winner or doing something clutch. Less so with Dawson. The team might have plenty to do with that, but I still remember Rice as being more dominant compared to his peers than Dawson while they played.Both are great and Rice is not a gimme HOF. If he was, he'd already be in. But Dawson is far enough behind Rice IMO that moves him off the list.

 

[DCThunder]

There are a couple of other interesting names on that list, Harold Baines and Albert Belle.

Baines deserves some consideration as an excellent hitter, who had a looong career, with the Chisox and the O's, and he's from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, not exactly a hotbed of major league talent.

Albert Belle, while a total ##### to the fans and media in both Cleveland and Baltimore, was a feared hitter for about a 5 year spell in the mid-late 90s. Then he hurt his hip, it turned into a degenerative thing and he vanished into oblivion almost overnight. I think the O's finally stopped paying his salary about a year or so ago, although they got a big insurance settlement for the hip injury.

 

[Dave Baker]

Baines deserves some consideration as an excellent hitter, who had a looong career, with the Chisox and the O's, and he's from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, not exactly a hotbed of major league talent.

I never once thought of Baines as an elite player, let alone elite for a decade plus. Doesn't come close for me.

 

[ThisGuy]

Baines deserves some consideration as an excellent hitter, who had a looong career, with the Chisox and the O's, and he's from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, not exactly a hotbed of major league talent.

I never once thought of Baines as an elite player, let alone elite for a decade plus. Doesn't come close for me.

Plus, it opens the DH can of worms. Baines spent way too much time as a DH.

 

[guru_007]

Baines deserves some consideration as an excellent hitter, who had a looong career, with the Chisox and the O's, and he's from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, not exactly a hotbed of major league talent.

I never once thought of Baines as an elite player, let alone elite for a decade plus. Doesn't come close for me.

How about Rafeal Palmeiro? Steroids aside, guy had a long career with big numbers. Baines doesn't get in because for the most part he was a DH only. Belle will not get in because his body of work wasn't so overwhelming that the voters will overlook his off the field issues. Will be interesting when Palmeiro comes up.

 

[Funkley]

Closer than you'd think. Rice was a career .502 slugger while Dawson is a career .482. Rice hit for a higher career average but neither one of them ever saw a pitch they didn't like as they both posted fairly weak OBP's for 'elite' hitters. Rice was a better hitter but it's not the gap that you seem to think it is.

I think of it as a significant gap across the board, or at least telling. I don't want to get hung up on words like significant.It's just to me, every time I looked up Rice was hitting a game winner or doing something clutch. Less so with Dawson. The team might have plenty to do with that, but I still remember Rice as being more dominant compared to his peers than Dawson while they played.Both are great and Rice is not a gimme HOF. If he was, he'd already be in. But Dawson is far enough behind Rice IMO that moves him off the list.

Rice had 4 amazing seasons, Dawson had 1. That's a lot of what's going on here but in general, the 'peak seasons' numbers are close and the career numbers are decidedly Dawson's. If anything, neither gets in imo.

 

[DCThunder]

Baines deserves some consideration as an excellent hitter, who had a looong career, with the Chisox and the O's, and he's from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, not exactly a hotbed of major league talent.

I never once thought of Baines as an elite player, let alone elite for a decade plus. Doesn't come close for me.

Plus, it opens the DH can of worms. Baines spent way too much time as a DH.

Like it or not, the "DH can of worms" will have to be addressed sooner or later. Big Papi is a DH, pure and simple and doesn't have the steroid baggage. Assuming his career numbers are close to the past several season, is he disqualified ONLY because he's a DH?I'm not saying Baines deserves the Hall, only that he can't be dismissed out of hand like the Dante Bichettes can be.

 

[Funkley]

I thought the DH thing was settled with Molitor?

 

[Hov34]

Closer than you'd think. Rice was a career .502 slugger while Dawson is a career .482. Rice hit for a higher career average but neither one of them ever saw a pitch they didn't like as they both posted fairly weak OBP's for 'elite' hitters. Rice was a better hitter but it's not the gap that you seem to think it is.

I think of it as a significant gap across the board, or at least telling. I don't want to get hung up on words like significant.It's just to me, every time I looked up Rice was hitting a game winner or doing something clutch. Less so with Dawson. The team might have plenty to do with that, but I still remember Rice as being more dominant compared to his peers than Dawson while they played.Both are great and Rice is not a gimme HOF. If he was, he'd already be in. But Dawson is far enough behind Rice IMO that moves him off the list.

Rice had 4 amazing seasons, Dawson had 1. That's a lot of what's going on here but in general, the 'peak seasons' numbers are close and the career numbers are decidedly Dawson's. If anything, neither gets in imo.

Dawson in '81 and '83 finished 2nd in the MVP - pre '87 they were very good numbers - and he was a "5 tool player" (whatever in the hell that means)

 

[posty]

I thought the DH thing was settled with Molitor?

He played almost 1500 games in the field during his career and only really DHed his last 8 seasons...

 

[ThisGuy]

Baines deserves some consideration as an excellent hitter, who had a looong career, with the Chisox and the O's, and he's from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, not exactly a hotbed of major league talent.

I never once thought of Baines as an elite player, let alone elite for a decade plus. Doesn't come close for me.

Plus, it opens the DH can of worms. Baines spent way too much time as a DH.

Like it or not, the "DH can of worms" will have to be addressed sooner or later. Big Papi is a DH, pure and simple and doesn't have the steroid baggage. Assuming his career numbers are close to the past several season, is he disqualified ONLY because he's a DH?I'm not saying Baines deserves the Hall, only that he can't be dismissed out of hand like the Dante Bichettes can be.

Whoa, Let's make sure Papi has more than 4 good years before we put him in the Hall.

 

[Funkley]

I thought the DH thing was settled with Molitor?

He played almost 1500 games in the field during his career and only really DHed his last 8 seasons...

Then Baines isn't a fair point to start the DH topic. Papi will likely be "that guy". It'll be about the stats, just like always.

 

[ThisGuy]

I thought the DH thing was settled with Molitor?

He played almost 1500 games in the field during his career and only really DHed his last 8 seasons...

 

[ThisGuy]

I thought the DH thing was settled with Molitor?

He played almost 1500 games in the field during his career and only really DHed his last 8 seasons...

Then Baines isn't a fair point to start the DH topic. Papi will likely be "that guy". It'll be about the stats, just like always.

I think a full-time DH would need to hit over .300 at some point in his career as well.

 

[Funkley]

I thought the DH thing was settled with Molitor?

He played almost 1500 games in the field during his career and only really DHed his last 8 seasons...

Then Baines isn't a fair point to start the DH topic. Papi will likely be "that guy". It'll be about the stats, just like always.

I think a full-time DH would need to hit over .300 at some point in his career as well.

Baines played 1,060 games in the OF fwiw. The fulltime Papi, Hafner type of DH having HOF worthy stats will be fairly rare I think.

 

[Dave Baker]

Baines deserves some consideration as an excellent hitter, who had a looong career, with the Chisox and the O's, and he's from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, not exactly a hotbed of major league talent.

I never once thought of Baines as an elite player, let alone elite for a decade plus. Doesn't come close for me.

How about Rafeal Palmeiro?

I like Palmeiro, but no for me. As I said before, though, I almost give zero recognition to numbers achieved via longevity. For me, you need to have been a totally dominant player in the league for a decade plus. Exceptions can be made for guys who dominate for less (Koufax), but the only people I want in the HOF are ones who dominated the game for a reasonably long period of time.I never really thought to myself that Palmeiro was better than all but a few guys in the league.It can be a positional dominance too. I clearly understand that positions like catcher and third base are so demanding the best hitters rarely play there. That's how I get a guy like Ron Santo in (in my head).I know most baseball pundits including those posting here don't agree with my mentality of virtually ignoring guys that played at a high level, without completely dominating, for 25 years. I truly don't care about someone achieving the type of milestones that make a player automatic.

 

[Funkley]

Palmeiro is 9th on the all time home run list. I don't see how you can leave him out using any criteria unless you want to start removing the guys beneath him like Mike Schmidt and Jimmie Foxx, etc.

 

[Dave Baker]

Rice had 4 amazing seasons, Dawson had 1. That's a lot of what's going on here but in general, the 'peak seasons' numbers are close and the career numbers are decidedly Dawson's. If anything, neither gets in imo.

I just posted it, but to reiterate, career numbers mean almost nothing to me. In reality, numbers in general mean little to me, especially with general fluctuations from peroid to period, as well as the fact that the numbers don't always tell the story. You would have to have been a fan during the 70s to appreciate all Rice did and his impact on the game at the time. Rice was the more dominant hitter and more feared for an extended period than was Dawson. Dawson picks up "points" because of his fielding, but there simply wasn't a more feared hitter in the game for about 11 years or so as was Rice.That was dominance. Dawson is close but not quite there.

 

[Funkley]

Rice had 4 amazing seasons, Dawson had 1. That's a lot of what's going on here but in general, the 'peak seasons' numbers are close and the career numbers are decidedly Dawson's. If anything, neither gets in imo.

I just posted it, but to reiterate, career numbers mean almost nothing to me. In reality, numbers in general mean little to me, especially with general fluctuations from peroid to period, as well as the fact that the numbers don't always tell the story. You would have to have been a fan during the 70s to appreciate all Rice did and his impact on the game at the time. Rice was the more dominant hitter and more feared for an extended period than was Dawson. Dawson picks up "points" because of his fielding, but there simply wasn't a more feared hitter in the game for about 11 years or so as was Rice.That was dominance. Dawson is close but not quite there.

Well I was a fan in the 70's and I still say that there have to be criteria's beyond sentimental feelings. Season awards are measured by performance and statistics. Not sure why the Hall Of Fame should be different.

 

[DCThunder]

Rice had 4 amazing seasons, Dawson had 1. That's a lot of what's going on here but in general, the 'peak seasons' numbers are close and the career numbers are decidedly Dawson's. If anything, neither gets in imo.

I just posted it, but to reiterate, career numbers mean almost nothing to me. In reality, numbers in general mean little to me, especially with general fluctuations from peroid to period, as well as the fact that the numbers don't always tell the story. You would have to have been a fan during the 70s to appreciate all Rice did and his impact on the game at the time. Rice was the more dominant hitter and more feared for an extended period than was Dawson. Dawson picks up "points" because of his fielding, but there simply wasn't a more feared hitter in the game for about 11 years or so as was Rice.That was dominance. Dawson is close but not quite there.

By your criteria, was Ripken "dominant" or is he HoF worthy by longevity?

 

[Dave Baker]

Palmeiro is 9th on the all time home run list. I don't see how you can leave him out using any criteria unless you want to start removing the guys beneath him like Mike Schmidt and Jimmie Foxx, etc.

I simply never thought of Palmeiro was being one of the best in the game at any given period. But I amittedly don't care about lonegivity numbers.Quick question for you...did you ever think to yourself that Palmeiro was a completely dominant player in the game at any one time? How about over a period of a decade or longer? Even if you answer that he was not, the vast majority might still agree that anyone that is 9th All-Time in HRs must be on the HOF.Personally, though, I don't think that way.

 

[Funkley]

Palmeiro is 9th on the all time home run list. I don't see how you can leave him out using any criteria unless you want to start removing the guys beneath him like Mike Schmidt and Jimmie Foxx, etc.

I simply never thought of Palmeiro was being one of the best in the game at any given period. But I amittedly don't care about lonegivity numbers.Quick question for you...did you ever think to yourself that Palmeiro was a completely dominant player in the game at any one time? How about over a period of a decade or longer? Even if you answer that he was not, the vast majority might still agree that anyone that is 9th All-Time in HRs must be on the HOF.Personally, though, I don't think that way.

If you don't think he was you weren't paying attention. Check out his numbers from 1996-2002 and then tell me he wasn't "dominant".

 

[Dave Baker]

Rice had 4 amazing seasons, Dawson had 1. That's a lot of what's going on here but in general, the 'peak seasons' numbers are close and the career numbers are decidedly Dawson's. If anything, neither gets in imo.

I just posted it, but to reiterate, career numbers mean almost nothing to me. In reality, numbers in general mean little to me, especially with general fluctuations from peroid to period, as well as the fact that the numbers don't always tell the story. You would have to have been a fan during the 70s to appreciate all Rice did and his impact on the game at the time. Rice was the more dominant hitter and more feared for an extended period than was Dawson. Dawson picks up "points" because of his fielding, but there simply wasn't a more feared hitter in the game for about 11 years or so as was Rice.That was dominance. Dawson is close but not quite there.

Well I was a fan in the 70's and I still say that there have to be criteria's beyond sentimental feelings. Season awards are measured by performance and statistics. Not sure why the Hall Of Fame should be different.

I'm not talking about sentimental feelings. I am not now nor have I ever been a Red Sox fan. But back then, it was fairly common consensus that Rice was the most feared hitter around. Not so with Dawson although everyone said he was a star.I agree that season awards are based on statistics or performance. I think the HOF should be filled with guys who performed at a very high level for an extended period. I just happen to think that those numbers are less cumulative than you do. It's all about dominance for me.

 

[Koya]

Ripken was both Dominant and had longevity.

Not only that, but he helped redefine a position. Before Ripken, you had two elite hitters at that position that I can think of. Eernie Banks and Arky Vaughan.

Ripken brought power as well as all of the fielding and fundamentals to a position which had never been known for much more than a good glove. That shouldn't go unnoticed.

 

[guru_007]

Rice had 4 amazing seasons, Dawson had 1. That's a lot of what's going on here but in general, the 'peak seasons' numbers are close and the career numbers are decidedly Dawson's. If anything, neither gets in imo.

I just posted it, but to reiterate, career numbers mean almost nothing to me. In reality, numbers in general mean little to me, especially with general fluctuations from peroid to period, as well as the fact that the numbers don't always tell the story. You would have to have been a fan during the 70s to appreciate all Rice did and his impact on the game at the time. Rice was the more dominant hitter and more feared for an extended period than was Dawson. Dawson picks up "points" because of his fielding, but there simply wasn't a more feared hitter in the game for about 11 years or so as was Rice.That was dominance. Dawson is close but not quite there.

Just to add....Funkley, you stated Rice had 4 amazing seasons. It's hard to quantify his seasons looking at numbers alone, as times were much different back then. In fact Rice had 6 seasons that were so special that he was in top 5 of MVP voting (and one season in 1978 which is among the top season of any hitter of all time).You look at a season where he came in third in MVP voting and sure he only had 20 home runs, and only had 110 rbis, but he came in the top 10 in virtually every offensive category (including GIDP). Certainly he was part of a couple of great offensive teams, but this should further point out how great he was when he is coming in the top 3 when 3 Red Sox guys are in the top 7 (1986 I believe when Clemens won the MVP). Rice from his rookie season up until 1987 or 1988 was about the best hitter in the American League, bar none. His numbers do not reflect at all to todays numbers, but most players don't. 40 home runs in the 70's and 80's was like 65 today. 100 RBI's was equivalent to 145 today. I would not have a problem with Andre Dawson into the hall either, in fact I think he is more deserving than Mark McGwire. If I had a vote, and I don't, although I should, there would only be 4 guys receiving votes this year.

 

[DCThunder]

Ripken was both Dominant and had longevity.Not only that, but he helped redefine a position. Before Ripken, you had two elite hitters at that position that I can think of. Eernie Banks and Arky Vaughan.Ripken brought power as well as all of the fielding and fundamentals to a position which had never been known for much more than a good glove. That shouldn't go unnoticed.

I agree completely, but I didn't establish the Dave Baker Criteria of Dominance.

 

[DCThunder]

Rice had 4 amazing seasons, Dawson had 1. That's a lot of what's going on here but in general, the 'peak seasons' numbers are close and the career numbers are decidedly Dawson's. If anything, neither gets in imo.

I just posted it, but to reiterate, career numbers mean almost nothing to me. In reality, numbers in general mean little to me, especially with general fluctuations from peroid to period, as well as the fact that the numbers don't always tell the story. You would have to have been a fan during the 70s to appreciate all Rice did and his impact on the game at the time. Rice was the more dominant hitter and more feared for an extended period than was Dawson. Dawson picks up "points" because of his fielding, but there simply wasn't a more feared hitter in the game for about 11 years or so as was Rice.

That was dominance. Dawson is close but not quite there.

Just to add....Funkley, you stated Rice had 4 amazing seasons. It's hard to quantify his seasons looking at numbers alone, as times were much different back then. In fact Rice had 6 seasons that were so special that he was in top 5 of MVP voting (and one season in 1978 which is among the top season of any hitter of all time).

You look at a season where he came in third in MVP voting and sure he only had 20 home runs, and only had 110 rbis, but he came in the top 10 in virtually every offensive category (including GIDP). Certainly he was part of a couple of great offensive teams, but this should further point out how great he was when he is coming in the top 3 when 3 Red Sox guys are in the top 7 (1986 I believe when Clemens won the MVP). Rice from his rookie season up until 1987 or 1988 was about the best hitter in the American League, bar none. His numbers do not reflect at all to todays numbers, but most players don't. 40 home runs in the 70's and 80's was like 65 today. 100 RBI's was equivalent to 145 today.

I would not have a problem with Andre Dawson into the hall either, in fact I think he is more deserving than Mark McGwire. If I had a vote, and I don't, although I should, there would only be 4 guys receiving votes this year.

Eddie Murray had some pretty good years in that timespan too, so while Rice was a great hitter, that "bar none" statement isn't totally accurate, IMHO.

 

[Dave Baker]

By your criteria, was Ripken "dominant" or is he HoF worthy by longevity?

Ripken was very dominant. In my head, you could remove the last ten years or so of Ripken's career and he still makes the HOF. It's one of those positional things I brought up earlier. He played SS better than just about anyone else for that period.But, no, his longevity in and of itself means little to me, although his ironman records adds to things. Even without it, though, and he makes the HOF IMO.

 

[guru_007]

Rice had 4 amazing seasons, Dawson had 1. That's a lot of what's going on here but in general, the 'peak seasons' numbers are close and the career numbers are decidedly Dawson's. If anything, neither gets in imo.

I just posted it, but to reiterate, career numbers mean almost nothing to me. In reality, numbers in general mean little to me, especially with general fluctuations from peroid to period, as well as the fact that the numbers don't always tell the story. You would have to have been a fan during the 70s to appreciate all Rice did and his impact on the game at the time. Rice was the more dominant hitter and more feared for an extended period than was Dawson. Dawson picks up "points" because of his fielding, but there simply wasn't a more feared hitter in the game for about 11 years or so as was Rice.

That was dominance. Dawson is close but not quite there.

Just to add....Funkley, you stated Rice had 4 amazing seasons. It's hard to quantify his seasons looking at numbers alone, as times were much different back then. In fact Rice had 6 seasons that were so special that he was in top 5 of MVP voting (and one season in 1978 which is among the top season of any hitter of all time).

You look at a season where he came in third in MVP voting and sure he only had 20 home runs, and only had 110 rbis, but he came in the top 10 in virtually every offensive category (including GIDP). Certainly he was part of a couple of great offensive teams, but this should further point out how great he was when he is coming in the top 3 when 3 Red Sox guys are in the top 7 (1986 I believe when Clemens won the MVP). Rice from his rookie season up until 1987 or 1988 was about the best hitter in the American League, bar none. His numbers do not reflect at all to todays numbers, but most players don't. 40 home runs in the 70's and 80's was like 65 today. 100 RBI's was equivalent to 145 today.

I would not have a problem with Andre Dawson into the hall either, in fact I think he is more deserving than Mark McGwire. If I had a vote, and I don't, although I should, there would only be 4 guys receiving votes this year.

Eddie Murray had some pretty good years in that timespan too, so while Rice was a great hitter, that "bar none" statement isn't totally accurate, IMHO.

Well, quite a few hitters had a lot of very good years during that time, so this was a bit of hyperbole and opinion, granted.

 

[Dave Baker]

If you don't think he was you weren't paying attention. Check out his numbers from 1996-2002 and then tell me he wasn't "dominant".

Remember, I don't care about numbers themselves. Hitting 100 HRs doesn;t make you dominant if 20 guys are hitting 120 HRs.Anyway, I just looked at his numbers again and they are admittedly impressive. During that period, from 1996-2002. Palmeiro was an All-Star only twice (although that really shouldn't mean much). He was never in the top four in MVP voting. During that period, he was never in the top 8 in batting average or OBP. only once did he finish in the top five in slugging pct. His HRs and RBIs look tremendous, but he never led the league in either category in his career.I like the guy and I might be the only person out there that is not sure if belongs, without steriods being the main issue. I just never really saw him at that dominating compared to his peers. Maybe you do, or more importantly, maybe my magical little issue of "dominance" is less important in others heads. That's fine. I can only tell you how I feel.As they say, I'm not sure if there is an exact formula for a player that must be in the HOF, but I'll know when I see it. Not sure I see it with Raffy.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Gossage

Gwynn

Morris

Ripken

Sorry Doc, but I just don't think Morris makes the cut...254 wins is solid, but a 3.90 ERA is just not HOF worthy, IMO, especially since it was pre-offensive explosion era baseball...

In fact, in the 11 seasons between his 25 year old seasonand his 35 year old season, he had a worse than league average ERA 4 times...

Gets points for his 91 series performance, but overall postseason #s are a solid but unspectacular 7-4, 3.80 ERA...

I'd put Blyleven in the Hall over Morris...

Alright I'm ready. Jack Morris should be in the Hall of fame for the following reasons:

He won 254 games more than Gibson, Ford, Hubbell, and Marichal . You can compare him to Blyleven but Blyleven pitched 22 years won 20 only once (that year he lost 17) and Bert had a bunch of middling seasons for 22 years. Morris threw 175 complete games and had 28 shutouts in five less years wining just 35 less games, and making the all star game five times

Morris finished in the top five in the Cy Young in 1981, 1983, 1991, and 1992.

2500 Ks (more than HOF Jim Palmer, Marichal, Grove and Catfish Hunter among others)

Lead the league in wins in 1981 and 1992

He won 15 games 12 times. He won 20 twice and never finished higher than 3rd in the Cy Young because of his ERA. Again you take the league av ERA and although Morris was only at +100 to +126 you have to consider the ballpark he played in and his road vs home ERA. Blyleven I believe suffers from his career ERA as well because he has similar ERA numbers.

But most importantly Jack Morris had his biggest games on baseball's biggest stage:

Take away the three losses in his final year with Toronto and he was 7-1 with dominate performances in two different World Series in 1984 and in 1991. In those two series' he had four wins, no losses, three complete games, and one of the three most memorable games in World Series history in game seven of the 1991 World Series throwing a CG shutout over ten freakin innings. It is the greatest pitching performance in World Series history because of that one extra inning and it was a game seven. Morris>Larson

Was he the best pitcher in the regular season? No. He played in two small ballparks for most of his career in Detroit and Minnesota and was expected to pitch deep into games. He had 15, 17, 9, 20,13, 15, 13 complete games in the prime of his career.

Also factor in things like how many innings he was having to pitch. IN 1986 he threw six CG shutouts and completed seven of his eight final games in a pennant race winning all but one of them of them. The only game he didn't complete he went 8.67 allowing six runs and eight hits. He got pulled because he got in trouble and for Jack Morris getting in trouble was six runs in the 9th. :X

In 1984 he threw a no hitter on three days rest against the White Sox in the first week of the season. He started that season 10-1 with 8 complete games! Tigers started 35-5 and he was a huge reason. He was 3-0 in the playoffs giving up five earned runs in 25 innings and the Tigers won all three games.

In 1991 he was 4-0 giving up nine runs in 36 innings including a 10 inning shutout in game seven of the World Series.

In 1992 a older Jack Morris was 10-2 from August 1st on helping the Blue Jays win their division.

His overall numbers are of the Palmer, Hunter, and Phil Niekro variety. Niekro won 318 and was an automatic selection just because he pitched so damn long. Morris dominated hitters and was one of the best pitchers in the game from 1982 to 1992 if not the best during those years. Moreover Blyleven and Niekro who has similar numbers pitched longer and never lead a decade of consistent and very above average pitching. You can name better pitchers from one or two years in this period but not better pitchers over that many years. Morris was never the best pitcher in any one season but he was the best over a decade.

He also perfected the split fingered fastball making him a modern day trailblazer and a clutch performer on baseball's biggest stage. He's no Carlton, Maddux, or Cy Young but what he was is one of the best pitchers of his generation if not the best over an entire decade. This was playing in a very hitter friendly parks in Detroit and Minnesota. Unlike Rice, Trammell, or any of the other candidates to include even Gossage who I love, Jack Morris was better than almost all of his peers during a ten to twelve year stretch and his career numbers although not eye popping, are good enough under the circumstances to get a bust in Cooperstown.

JACK F'N MORRIS TO THE HALL OF FAME BABY!

edited for effect

 

[Funkley]

Rice had 4 amazing seasons, Dawson had 1. That's a lot of what's going on here but in general, the 'peak seasons' numbers are close and the career numbers are decidedly Dawson's. If anything, neither gets in imo.

I just posted it, but to reiterate, career numbers mean almost nothing to me. In reality, numbers in general mean little to me, especially with general fluctuations from peroid to period, as well as the fact that the numbers don't always tell the story. You would have to have been a fan during the 70s to appreciate all Rice did and his impact on the game at the time. Rice was the more dominant hitter and more feared for an extended period than was Dawson. Dawson picks up "points" because of his fielding, but there simply wasn't a more feared hitter in the game for about 11 years or so as was Rice.That was dominance. Dawson is close but not quite there.

Just to add....Funkley, you stated Rice had 4 amazing seasons. It's hard to quantify his seasons looking at numbers alone, as times were much different back then. In fact Rice had 6 seasons that were so special that he was in top 5 of MVP voting (and one season in 1978 which is among the top season of any hitter of all time).You look at a season where he came in third in MVP voting and sure he only had 20 home runs, and only had 110 rbis, but he came in the top 10 in virtually every offensive category (including GIDP). Certainly he was part of a couple of great offensive teams, but this should further point out how great he was when he is coming in the top 3 when 3 Red Sox guys are in the top 7 (1986 I believe when Clemens won the MVP). Rice from his rookie season up until 1987 or 1988 was about the best hitter in the American League, bar none. His numbers do not reflect at all to todays numbers, but most players don't. 40 home runs in the 70's and 80's was like 65 today. 100 RBI's was equivalent to 145 today. I would not have a problem with Andre Dawson into the hall either, in fact I think he is more deserving than Mark McGwire. If I had a vote, and I don't, although I should, there would only be 4 guys receiving votes this year.

Good post. Actually, I used total bases as he lead the AL in TB 4 times (1977-1979 and 1983).

 

[Funkley]

If you don't think he was you weren't paying attention. Check out his numbers from 1996-2002 and then tell me he wasn't "dominant".

Remember, I don't care about numbers themselves. Hitting 100 HRs doesn;t make you dominant if 20 guys are hitting 120 HRs.Anyway, I just looked at his numbers again and they are admittedly impressive. During that period, from 1996-2002. Palmeiro was an All-Star only twice (although that really shouldn't mean much). He was never in the top four in MVP voting. During that period, he was never in the top 8 in batting average or OBP. only once did he finish in the top five in slugging pct. His HRs and RBIs look tremendous, but he never led the league in either category in his career.I like the guy and I might be the only person out there that is not sure if belongs, without steriods being the main issue. I just never really saw him at that dominating compared to his peers. Maybe you do, or more importantly, maybe my magical little issue of "dominance" is less important in others heads. That's fine. I can only tell you how I feel.As they say, I'm not sure if there is an exact formula for a player that must be in the HOF, but I'll know when I see it. Not sure I see it with Raffy.

So for instance you'd rather have an Albert Belle, somone who 'dominated' for stretch of 6-7 seasons vs a Palmeiro/Dawson? I think there's room for both. Longevity should matter.

 

[Dave Baker]

So for instance you'd rather have an Albert Belle, somone who 'dominated' for stretch of 6-7 seasons vs a Palmeiro/Dawson? I think there's room for both. Longevity should matter.

I don't think I'd include Belle over Dawson or Palmeiro.I'm not sure what you mean about room. Sure, there's room for anyone that hit 20 HRs. I just don't want the HOF to be filled with generic players (as I'm sure you don't).I think the HOF should be reserved for the best of the best. The cream of the crop. I'm not so sure those guys fit into that category for me. Sounds like they do for you, though. That's what opinions are for.

 

[Funkley]

So for instance you'd rather have an Albert Belle, somone who 'dominated' for stretch of 6-7 seasons vs a Palmeiro/Dawson? I think there's room for both. Longevity should matter.

I don't think I'd include Belle over Dawson or Palmeiro.I'm not sure what you mean about room. Sure, there's room for anyone that hit 20 HRs. I just don't want the HOF to be filled with generic players (as I'm sure you don't).I think the HOF should be reserved for the best of the best. The cream of the crop. I'm not so sure those guys fit into that category for me. Sounds like they do for you, though. That's what opinions are for.

Not really, I don't think either player (Rice or Dawson) should get in. I was just pointing out that imo, including Rice leads to a lot of tough questions regarding a lot of other players of his ilk. Close but not quite.

 

[Funkley]

And I do think that 9th all time in home runs is pretty darn close to being 'cream of the crop' whether people (me included) want to accept it or not.

 

[Dave Baker]

And I do think that 9th all time in home runs is pretty darn close to being 'cream of the crop' whether people (me included) want to accept it or not.

I don't. It's been an unprecedented era for hitting HRs. Rice would have hit 65 a year when healthy in the same era.

 

[Dave Baker]

I don't think either player (Rice or Dawson) should get in. I was just pointing out that imo, including Rice leads to a lot of tough questions regarding a lot of other players of his ilk. Close but not quite.

Your thoughts here are certainly more popular than mine, as evidenced by the votes.

 

[Hov34]

Ripken was both Dominant and had longevity.

Not only that, but he helped redefine a position. Before Ripken, you had two elite hitters at that position that I can think of. Eernie Banks and Arky Vaughan.

Ripken brought power as well as all of the fielding and fundamentals to a position which had never been known for much more than a good glove. That shouldn't go unnoticed.

Honus Wagner down?But I agree with your sentiments on Ripken. I sort of wish the whole "Iron Man" thing never happened, because in some people's eyes that is what they remember and not the fact that he was a dominate hitter while playing gold glove Shortstop.

I once had an argument on the radio with a local buffoon that was trying to say that Tino Martinez was a better player than Cal Ripken Jr. because Tino's career numbers were better and all Ripken had was the "Streak".

 

[oso diablo]

Rice would have hit 65 a year when healthy in the same era.

how do you come up with that?

 

[oso diablo]

my ballot:

1. Ripken

2. McGwire*

3. Gwynn

4. Blyleven

5. Trammell

6. Dale Murphy

7. Gossage

* This is where i had him ranked (among these players) when the FFA did its monumental all-time draft a couple of years ago. I'm still not sure how much of a "penalty" to enact due to the steriods stuff. I'd probably still have him 3rd and still on the ballot.

 

[oso diablo]

Did anyone ever vote in this - I thought it was awesome and looks better than the real HOF.

http://doug.obscurestuff.com/vhof.html

i used to vote in that. that was a crew that knew their stuff.

 

[Dave Baker]

Rice would have hit 65 a year when healthy in the same era.

how do you come up with that?

It was to make a point.

 

[oso diablo]

Rice would have hit 65 a year when healthy in the same era.

how do you come up with that?

It was to make a point.

ok. Sabermatricians actually try to figure out stuff like this. The folks at BP do "Davenport Translations" that translate each season's line into a modern era and park-neutral. For Jim Rice, they come up with 488 HR, with a peak of 62 in 1978.

Comparison to some other players mentioned in the thread:*

Player / Total / Peak / Seasons>40

Rice / 488 / 62 / 5

McGwire / 658 / 69 / 9

Dawson / 616 / 53 / 3

Mo Vaughn / 361 / 47 / 3

Murphy / 517 / 50 / 6

Belle / 467 / 66 / 7

Palmeiro / 663 / 49 / 8

Of course, HR is just one stat, and quite an overrated one at that, when it comes to HOF voting.

* Babe Ruth, btw, translates to 1066 HR, including 10 seasons of 60 or more!

 

[BoltzNBrew]

I would vote in this order.

1. Ripken

2. Gwynn

3. Rice

4. Goose

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Dead last. Mark McLier

 

[the moops]

I would vote in this order.1. Ripken2. Gwynn3. Rice4. Goose..........Dead last. Mark McLier

People need to get off their freakin high horses here a bit.He probably took steroids, along with the other half of baseball players. Who cares.