Quantcast

frye screamLast week, we asked the question and concluded that, no, Greg Maddux would not be a unanimous Hall of Fame inductee. Although he obviously should be, there are too many voters and too many potential crackpots out there for Maddux to achieve that highest of honors.

Now we have confirmation: Maddux will not be a unanimous selection, because Dodgers beat reporter Ken Gurnick did not vote for him. His ballot, and reasoning:

Jack Morris

Morris has flaws – a 3.90 ERA, for example. But he gets my vote for more than a decade of ace performance that included three 20-win seasons, Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons and Most Valuable Players votes in five. As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won’t vote for any of them.

So, Maddux, whose numbers are unbelievably fantastic (and comically better than Morris’s), gets punished for playing in an era where the pitching numbers he put up should be held as even more impressive?

Ken Gurnick was clearly out to make a statement with his Hall of Fame vote, and he succeeded.

The nature of that statement, and volume of expletives and drool involved, I will leave to your imagination.

  • Fishin Phil

    “Ken Gurnick was clearly out of his mind with his Hall of Fame vote.”

    Fixed that for you.

  • jh03

    What a joke.

    Is there a worse possible ballot someone could have filled out in order to make the internet explode?

  • DarthHater

    This means the BN Terms of Use are temporarily suspended as to Gurnick, right? :-D

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Lots of tongue-biting in order today …

  • hansman

    “But he gets my vote for more than a decade of ace performance that included three 20-win seasons”

    Ok, now he is just trolling everyone.

    Jack Morris and “more than a decade of ace performance” should immediately get you banished to Siberia.

    OR…ALTERNATE THEORY!!!! WE HAVE DISCOVERED WHO DIEHARD IS!!!!!

  • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

    Marty Noble’s was pretty good too. Only voted Maddux, Glavine, and Morris because he didn’t want too many people getting in at once

  • hansman

    Also:

    “As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won’t vote for any of them.”

    Jack Morris played in 1994, the year that the PED era started. Therefore, Jack Morris played during the period of PED use and he, therefore, voted for a player who played in the period of PED use.

    It is confirmed, he is trolling ALL baseball fans, EVER.

    • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

      I would argue the PED era started before that, in the late 80s with Canseco and McGwire in Oakland, making a lot more of Morris’ career in that timeframe

      • Coop

        Agreed.

    • jh03

      Just saw that 44% of his innings were in the PED era.. and, really, the PED era really started in the 60’s, right?

      • Pat

        Most likely yes. By 1985/86 steroid use had filtered down to the high school level and most certainly was existent in MLB no later than the late 70s. Now, it wasn’t half the league like it was in the late 90s, but it was there for the entirety of Morris’ career.

    • miggy80

      Couldn’t one even argue that the PED era started with the Bash Bros in Oakland about 1988? While the manager of that A’s team will probably be voted in to the Hall. I think Jack should be in Hall for his performance in game 7 1991 World Series alone. That type of thinking should get me a ballot.

      • ClevelandCubsFan

        Seriously? 1 game? I want Kerry Wood in there for the game. And while we’re at it–Frank Castillo for his 8 2/3 innings of no-hit ball that one night in 1993(?).

        • miggy80

          Ah, did you watch that game? It was game 7 of the World Series. He pitched 10 innings, duh. Greatest World Series ever. In fact anybody who was apart of that game should be in the Hall. Hell if Jack doesn’t get in then Smoltz shouldn’t get in.

          • miggy80

            Do I get a ballot yet?

            • Fishin Phil

              Yes, you may have Ken Gurnick’s.

            • jh03

              Close. Now you’ve just got to act like an entire era of baseball never happened and the players who played in that era are terrible people. Even though they saved the game and the MLB made TONS of money off of them.

          • ClevelandCubsFan

            Smoltz? You’re nuts! John Smoltz had 22.4 more WAR than Jack Morris. 22.4! (He played 3 years more, but those last 3 years only amassed 0.4 WAR, so in the first 18 years of each’s career, Smoltz posted 22 more WAR than Morris.) His peak 7 years are a little lower than Morris because he had a career that showed 5 very strong years, 1 down year, 5 very strong years, 2 down years, and 5 very strong years again. But despite that, his JAWS score is still 43% higher than Jack Morris. Smoltz is a borderline candidate in my mind. But he was way better than Morris.

            • miggy80

              “But he was way better than Morris”

              Except in that Game 7.

              [img]http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/289/9/e/Big_BangTheory__BazingaPoster_by_harmlessfangirl.jpg[/img]

      • DocPeterWimsey

        The PED era started before 1988, even There was talk of steroid use in sports going back into the mid-1980’s at least: when Johnson got busted in the Olympics in 1988, people noted that it was probably common among professional athletes at that time.

        Realistically, PED usage probably started about the time that players began to seriously lift weights and work out during the offseason. Steroid usage was pretty big in that larger “bench-pressing” crowd in the 1970s and 1980’s, anyway.

        Of course, if you include amphetamines as PEDs, then it goes back to the 1950’s at least.

  • Jason P

    At least once Jack Morris doesn’t get in this year, we won’t have to hear about him ever again.

    • ClevelandCubsFan

      Veteran’s Committee. Isn’t that still around in some form?

      • Jason P

        They are, but they rarely do anything.

        • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

          Well until someone who should be in the Hall dies. I’m still bitter that it took Santo’s death for him to get in.

          • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

            That’s probably a big part of why HOF stuff really gets to me, too.

            • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

              That’s why my disgust and diminishing interest in the hall really started.

              • Isaac

                Agreed. The Steroid Era, Ron Santo ridiculousness and idiot writers have tarnished this forever for me.

          • 70’s Cub

            agree with the Santo snub idiot writers…

        • ClevelandCubsFan

          Rarely is worse. It means we’re going to hear about him every year (every two years?). He might even turn into a Blyleven and start a virtual campaign to get in. You can see ESPN now– “On the phone, we have 3-time 20 game winner and former Cy Young Jack Morris about his prospects of getting in with the Veteran’s Committee. Jack! How are you doing, and tell us about this vote?” blah blah blah….

  • Leo the Lip

    Some voters just do not feel anyone should be voted in unanimously. Say what you may, and Maddox with get in his first time, there is something about how exclusive the Baseball Hall of Fame is. Also, career stats, IMO, are less important today as players tend to stick around a lot longer.

    • Patrick W.

      So he could have just not voted. A blank ballot is better than a ballot with one player, when that one player is so obviously the most debated amongst those who like traditional stats and those who like deeper stats. The problem being that Maddux is better than Morris in every single evaluation of those stats.

  • JB88

    It is a joke that he didn’t vote for Maddux. It is equally a joke (in my mind at least) the amount of attention this nonstory is getting. Who cares if Maddux goes in unanimous or not? He’s going in on his first ballot, with likely over 95% of the vote. The rest is just noise generated by a society that needs a story and needs controversy 24/7.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      That’s, like, your opinion, man.

      To me, the fact that Maddux should be unanimous is self-evident. The fact that he won’t be – and we always knew he wouldn’t be – says something really f’d up about this process. And if you care at all about the Hall of Fame (which is completely some folks’ right not to care about), this all matters a great deal. Since I do care, it’s going to get plenty of attention from me.

      • JB88

        But there are literally scores of players who should have been unanimous. There are also a handful of players who could be included in the Hall, but for a variety of reasons won’t be.

        The real beauty of the Hall has always been its exclusivity. It is limited and in years when no one deserves to be enshrined, no one is enshrined. The story is rarely—and it never should be in my opinion—about whether someone makes the Hall unanimously or not. That’s noise in my opinion. The question is and always should be “will someone make it?”. There is no doubt Maddux will make it, will make it comfortably, and those who are hung up on his percentage (in my opinion) are focused on a narrative that really doesn’t matter in either the short or long term.

        • noisesquared

          My issue is this: if you’re going to exclude Maddux from your ballot, I would like to see a coherent reason why. A pitcher like Maddux, who put up mind-blowing numbers during the juiced ball/juiced player era, will go down as one of the greatest pitchers ever. He’s HOF material without any doubt, yet someone finds a ridiculous made up reason to exclude him from the ballot. It’s a joke.

          The HOF concept has become antiquated in the information age. I can go online and see who the greatest players in history are, and see all of the era-relative statistics and history you’ll ever need. I don’t need to go to a building in Cooperstown to see this, and any interest I may have had in doing so is long gone. The only people the HOF matters to are the players who’ve given their lives to the game for a chance at earning this honor. The fact that entrance to this club is presided over by a select group that includes several unqualified and often spiteful idiots is a shame.

      • hansman

        Richard Justice at your linked article says it best:

        “At a time when there are more and better ways to analyze players, balloting seems to be getting dumber.”

  • Kyle

    Now let’s all talk about him and give him lots of clicks and attention. He’ll *hate* that.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      It’s the essence of trolling.

      But, in this case, his vote has an institutional impact (however little one may or may not care about such things). Public shaming – though it comes with the lamentable attachment of attention – is necessary.

      • Fishin Phil

        I prefer a good public stoning to public shaming.

        • DarthHater

          I prefer a public demonstration of the destructive power of my fully operational battle station…

          • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

            Do it Darth lets Alderaan these pathetic writers.

            • DarthHater

              Okay, but it’s a blunt instrument, so, like, the whole planet will have to go.

      • Isaac

        He just has to be held accountable for this. It’s lunacy and he should lose his voting privileges.

  • Webb

    If there is a character clause for players to enter the hall of fame there should be a character clause for the voters who choose those players. It’s incomprehensibly disappointing that a person with as much class and dignity as Greg Maddux is forced to suffer fools such as Mr. Gurnick for but the sake of his need for attention.

    The entire PED discussion is based on the notion of fair play, yet this writer can’t find the guts to offer any for perhaps the most deserving baseball player in fifty years.

    What a shame.

  • ClevelandCubsFan

    Take his vote away. There should be two questions on the ballot for the voters:

    1. Which candidates on this list who, if not voted for by some writer, that writer would lose all credibility as a voter in your eyes?

    2. Which candidates on this list who, if voted for by some writer, that writer would lose all credibility as a voter in your eyes?

    If 90% of writers name someone in answer to one of those questions (e.g., Greg Maddux to #1), then anyone who voted in a way that 90% of the writers would perceive that voter as having lost all credibility (e.g., Ken Gurnick) would lose his or her votes for life.

    That’s a very strong “punishment” (although, taking away a privilege is not really a punishment), but these confluences of votes would occur rarely and only serve to remove the absolutely asinine.

    • DocPeterWimsey

      Well, people like Gurnick are to baseball what alchemists are to nature: people who spent a lot of time watching stuff without ever having the vaguest idea of what they were seeing because they used such incredibly wrong premises in the first place.

      Morris was a good pitcher, but he was never a great one. There is the “big game” hokum for the baseball alchemists like Gurnick, but that is just that: a lot of it was Morris getting to pitch post-season games against mediocre teams like the 1984 Royals and Padres that shouldn’t have been in post-season in the first place.

  • JulioZuleta

    I had never heard of this Gurnick fellow until today. Guess that means he accomplished his mission. What a disgrace.

  • Voice of Reason

    Who cares about the hall of fame? Its a joke.

    I wish all media wouldn’t even report on it.

    All you’ll hear is now the sports writers just won’t vote anyone in then first ballot.

    Nobody cares about the hall (unless we are talking drew hall) and nobody goes there anymore.

    Maddux was the best pure pitcher of my generation, period. I know that. I don’t care what the so called sports writers think or say or vote.

  • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

    I’ve really lost complete respect for the BBWAA in the few years. Every year the use the HOF ballot to get attention and make meaningless statements. The HOF has becomes tarnished for me not because of steroids but because of these pathetic voters.

  • Blackhawks1963

    Ridiculous that Maddux didn’t get this idiot’s vote. Oh well, some of these writers are on a power kick and this “but not on the first ballot” crap is just stupid. If you are Hall worthy, then you should be voted into the Hall at the first opportunity, period.

    My vote for the Hall is

    Maddux
    Glavine
    Thomas
    Morris — yes, I strongly believe he should be in the Hall having watched his career firsthand — he was an outstanding workhorse for over a decade and Detroit doesn’t win a World Series without him — ditto Minnesota at the end of his career.

    • Blackhawks1963

      Oops. Forgot to include Biggio who should be in the Hall.

    • DocPeterWimsey

      Detroit won the 1984 WS the moment the ball rolled through Durham’s legs.

    • 70’s Cub

      Blachhawks1963 do you think Theo would trade as part of the Cub rebuild a young Biggio production for a young Jack Morris production? I like Biggio for the Hall, but I let three Biggio’s go for one Jack Morris in fact Biggio would have to learn another position if he was on the same team as Kent, Tommy Herr, and Davey Lopes to name a few. Morris/Gibson/Trammell….what a rebuild foundation, the Cubs need to develop their talent to be “title competitive” make these young guys compete and win all the way through a deep farm system.

  • JulioZuleta

    “As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won’t vote for any of them.”

    That is hilarious. If he would have said “period of steroid use,” it would have been less hilarious, but still pretty damn funny. It’s common knowledge that players used amphetamines, essentially Adderall, since the early 1900s. Even if we restrict it to the arbitrary era known as the “steroid era,” the lines are still very blurry. It had defininitely started by the mid to late 80s, but when did it end? Has it even ended? There are still suspensions every year; wouldn’t that mean that this is still a “period of PED use”? I could make a strong argument that the Steroid Era went until at least 2008. Clayton Kershaw debuted in 2008…will this Dodgers’ beat reporter leave Kershaw off his ballot someday (assuming he is otherwise worthy (which, barring injury, appears to be a certainty))?

    • Blackhawks1963

      Steroids were / are different than greenies.

      A big fat NO in terms of Hall of Fame admission for Bagwell, Piazza, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Giambi, McGwire, Palmiero. Remove them from the damned ballot in fact.

      • ClevelandCubsFan

        Why Piazza? I’ve not heard anything on him. Bagwell there’s been rumors but little concrete. What’s your rationale on those two?

        • bbmoney

          Backne and the eye test obviously. Gut feelings are all that are required here.

      • Voice of Reason

        Blackhawks1963,

        You’re a funny dude.

        So, now its OK to take one drug to enhance play, but not another. And, your the authoritive source on what drug helps.people more.

        Bottom line is all of bonds home runs went over the fence. Ditto McGwire. They belong in the hall because of those accomplishments.

        If you want to.blame.someone then blame major league baseball. They knew players were on roids, but didn’t stop it cause the money was rolling in. Since they didnt stop it right when they knew then you can’t be judge and jury on each drug or situation. Just let them in if they put up worthy numbers.

      • Norm

        “Steroids were / are different than greenies.”

        haha. love it.

  • ClevelandCubsFan

    There’s all kinds of other stupidity in these ballots….

    Marty Noble: “I don’t want 28 people entering the Hall at once, so I limited my checks on the ballot to three.” (including Morris…)

    Also more voted for Morris than Kent (best 2B of era?), McGriff (best non-steroid-tainted 1B of era?), Trammell (best AL SS of era?), and Raines (2nd best base-stealer of all time? one of best all-around players of era?)

    • ClevelandCubsFan

      Sorry, more voted for Morris than Kent, McGriff, and Raines combined (13-9). Not Trammell in that mix.

      • Blackhawks1963

        Yes to Morris in my opinion.

        Maybe to Trammel.

        No to Raines, McGriff (are you kidding me on this).

        Maybe someday on Kent (but I’m inclined to say no)

        • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

          Why to Morris? I still don’t understand the Morris love, I think a lot of the writers were really active during that era and have fandom memories of him. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be on the ballot but he’s not a HOF pitcher.

        • ClevelandCubsFan

          I didn’t’t say any of those guys SHOULD be in. But I think McGriff is hands down more deserving than Morris.

          1. McGriff’s JAWS score is higher. More WAR for career and more WAR at peak.
          http://mlb.si.com/2013/12/04/jaws-and-the-2014-hall-of-fame-ballot-jack-morris/
          http://mlb.si.com/2012/12/19/jaws-and-the-2013-hall-of-fame-ballot-fred-mcgriff/

          2. McGriff’s WAR is below average for a HOF 1B. BUT, keep in mind the guy was slugging his way against steroid-induced pitchers. I imagine the offensive replacement threshold was pretty high in that era.

          3. This guy has not even a whiff of steroids about him.

          4. Despite that he hit nearly 500 HR while hitting .284 (if you like old stats) and an .886 OPS (134 OPS+).

          Do I think that makes McGriff a Hall of Famer? I wouldn’t go that far. But it’s an important conversation to have, and he was more valuable than Jack Morris in a much more difficult era for a clean hitter. Discuss amongst yourselves.

          • Patrick W.

            And Tim Raines is absolutely deserving of Hall of Fame status.

            He had a long sustained peak of production and a very productive, in fact elite, rate of production for his career. He is the second most efficient base stealer of all time while being the fifth highest base stealer of all time.

            294/.385/.425 (123 OPS+)
            2,605 hits
            70 home runs, 808 stolen bases
            69.1 WAR

            • DocPeterWimsey

              What hurt Raines is that people didn’t catch on to the fact that *getting on base* (as opposed to hitting 0.300) was what was important until late in his career. Remember, even in 1995, most baseball writers didn’t know for what “OBP” stood.

              Raines early career cocaine issues probably also left a “character” cloud over his head. It was common for the baseball alchemists to refer to Raines as a head case (or something synonymous), although there was no evidence of it that I ever read and other ballplayers seemed to both like and esteem him.

              • Patrick W.

                I think it also doesn’t help that his career overlapped so nicely with Ricky Henderson, who was clearly better, and that his best years came in Montreal. If Raines had played in an alternate universe where Ricky Henderson didn’t exist, Raines would be in the Hall right now.

                • JB88

                  I actually think that him playing in Montreal was actually worse for his career than him playing opposite Henderson.

                  I’d actually modify your statement to be: “If Raines had played in an alternate universe where Montreal didn’t have a ML team, Raines would be in the Hall right now.”

                • DocPeterWimsey

                  Those are good addenda. Raines was perceived as “Rickey Light” (now with added first person pronouns!). He wasn’t Rickey Henderson, but, quite frankly, I don’t think that people appreciated just how great Henderson was at the time. (Rickey did, though!)

                  The Montreal thing also hurt.

                  Indeed, I remember hoping against hope that the Cubs would sign Raines in 1987, after Dawson was signed. Of course, Green broke the collusion badly enough by signing Dawson: he wasn’t going to risk it with Raines, too. That’s a shame: just think of what a 1-2-3-4 punch of Raines-Sandberg-Grace-Dawson could have been…..

                  • DocPeterWimsey

                    I would add that something similar probably hurt Santo for years. Having his career truncated by diabetes obviously hurt, but Mike Schmidt and George Brett put up their ridiculous 3B numbers immediately afterwards. Ron was great: but those two were in their own special league.

                  • Patrick W.

                    I wrote a letter to the Chicago Sun Times suggesting that same thing. :(

                    Also for Santo: Brooks Robinson’s defensive wizardry.

              • Voice of Reason

                If raines did a line before he went up to the plate then that enhanced his speed!! He would never have stole that.many bases without cocaine. He should not be in the hall if bonds isn’t going to be voted in.

                And, guys who drank coffee before games should not be voted in. That is a stimulant too!

                • Patrick W.

                  To whom are you making that point? It doesn’t fit this string.

    • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

      Don’t forget Biggio and those 3000 hits, because he surely doesn’t belong because he played during the steroid era. I was mad that Sosa and Bonds didn’t get in with their 600 HR but Biggo getting shunned last year was beyond stupid. If we are going to have these magical HOF benchmarks then vote those players in.

  • jh03

    I want to hear a reasonable argument for Morris getting in. Please, someone.

    • Blackhawks1963

      Morris should absolutely be in the Hall. I watched him pitch for Detroit and he was the definition of workhorse and big game pitcher. Among the top 3 or 4 pitchers in the decade of the 80’s. Major part of that great 1984 Detroit World Series team, and a major part of Minnesota winning a World Series during the sunset phase of his career.

      I look at things generationally. Morris was among the elite of his generation on the mound. If the Hall is going to include Niekro, Sutton, Blyleven, Perry then absolutely positively Morris should be in the Hall.

      • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy
        • hansman

          So what you are actually saying is that Morris was the worst (of guys who pitched each year of the decade) pitcher of the 80’s?

          That isn’t right, he has the most wins!!!!!!!!

          YOU TOOK ER NURRATIVE!!!!!!!

          • ClevelandCubsFan

            Hansman. I Think you misunderstandsl. That (fantastic) article argues that Morris was one of the best pitchers of the 80s. But among the best of the 80s, he was one of the worst. Our put another way, he was something like the 10th best pitcher of the 80s. Everyone should have wanted him. hut everyone should have wanted several other guys more if they knew what was best for their teams.

            • hansman

              I did a poor job of framing the “worst of the best” bit.

              You have to be good to get as many starts as he did but he is clearly NOT the best pitcher of the 80’s nor did he define “Ace” during the 80’s. (Several of the writers at that MLB.com article mentioned this)

              It’s like trying to argue that Mark Burhle was the best pitcher of the 2000’s. Or that Adam Wainwright is it in the 2010’s or that (ironically) John Smoltz was the best pitcher of the 90’s.

              Was he good, sure. Should a lot of teams wanted him, yes. Was he the greatest pitcher of the 80’s? No.

              • 70’s Cub

                Morris was a foundational piece for the Tiger rebuild, durable beyond description, a champion, 13 time all star, bullpen saver that allowed his mangers to expend bullpen resources for the other games. His managers consistently handed him the ball to start, allstar games, WS game 1 game 7. Damn right a lot of teams wanted him in today’s money think the Yanks CC. Over worked yes will he comeback? I would not bet against CC bringing home another title. By the way Mark Burhle has a WS title as well..

      • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

        “I watched him pitch for Detroit and he was the definition of workhorse and big game pitcher.”

        Wow if that’s all it takes the HOF should be 20 times as large.

      • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

        So anybody you saw and was scrappy is in the hall.

      • jh03

        Nothing you said would classify as a good reason for a player to make it into the Hall of Fame. I’m not being a jerk, I just really want an *actual* argument for him.

      • Norm

        Frank Viola led a decade in Wins too. Just had the misfortune of not starting that decade on a nice round number like 1980. Also won 1 more Cy than Morris did.

        • Patrick W.

          This is the best post on this subject to date.

    • cub-hub

      This is not about him voting for Morris. This is not even about him not voting for Maddux. This is about why he chose not to vote for Maddux.

      • jh03

        I understand the point of the article. I was asking as a side topic.

      • ClevelandCubsFan

        It’s about both, all of the above, everything. Jack Morris? Foolish vote. Jack Morris over Greg Maddux? Asinine vote. No Greg Maddux because he pitched in the steroid era? WTF vote.

    • Patrick W.

      Michael Schur (as Ken Tremendous) did a nice takedown on Morris here:

      http://deadspin.com/vote-for-jack-morris-and-shut-up-about-game-7-already-1480464849

      The bit about the World Series clinching game in 1992 is great.

      • 70’s Cub

        By 1992 he probably logged over 3000 innings, I am not really into micro stats Michael Schur is a hack

  • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

    Shame there is a 10 player limit, this is what I’d have

    Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Kent, Maddux, Martinez, McGwire, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Sosa, Thomas, Trammel, Walker

    • cub-hub

      No to Bagwell, Biggie, Bonds, Clemens, Kent, McGwire, Piazza, Raines(?), Sosa for steroid use.

      No to Mussina or Schilling(I honestly believed this guy used steroids, even he claims he hates the users) for not being worthy.

      • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

        If you to choose to leave out steroid guys, that’s fine, but please explain why you say no to Mussina??

        • cub-hub

          I think Mussina was a good pitcher. And that’s the reason. He was only good. When I think hall worthy, I think great pitchers. Mussina to me was never dominant. He never had but one full dominant season, and that was his first full year in baseball. He was always consistently good. He did do it for a while, so there is something. If he gets in, I wouldn’t be upset, but unless I just needed to vote for someone, he wouldn’t get my vote.

          • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

            11 years of 200+ innings, 12 years of an ERA+ over 130, finished in the top 5 in Cy Young voting 8 times in his career. That makes one of the best pitchers of his era. Look at the stats, his are as good if not better than Glavine.

            • cub-hub

              Fine. Those are nice numbers. His ERA+ is actually only 123. Plus that ERA+ only looks that good because he played doing an offensive era (the steroid era). 1/3 of his seasons were mediocre or even bad. And he never had that dominant run of 5-7 seasons that guys like maddux and even Glavine had. From 91-98 Glavine was never great and never worse then good. I can think of stretches like that where Mussina was good but never great. That’s still good but I still don’t see a hall of fame guy when I look at him. Like I said, I don’t have a problem with him getting in, I just wouldn’t vote him.

              • cub-hub

                Meant to say from 91-98, Glavine was great and never worse than good.

              • hansman

                ERA plus compares him to the league average ERA so it is an incredibly useful tool in comparing how good a pitcher’s ERA is across eras.

                To put it another way, a 123 ERA+ in 1998 means the same exact thing as an ERA+ of 123 in 2013 or 1910.

                “ERA measured against the league average, and adjusted for ballpark factors. An ERA+ over 100 is better than average, less than 100 is below average. The specific formula divides the league ERA by the pitcher’s ERA (and adjusts for ballpark). So an ERA+ of 125, for instance, means that the league ERA was 25% higher than the pitcher’s ERA (which means that the pitcher’s ERA was 80% of the league ERA). Careful with those ratios.”

                http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/statpages/glossary/#era+

                This would also give him an ERA- of 80.

                http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/era-fip-xfip/

                • cub-hub

                  I understand what ERA+ is, which is why I said it only looks that good because of the era he played in. Yes a 125 ERA+ in different years means that a pitcher, in terms of ERA, was as valuable as another pitcher in 2 different different season. However, it does not mean that one pitched as well as the other.

              • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

                Like Hansman said, ERA+ is probably the best measure to compare players across generations, and if you take a look, Mussina’s is higher than Glavine’s

          • Norm

            6 top 5 finishes in Cy Young, plus 3 more 6th place finishes and he’s not a dominant pitcher?

            • cub-hub

              Look up his numbers. There aren’t great. Cy Young and MVP votes are as about foolish as all-star and HOF votes, if not worse. He did as well as he did in some of those votes because he played for the big market Yankees. Most of those accolades came when he was with the Yanks despite the fact that he was better when he was an Oriole. Like I said, I like Mussina. Nothing against him, but I don’t think he is a Hall guy.

              • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

                Cy Young and MVP votes compare you to those in your generation, and by the way, only 2 of those top finishes came with the Yankees, all the others with the Orioles.

                Do yourself a favor and look at his numbers, they are fantastic

                http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

                • cub-hub

                  I have had his numbers up this whole conversation and numerous times before and I’m honestly not to impressed, which is why I say no. 6 seasons with and ERA over 4 in 18 season. One full season with a sub 3 ERA. In 22 seasons, Glavine had 6 season over 4 and 6 season under 3. From 91-98, Glavine was under 3 five times. I can’t find d such a run for Mussina. Like I said, Mussina was a consistently good pitcher, but never dominant for any extended stretch.

                  • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

                    There are stats other than ERA. For one of them, check out the K/BB rate

                    • cub-hub

                      I agree. For trying to gauge future performance when evaluating a player to determine what kind of contract to give them or if they can help you win, those stats are important. But when looking back on players no longer playing, how many runs they generated for offense and how many runs they prevented for pitching is all I need to see. Who gave up less runs. I know defense and all that has some to do with it, but the pitcher who gave up less runs is what’s ultimately important in the end, because that’s what wins games. Glavine simply had a longer stretch of dominance.

              • Norm

                “He did as well as he did in some of those votes because he played for the big market Yankees. Most of those accolades came when he was with the Yanks”

                Uh, this is flat out wrong. He only had one top 5 and one 6th place while with the Yanks.

                Moose had a better ERA+, more K’s, almost half (HALF!!!) the walks, a much better WHIP than Glavine. Even if you want to say Glavine is better, Mussina is right there with him.

                So, unless Glavine is the worst pitcher you’d put in the Hall, Mussina belong there too.
                And he’s leaps and bounds more deserving than Morris, so anyone voting Morris and leavin Moose off is just not doing their homework.

                • cub-hub

                  I think the Hall should be the best of the best. I’m not even sold on Glavine. If he gets in, fine. If he doesn’t fine. I would vote Glavine over Mussina, but neither pitcher knocks my socks off.

                  • Norm

                    I don’t understand what ‘best of the best’ means. Would that be a Hall of Fame of a single player?

  • cub-hub

    I have stated before that I can understand any writer not voting for Maddux for a few different reasons. However, this is not good reason. I have no problem with anything he said about Morris. However, Maddux has never been connected to steroids at all. I have been adamant about no PED users in the Hall. But if I feel this way, then Maddux should definitely be in, as he put up his numbers, I believe, against steroid users, without using steroids.

    Not voting for Maddux because you know he’ll get in and you feel your 10 votes are more valuable elsewhere? Perfect reasoning.

    Not voting for Maddux because he “played” but didnt use doing the steroid era? IDIOTIC.

  • Brandon

    This is why I really dont give a damn about the HOF anymore. They need to change everything about it. *No way in hell should jealous writers get a vote(sorry you weren’t good enough to play MLB and had to “settle” for a writing job).The whole thing has become a joke. If you waste your vote or dont use it you should lose the right to vote, let people who actually know and love the game get a vote. *( Not talking about you Brett.)

    • cub-hub

      Honestly, there is no one in sports that sees more of that sport than the sports writers. If anyone is going to vote, shouldn’t it be the the guys who see more of the games. That doesn’t change that some guys are idiots, but I don’t think the process should be changed.

      • Drew7

        “Honestly, there is no one in sports that sees more of that sport than the sports writers.”

        Except many of these guys haven’t covered a game in over a decade.

  • Fastball

    I have no problem with him voting for Morris he was very good. Good enough to be a HOW guy. But this clown had 10 names to plug in on this ballot. Maddux and Galvin were the best of their era IMO. This is why sports writers should not be part of the process. I find that I rarely give two seconds of give a damn as to what they have to say about players or the sport.

    • http://bleachernation 29bigcat

      Amen

  • Senor Cub

    Mad Dog was simply the best I have ever seen in my life. The “REAL” baseball world knows that he is a HOF. Doesn’t matter what some writer thinks. It’s hard enough to get 2 people to agree on something so why would this be any different. He’s a HOF in my book, which ultimately is much more important!

  • http://mccarronlegal.com jmc

    absolutely hard to see that Maddox would be associated with amphtitmines or PED. he was a skinny guy with absolutely breathtaking stuff. In today’s world his drugs of choice would probably be Mountain Dew and Cheetos while he played video games.a nerds nerd

    • ClevelandCubsFan

      Not just skinny. He looked kinda frumpy. lol

  • http://bleachernation 29bigcat

    While i feel morris should get in..no way should maddog get less than 100% of the vote…..the wins which do matter…the gold gloves…the team wins,era…you name it the maddog done it…one of the all time greats…

  • Norm

    What’s funny is that steroids first appeared in the Olympics in the 50’s, then the NFL only a few years later, but people believe they didn’t appear in baseball until the 90’s.

    • half_full_beer_mug

      Funny how that works isn’t it.

  • Mr Gonzo

    IMHO, attention-seeking HOF ballot wielders who are trying to make a blanket statement on the Steroids Era are creating a controversy of their own.. and will also be looked back upon by history as problematic curmudgeons. There’s always at least one @$$hole…

    • cub-hub

      As long as none of the steroid guys get, I’m good with their controversy. It sucks for some guys, but i’m glad people are taking a stand.

  • Spoda17

    A lot of writers put a lot of thought into their ballots. This moron is a perfect example on why the system is so flawed. This JA should not be given the privilege to vote at all. This is clearly all about him, and his notoriety, and nothing to do with the Hall of Fame. It’s not even about Madux.

    • 70’s Cub

      That I agree with, by opening his mouth and getting attention should be reason enough to strip him of voting in the future.

    • baldtaxguy

      So true. He obviously can vote as he sees fit, no matter how flawed is his judgement. Regardless how he voted, he did not have to make it public. He just wanted a story. If he votes for Maddux, it is not a story. This is why he should not have the privilege to vote – he can’t possibly believe the view he has created to make his story.

  • NorthSideIrish

    I’ve seen people make reference to Bagwell as a steroid user, but I’ve never heard a case beyond he was muscular and/or teammates with Caminiti. As far I can find he never failed a test, was never named in any of the major reports, and was never directly connected to any rumors. It seems like all the suspicion is based on people saying he got more muscular.

    Am I missing some story?

    • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

      I think that just about covers it, any power hitter from that era is now lumped into the “well he must have been on roids” conversation. Now I do suspect him and almost any other player from that era was using PED but that was because nobody cared and it was basically encouraged. I’m certain these same writers loved the Mac/Sosa chase to 61 and discussed the greatness of Bond, I hate this revisionist writer bullshit that has been happening in the last few years.

    • cub-hub

      I don’t know that he used, but if a reporter has suspicion on any player, to me that’s enough to keep them out. I think things should be almost perfect to receive a vote, and not just on steroids. There is no entitlement to the hall. So if I’m a voter, I`m going to come up with reasons not to vote for you, and the ones I can’t find enough reason to not vote for them, I will vote for them.

    • noisesquared

      I’d love to see the Hall adopt something like this:

      – All players must be voted in strictly based on on-field performance; any writer who uses the HOF ballot for any other agenda will lose their vote
      – Any player credibly linked with PED’s or suspended for PED use will be denied eligibility for HOF induction for 10 years from first eligible year
      – Said 10 year players will also not be allowed to give an HOF induction speech; the HOF induction will just be a package of career highlights/etc.
      – The HOF sets up a new wing for the ‘juiced’-era (let the marketing wiz’s figure out how to present it), to showcase the players and accomplishments of the 90’s up to the implementation of PED testing. Denial that the 90’s did not happen is a bad plan going forward.

      This hopefully forces voters to concentrate on voting for deserving players and frees them from any moral debate over PED’s. PED players are punished, but not completely excluded. And baseball begins to figure out how to incorporate that era into it’s history, which needs to happen soon.

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+