OT - Maddux, Thomas, Glavine voted into Hall of Fame

Submitted by Cold War on January 8th, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Maddox received 97.2% of the votes, followed by Glavine with 91.9% and Thomas with 83.7%.

Craig Biggio fell just short of the 75% threshold, garnering 74.8%, two votes shy. In his 15th and final year, Jack Morris fell of the ballot with 61.5%. In between was Mike Piazza at 62.2% in his second year.

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2014/01/08/baseball-hall-of-fame-election-greg-maddux-tom-glavine-frank-thomas-craig-biggio/4372235/

Comments

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

January 8th, 2014 at 2:46 PM ^

I think it's easier to make a case for Morris's exclusion than his inclusion.  Personally I think, based on who's in already, that Alan Trammell has a better case than Morris.  (That said, anyone who says "but his ERA!" should be forced to defend Harmon Killebrew's .256 batting average.)  However, I've been rooting for Morris and I hope (and rather expect) the veterans' committee will put him in.  The writers basically gave the middle finger to the '84 Tigers.

LSAClassOf2000

January 8th, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^

Baseball Reference has the full ballot listing here - LINK - and SBNation has the results - HERE

Glavine, Thomas and Maddux were all in their first year on the ballot. I still find it remarkable that Greg Maddux was not a unanimous selection, but that's just me. 

Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza and Jack Morris were the next three, with Biggio falling mere tenths short of 75%. 

Space Coyote

January 8th, 2014 at 3:05 PM ^

There have been so many now I've struggled to keep track to some degree. But haven't at least some of Biggio, Piazza, and Bagwell (guys that finished above Bonds in %) linked at least through sources about PEDs? Maybe I'm confusing names here.

And as much as I'd like to see Edger Martinez get in, I find it hard to justify with only being a DH (though there are certainly players that hardly constituted as better field players that are in the HOF based on their batting).

GoBLUinTX

January 8th, 2014 at 3:52 PM ^

Timothy Kurkjian was on M & M stating that he knew of other voters that refuse to vote for any player from the PED era.  If for no other reason that's why Maddux wasn't a unanimous vote.

Personally I wouldn't have voted for Greg Maddux because his brother Mike looks like he uses shoe polish on his moustache.  :)

teamgreg8

January 8th, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^

Greg Maddux was my favorite pitcher growing up. I appreciated how he wouldn't try to over-power dudes, but rather used pitch placement to his advantage. Humble dude too. Congrats to Glavine and Thomas as well.

Magnus

January 8th, 2014 at 2:45 PM ^

I wanted to be Frank Thomas when I was a kid. Tight end for Auburn, first baseman for the White Sox... I used to love watching him hit.

Yeoman

January 8th, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^

I used to help in the volunteer office at the U. of Chicago Hospital, and Thomas was a frequent visitor at the pediatric unit. A lot of athletes and celebrities do stuff like that for the PR value but Thomas was great with the kids and clearly loved being there for them. He was, by far, my favorite of the celebrity visitors. Seemed like a really, really good guy.

MGoGrendel

January 8th, 2014 at 2:54 PM ^

Very low key lifestyle. On one series in Chicago, he pitched one day and took his family to Six Flags the next day. No one in the crowds recognized him, so he enjoyed a normal family day. Refreshing.

teamgreg8

January 8th, 2014 at 2:55 PM ^

Along the HoF vein, I hope that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens never get voted in. I was listening to ESPN on the radio at lunch and Bram Weinstein and J Coachman were talking about how if you took 20% of their production away (conservative by their estimation), to account for the advantage that PED's afforded them, they still had Hall numbers.

 

Doesn't matter!!!

 

The bottom line is that they cheated. I don't care that a large portion or the majority of the sport was using PED's. I understand it's going to be a HUGE mess in the future to try and identify players who cheated. There will probably be players who cheated but just never got caught being inducted into the Hall, and that's a shame. Just make sure Bonds, Clemens, and A-Rod don't get in, voters.

champswest

January 8th, 2014 at 3:20 PM ^

Until they put Rose and Morris into the Hall, the whole thing is just crap.

I will restate my position on voting, other than political elections, any voting result doesn't mean anything. That goes for AP polls, Heisman, All American, Hall of Fame, etc. Only results on the playing field really mean anything.

teamgreg8

January 8th, 2014 at 3:31 PM ^

From the standpoint of affecting games, I think Rose's gambling is less offensive than Bonds and Clemens' PED's. I believe it's more likely that Bonds and Clemens, through PED's, won extra games and got extra hits/HR's and W's/K's due to the PED's than the Reds, with Rose putting money down on them, won more games than they deserved to.

 

I quasi-agree, but rules are rules. Sorry, Pete, you should have waited for the anonymity of sportsbook.ag.

jmdblue

January 8th, 2014 at 5:01 PM ^

If a guy nicks the ball or corks his bat he's cheating, but trying to win (in a charmingly old-school and risky fashion).  If a guy uses roids he's cheating and trying to win ( in a far more effective and dirty manner).  If a guy is betting on baseball, particularly his own team, he's calling into question whether what the fans are watching is real.  Is he really trying to win? If baseball is really just pro wraslin' then I guess the wraslin' is more exciting.

Rose should never, ever, sniff the Hall of Fame.

Ender

January 8th, 2014 at 3:21 PM ^

I think this comes down to what (or who) a hall of fame is for.  Is it for the players or the fans?  Is it primarily a way to honor greats, or primarily a history museum?  I think it should be the latter, so I'm in the camp of letting guys in regardless of transgressions if they were significant enough historically.  In the hall, note (perhaps prominently) what those transgressions were.

Hello_Heisman

January 8th, 2014 at 2:57 PM ^

ERA and WHIP were on the high side, but 250+ wins, 4 World Series, Ace of 3 different staffs (Tigers, Twins, Jays), finished Top 5 in the Cy Young race multiple times, one no hitter, high strikeout rate and possibly the greatest game ever pitched in baseball history, Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.  Glavine had more wins than Morris and a better ERA, but Morris was a better big-game pitcher who threw with more power.  I'd take Maddux over both, but would take Morris over Glavine if I needed to win a World Series game. 

The real travesty isn't that Morris didn't get in this year, it's that he didn't get in LAST year when the baseball writers didn't vote a single player in.  With Glavine, Maddux and Thomas on the ballot this year, it was going to be tough for Morris to get in on the last try.  But he belongs in the Hall unless we're pretending the 12 year period from 1981-1993 didn't exist. 

During the balance of that period, the only starting pitchers in baseball better than Morris were Roger Clemens and Nolan Ryan.  Dave Stieb, Brett Saberhagen, Fernando Valenzuela, Doc Gooden, Mike Scott, Dave Stewart and some other guys all had better individual years along the way.  But none of them could sustain that excellence the way Morris and Clemens did.  Clemens and Ryan were clearly a couple notches above Morris, but I find it impossible to believe that no other starting pitchers from that era should be considered Hall of Fame worthy.  Jack Morris was one of the best of that era and should be recognized accordingly. 

 

ca_prophet

January 8th, 2014 at 4:24 PM ^

You can't win if you don't score, so the pitcher can almost never be solely responsible for the win - not even Game Seven. Morris would have nearly the best average run support of any pitcher in the Hall had he made it. His case is driven by narrative, not performance - and I say this as a Tigers fan who was fortunate enough to be in the park for his Chicago no-hitter.

The things a pitcher can control are strikeouts, walks and home runs allowed. Morris was good but not great at any of those. His primary virtue is that he was very durable; that's not nothing but it's not Hall-worthy.

Morris will be among the three worst pitchers in the Hall when the Veterans Committee inevitably elects him. I loved having him on my team and rooted for him, and will be happy for him when he's in the Hall, but he's not one of the best pitchers who ever lived.

Hello_Heisman

January 8th, 2014 at 5:08 PM ^

But in that Game 7 against Atlanta, Morris came the closest a pitcher can come to winning a game by himself.  He pitched 10 full innings without giving up a single run.  The pitcher can't win games by himself because he's not responsible for producing runs, but if he holds the other team to zero runs for a full game you have to figure he's contributed pretty significantly to the win. 

I know that Morris is definitely a borderline candidate and I would never put him in the same category as guys like Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, etc.  But he was still one of the best pitchers of his era, and that era seems to be way under-represented in the HOF.  It's like the voters insist on punishing the Steroid Era players for cheating, but then simultaneously punish the Pre-Steroid Era players for not having the gaudy stats of the players in the Steroid Era who cheated.  Which one is it, guys?

MidMichiganLaurence

January 8th, 2014 at 4:49 PM ^

...."And that wasn't just in one unforgettable World Series game in 1991. It was in start after start, for 18 seasons. These are Verducci's numbers, not mine -- but I refuse to ignore the fact that, from 1979 to 1992, Morris racked up 18 percent more innings than any other pitcher in his sport. And made it through the eighth inning 45 percent more often than any other pitcher in his sport."

 

Morris was a beast. Also, how is Maddux NOT a unanimous pick? Who the hell left him off the ballot?? Shameful

Mike60586

January 8th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^

They added an update to the story:

 

[Update: Dan wants to make clear that he insisted on not getting anything for his vote.]

 

I also thought it was a good thing.  I know he is worried about being stripped of future votes, but it was a great way to prove a point.

RDDGoblue

January 8th, 2014 at 3:39 PM ^

Ozzie Smith got in with something like 92% of the vote on his first ballot.  Any voter that voted for Smith and hasnt managed to vote for Alan Trammell for 13 years is a complete horses ass, and should be voting for the National Backflip Hall of Fame.

Tram was a vastly superior offensive player to Smith, and while not quite his equal with the glove, it was way closer than the gulf that separated them with the bat.

ca_prophet

January 8th, 2014 at 4:32 PM ^

Whitaker, who is nearly is his equal in terms of his Hall case, is not on the ballot - not that this electorate would consider him.

Whitaker is hurt by being great at undervalued things - namely middle infield power and defense joined with not making outs. Those are more valuable than the average person realizes (and batting average less so, which is why Killebrew is in the Hall despite that average BA; look at his on-base percentage and power relative to his peers).

Trammell just has lousy timing - Ripken and Smith are only a hair better than him if that, but dominated the headlines for their excellence. He also suffers from that lost MVP and having his greatness in undervalued areas.

I suspect that Trammell will make it via the Veterans Committee. I hope Sweet Lou does too; they're both worthy.

bronxblue

January 8th, 2014 at 4:57 PM ^

This is why I have a hard time taking the BBHOF seriously - I love Maddux and Thomas and both deserve to be in, but at no point during Glavine's run did I think "that's a dominant starter who should be a first-ballot HOF".  And Biggio not getting in and Morris falling off the ballot are also ridiculous.

j-turn14

January 8th, 2014 at 6:03 PM ^

My favorite argument. "I didn't think he was a first ballot HOFer." 

I've never understood how people can take their personal observations of baseball players outside of statistical analysis so seriously. What percentage of Tom Glavine's career appearances did you witness either in person or on TV? Unless you're a Braves fan, I would guess that we're probably talking maximum maybe two or three games a year? Do you really think  that based on observing well under 10% of his career appearances, whether you thoughg he was that dominant is remotely relevant?

Seth

January 8th, 2014 at 7:34 PM ^

Morris doesn't bother me. What bothers me is Tram (better than over half the SS in the HoF already) and Lou, who had as good a case as Ryne Sandberg.