Which of these pitchers belongs in the HOF?

[justanewguy]

I'm stingy, and I like guys with longevity (hypocritical as I chose Pedro, but you can forgive me there, right?)

Yes, especially since he happened to have possibly the greatest season (I'd still go for Gibson here), and probably the greatest peak of any pitcher, ever.

The "Other" was going to be an emphatic push, not for Bert Blyleven (who I think will get in, albeit it overdue, without my support) for Tommy John. I know he was part of "that" era, but he was obviously significant to baseball outside of being a 5000 IP pitcher (nearly, 4850...) who had a significant impact outside of his actual playing. I think his pitching deserves merit (always a low K guy so his ERA+ is low along with it) but he controlled the homer, pitched a boatload of innings, and kept his ERA in the low 3s along with the significance of "his" surgery.

I really don't know if he gets in, if I remember correctly he was about 25% last time around. I think its a travesty if he does not, especially if we are even discussing pitchers like Jamie Moyer, David Wells, Bob Welch, Andy Pettitte, and David Cone...

Tommy John doesn't fit in this group either. He's in Blyleven's generation. But for what it's worth, I'd put him over Moyer, Cone and Wells, and probably Welch and Pettitte (though Pettitte gets a lot of the playoffs/history argument in his favor). I don't think he's a HOFer though.

The reason Morris, Moyer, Pettitte and Cone are on the list is these are names that posters have brought up recently in HOF discussion. I threw in Rogers, Wells, Hershiser and Welch because they're from the same era, and are comparable to other names brought up.

[BINGLEBOP]

I voted for "other" as well in Blyleven's case, but I agree he wouldn't be in this "era", so that extra "other" vote can be disregarded.

[Navi's_Navy]

I feel he is pretty much Roy Halladay who started pitching earlier and is (most likely) going to end up having pitched later. If you gave Halladay 9 more years in the game, but then added 5 more years of stats to that, so 14 years of Roy Halladay on top of his numbers now and don't you think he'd be a hall of famer?

Yes, I know that is incredibley subjective and inacurate considering the "who knows" factor with an injury-prone pitcher like Halladay, but theoretically that is who Tommy John is.

[etothep]

They announce who voted (and who didn't vote) for players on the regular HOF ballot, so those that didn't vote for Pedro in this (public) poll were 5DiMaggio, OldFatGuy, TheBigBomber.

TheBigBomber's line of thinking:
Jamie Moyer? Definitely deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Koufax, Walter Johnson & Lefty Grove and not just b/c he's the same age. Bob Welch? Oh yeh. that's a gimme. He's a definite first ballot HOFer. Pedro Martinez? I mean I liked Napoleon Dynamite & all, but I don't know about placing Pedro in the Baseball HOF.


For the record, I'm just messin w/ TBB. Just found his voting trends intriguing

[BINGLEBOP]

The ones on 5DiMaggio's ballot were Hershiser, Johnson, Maddux, Mussina and Smoltz. Curious about voting for Hershiser but not Pedro, but oh well, people don't have to justify their votes if they don't want to. I was just curious who voted for who, and since it's a public poll, thought I'd look into it.

[ohms_law]

Tommy John belongs in the hall for no other reason then his place in history, though. Performance isn't even really much of a consideration in his particular (and unique) case.

[Navi's_Navy]

Tommy John belongs in the hall for no other reason then his place in history, though. Performance isn't even really much of a consideration in his particular (and unique) case.

There is a case for him both ways. I didn't quite get what you meant, however; that if you thought his performance was undeserving (but that he deserved in for his place in history) or that it shouldn't even be an issue because of his place in history despite his play being significant enough.

[ohms_law]

that it shouldn't even be an issue because of his place in history despite his play being significant enough.

To me, his performance doesn't even enter the picture (well, other then that his performance made the surgery a significant issue at all).

[HoustonGM]

To me, his performance doesn't even enter the picture (well, other then that his performance made the surgery a significant issue at all).

I mean, I guess playing the hypothetical game isn't really right here, but say a relatively boring pitcher was the first to have the surgery done. Say a guy with half the career length of Tommy John, but the guy had the surgery,and performed well after it. Say he has half the career length (~2,500 innings), and was a worse overall pitcher, say a 97 ERA+ compared to John's 110. You'd still vote that guy in the Hall, on the basis of him just happening to have been the first to go under the knife in a new type of surgery?

I mean, I can see and understand the argument for John once you combine both his historical significance with his performance record (I still wouldn't put him in), but I don't think the surgery itself is enough.

[BINGLEBOP]

Wow, phillies999's vote for (only) Randy Johnson makes him the only remaining "unanimous" player so far.

[HoustonGM]

Jamie Moyer, but no Tom Glavine?

[ohms_law]

I mean, I guess playing the hypothetical game isn't really right here, but say a relatively boring pitcher was the first to have the surgery done. Say a guy with half the career length of Tommy John, but the guy had the surgery,and performed well after it. Say he has half the career length (~2,500 innings), and was a worse overall pitcher, say a 97 ERA+ compared to John's 110. You'd still vote that guy in the Hall, on the basis of him just happening to have been the first to go under the knife in a new type of surgery?

I mean, I can see and understand the argument for John once you combine both his historical significance with his performance record (I still wouldn't put him in), but I don't think the surgery itself is enough.

It's hard to say, but probably. The likelihood of the procedure being noticed and accepted (and therefore having the game changing effect that it has) is much lower in that case, though.
If it's just the procedure itself, then Tommy isn't worth mentioning. What makes it notable though is that Tommy was a notable player in his own right at the time. His going through with the procedure caused it to gain enough prominence for the term "Tommy John surgery" to enter the language of baseball. That sort of impact is certainly worth heralding in the Baseball Hall of Fame, who's stated mission is to "Preserve history, honor excellence, and connect generations".

[HoustonGM]

It's hard to say, but probably. The likelihood of the procedure being noticed and accepted (and therefore having the game changing effect that it has) is much lower in that case, though.
If it's just the procedure itself, then Tommy isn't worth mentioning. What makes it notable though is that Tommy was a notable player in his own right at the time. His going through with the procedure caused it to gain enough prominence for the term "Tommy John surgery" to enter the language of baseball. That sort of impact is certainly worth heralding in the Baseball Hall of Fame, who's stated mission is to "Preserve history, honor excellence, and connect generations".

Well sure, but that IS combining his performance record with the surgery. That's all I was saying.

[ohms_law]

Not directly. It's a bit of a chicken and egg argument. The performance has to be there, but the actual performance itself is basically irrelevant.

[justanewguy]

Tommy John had a medical thing named after him. So he gets into the HOF under the Lou Gehrig argument...