Which of these pitchers belongs in the HOF?

[BINGLEBOP]

I'm curious why there are twice the votes for Orel Hershiser over Jack Morris. They both had 18-year careers around the same time (1983-2000 for Hershiser and 1977-1994 for Morris). Is it because of Morris' higher ERA and Hershiser's (slightly) better ERA+? Otherwise Morris has mostly superior numbers to him.

Curious about anybody's thoughts for both.

[HoustonGM]

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

Being one of the best hitters ever to exist?

I'm curious why there are twice the votes for Orel Hershiser over Jack Morris. They both had 18-year careers around the same time (1983-2000 for Hershiser and 1977-1994 for Morris). Is it because of Morris' higher ERA and Hershiser's (slightly) better ERA+? Otherwise Morris has mostly superior numbers to him.

Curious about anybody's thoughts for both.

Neither are close in my opinion.

[BINGLEBOP]

I agree, and I don't think either will make the Hall of Fame, but to me, Morris has a much better (closer) chance. I'm just curious why some would vote for one and not the other, although I suppose Morris' career ended a little earlier than some younger voters would remember and I'm sure more than a few people voted for a "favorite player" or didn't vote for one they weren't a fan of, like RickD said about Glavine.

[justanewguy]

I'm curious why there are twice the votes for Orel Hershiser over Jack Morris. They both had 18-year careers around the same time (1983-2000 for Hershiser and 1977-1994 for Morris). Is it because of Morris' higher ERA and Hershiser's (slightly) better ERA+? Otherwise Morris has mostly superior numbers to him.

Curious about anybody's thoughts for both.

I voted for neither, but I'd favor Hershiser.

Morris had a lot of peaks and valleys (half his seasons were slightly average or worse, some were kinda bad), but managed to rack up a lot of numbers because he was a horse. Hershiser had more impressive peak seasons and didn't have as many bad seasons. His career totals aren't as impressive, though. The real life Hall of Fame favors Jack Morris. But Hershiser looks better overall to me, plus he has that cool record.

[HoustonGM]

I agree, and I don't think either will make the Hall of Fame, but to me, Morris has a much better (closer) chance. I'm just curious why some would vote for one and not the other, although I suppose Morris' career ended a little earlier than some younger voters would remember and I'm sure more than a few people voted for a "favorite player" or didn't vote for one they weren't a fan of, like RickD said about Glavine.

Morris easily has a better chance, considering he's been on the ballot for a while and Hershiser fell off quickly. I agree with what justanewguy posted above. To me, Hershiser is easily the better choice (although I think both would be relatively poor choices).

I don't know why. I once asked the same question about those that would pick Jack Morris but not Bert Blyleven.

[BINGLEBOP]

Yeah, you're right. I doubt there will be any good explanations, and it's a poll for fun on a message board.

As for Morris vs. Blyleven, I can't believe somebody would choose Morris over Blyleven. Craziness.

[HoustonGM]

As for Morris vs. Blyleven, I can't believe somebody would choose Morris over Blyleven. Craziness.

It's because people use the absurd, "In a Game 7, if you had to choose one of them, who would you choose?" argument, and because Morris had one fantastic Game 7, they pick him. Nevermind the facts that Morris was thoroughly terrible in other postseason games, Blyleven had way better postseason stats, albeit in less games, which is no fault of his own, and that Blyleven was an absurdly better pitcher overall.

[Arctic Blast]

Well, I voted Morris...and I woulda voted Blyleven was his name on the poll.

[ragecage]

Another aspect to this discussion involving Blyleven is that he has played on some historically bad teams through the majority of his career.

72, 75 Twins, 76 Rangers, 81 - 86 Indians and Twins. Still having 280 wins with these bad ballclubs is pretty impressive, Mussina has 270 and he had the joy of playing on winning teams most of his career.

[Swampdog]

Again....it is claimed that a pitcher's relatively poor W/L record is due to bad teams. I dont know exactly what is meant by "historically bad teams". The records of the years and teams cited in post #56:

72 Twins 77-77
75 Twins 76-83
76 Rangers 76-86
81 Cle 52-51
82 Cle 78-84
83 Cle 70-92
84 Cle 75-87
85 Cle 60-102
85 Min 77-85
86 Min 71-91

I dont see anything "historically bad" about these teams. The '85 Indians were the only truly awful team in the group (ok the '83 team too), and one team even had a winning record. In fact, of the 24 teams Blyleven played for, 11 had losing records. This isnt either "historical" or a "majority". Overall, Blyleven's teams were over .500 for his career. There was absolutely nothing unusual about the quality of the teams that he pitched for. In fact, studies have proven that Blyleven won LESS games than would have been expected by the pythagorean method, and a lot less.

[EP Hotties]

Bert Blyleven

[ragecage]

Wow I didnt know that teams under .500 are good. You sold me with that argument...not.

[Swampdog]

Nobody said they were "good" Someone claimed they were "historically bad" , and that simply is untrue. It is nowhere close to the truth. Why not mention Blylevens 70 Twins (98-64), or his world champion 79 Pirates (98-64) or the 77 Rangers (94-68), etc. Overall, Blylevens teams were not nearly as good as Mussina's, but, as I said, they were over .500. You believe that .500 teams are "historically bad"?

I am not trying to convince you of anything, so I dont know what you're "sold" on. I am presenting some facts. You must really know your baseball history...not.

[etothep]

Big Unit remains unanimous, the lone unanimous decision through 39 votes

[OldFatGuy]

Big Unit remains unanimous, the lone unanimous decision through 39 votes

That is very surprising to me. If I had to pick the last remaining unanimous, it would've been Greg Maddux. Easy.

I can't even fathom anyone not voting for the best pitcher in the game for nearly a decade and ending up with over 350 wins. I simply ...... can't imagine not voting for Maddox.