Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

There are things I disagree with, and then there are things that I disagree with.

This is the latter. I find this opinion on Morgan to be completely indefensible in pretty much every conceivable way.

Agreed 100%. Awful broadcaster, all-time great player. He literally did EVERYTHING well on the baseball field at a premium position. What's funny is he was actually having better seasons before he won the MVP...he can play 2B for me any day.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

There are things I disagree with, and then there are things that I disagree with.

This is the latter. I find this opinion on Morgan to be completely indefensible in pretty much every conceivable way.

Fair enough, you are entitled to strong opinions.....not sure it's exactly indefensible though as you provide no facts to back you up.....

.271 hitter, less than 3K hits, 260-something HRs, peak lasted only 5 years ('72-'76), lots of garbage (ok, that's too strong but below avg) seasons to boost his underwhelming counting numbers, .182 AVG in postseason play.

I'll give you that he was an OBP machine and took walks like no one's business. He also stole a huge number of bases (600+) in an era that was more conducive to that.

But, 1st ballot, no doubter HOFer...I wouldn't have put him in if I were voting.

The toughest thing for me is it's hard to argue against Joe's .392 OBP. But other than that, his 2 MVPs were are fairly prominent, and WAR likes them, though I can probably find 50 or more MVP years that are significantly better.

All that said, I probably would've voted him at some point since 2B is a fairly weak position historically, he was good at it, he helped win titles, and was a decent power-speed combo with a top notch batter's eye.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Fair enough, you are entitled to strong opinions.....not sure it's exactly indefensible though as you provide no facts to back you up.....

.271 hitter, less than 3K hits, 260-something HRs, peak lasted only 5 years ('72-'76), lots of garbage (ok, that's too strong but below avg) seasons to boost his underwhelming counting numbers, .182 AVG in postseason play.

I'll give you that he was an OBP machine and took walks like no one's business. He also stole a huge number of bases (600+) in an era that was more conducive to that.

But, 1st ballot, no doubter HOFer...I wouldn't have put him in if I were voting.

The toughest thing for me is it's hard to argue against Joe's .392 OBP. But other than that, his 2 MVPs were are fairly prominent, and WAR likes them, though I can probably find 50 or more MVP years that are significantly better.

All that said, I probably would've voted him at some point since 2B is a fairly weak position historically, he was good at it, he helped win titles, and was a decent power-speed combo with a top notch batter's eye.

First off, anyone who walks nearly 2000 times is going to have a hard time getting to 3,000 hits (should we throw Ted Williams out now?). Now, from 1972 to 1976 I don't know that there was a better, more complete baseball player than Joe Morgan (5 years is a great peak). He posted a 163 OPS+ during this period while stealing over 300 bases at an 83% clip while playing outstanding defense.

Finally, you state that he had 'trash' years...and not ONCE from the time he was 21 on did he post an OPS+ of less than 100, a low of 104 in his final year. You can say "sure, he could take a walk"...I'll say it like this, "sure, he didn't make many outs" and that's all I can ask of a hitter.

[G3no_11]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Here's one that I should probably search on, but any takers on Barry Bonds? I'd put him as a yes personally.

I'd probably have to say no. If you put him in, then you have to allow the other HoF caliber, steroid users, to get in IMO.

I don't buy the whole "he was a HoFer before steroids" argument. It's the fact of him cheating that he shouldn't be in.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

First off, anyone who walks nearly 2000 times is going to have a hard time getting to 3,000 hits (should we throw Ted Williams out now?). Now, from 1972 to 1976 I don't know that there was a better, more complete baseball player than Joe Morgan (5 years is a great peak). He posted a 163 OPS+ during this period while stealing over 300 bases at an 83% clip while playing outstanding defense.

Finally, you state that he had 'trash' years...and not ONCE from the time he was 21 on did he post an OPS+ of less than 100, a low of 104 in his final year. You can say "sure, he could take a walk"...I'll say it like this, "sure, he didn't make many outs" and that's all I can ask of a hitter.

And yet, despite all those walks, he made the 40th most outs all time (he was 28th in PAs though). So he made outs, lots and lots of big fat outs. My main contention is he wasn't really that good of a hitter. Good walker, good glove-guy, good runner, good teammate and winner, so-so bat.

The whole gee let's use wRC and OPS+ for everything is tiresome (not really blaming you for that, I'm just seeing that stat everywhere...when people should be looking at a bunch of metrics). Using 100 as the barometer for OPS+ proves nothing other than he was above average and consistent.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I'd probably have to say no. If you put him in, then you have to allow the other HoF caliber, steroid users, to get in IMO.

I don't buy the whole "he was a HoFer before steroids" argument. It's the fact of him cheating that he shouldn't be in.

I get that too. Some would vote him out 100% on character. The only problem I have with that is, well, Ty Cobb is the obvious one.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

And yet, despite all those walks, he made the 40th most outs all time (he was 28th in PAs though). So he made outs, lots and lots of big fat outs. My main contention is he wasn't really that good of a hitter. Good walker, good glove-guy, good runner, good teammate and winner, so-so bat.

The whole gee let's use wRC and OPS+ for everything is tiresome (not really blaming you for that, I'm just seeing that stat everywhere...when people should be looking at a bunch of metrics). Using 100 as the barometer for OPS+ proves nothing other than he was above average and consistent.

If you have a 22 year career, you will make a LOT of outs. It doesn't change the fact that for his career he only made an out 61% of the time when the league average was around 68% of the time (and he was WAY above that in his prime). I am not sure what you want out of a hitter. In his prime, he hit over .300 (which you seem to love), got on base at an awesome rate, AND hit for power. Throw in the defense and baserunning and he is the complete package.

You said that Snepp needed to use numbers, but I haven't seen you use any numbers outside of batting average and counting numbers. If you are going to say he wasn't a good hitter, please show me what you are basing this on.

You listed Sandberg in your top 5 of 2B, yet he didn't have 3000 hits (which you've held against Morgan), was a .285 career hitter, and had fewer homers than Morgan. I'm curious the rationale you use in concluding that Morgan is inferior to Sandberg.

[55]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I have a huge mancrush on Sandberg and the only thing you can say that he did better than Morgan was play defense.

Morgan was an outstanding offensive player, especially given his position.

[DrJones]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

So Helton's .289/.389/.473 isn't too far off from those player's road #'s.

Helton's road numbers are incredibly far off from Manny, Pujols, and Bonds. Jeter (SS) and A-Rod (SS/3B) have played key defensive positions their entire careers. If Helton put up identical stats as a middle infielder, he'd be a HoF lock, Coors or no. The offensive standards for 1B are much higher (as they should be).

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

If you have a 22 year career, you will make a LOT of outs. It doesn't change the fact that for his career he only made an out 61% of the time when the league average was around 68% of the time (and he was WAY above that in his prime). I am not sure what you want out of a hitter. In his prime, he hit over .300 (which you seem to love), got on base at an awesome rate, AND hit for power. Throw in the defense and baserunning and he is the complete package.

You said that Snepp needed to use numbers, but I haven't seen you use any numbers outside of batting average and counting numbers. If you are going to say he wasn't a good hitter, please show me what you are basing this on.

You listed Sandberg in your top 5 of 2B, yet he didn't have 3000 hits (which you've held against Morgan), was a .285 career hitter, and had fewer homers than Morgan. I'm curious the rationale you use in concluding that Morgan is inferior to Sandberg.

False. Morgan had fewer HRs (268) than Sandberg (282)--that was actually a decent piece of the puzzle for Sandberg getting in as I recall at the time.

It's true, I want my HOFers to be near .300 or over. I'll admit to that. And .271 is pretty far away from that. I still view some numbers as magic: 3000 hits, 500 HRs (for some), .300, 300 wins (or at least 250), 3500 Ks.

.285 looks quite a bit stronger than .271. And if you compare the rate stats of Sandberg vs. Morgan with regard to power (i.e. cancel out longevity):

Sandberg: 32.9 PA/HR, 12.2 PA/XBH
Morgan: 42.4 PA/HR, 13.9 PA/XBH

it looks even more pronounced. For me, when you get obvious hangers-on like Morgan for basically half of the 1980s, I tend to start viewing the longevity in a negative way, meaning he's just trying to pad his stats. At the same time, I think Sandberg left the game too early (thanks to his wife....) so I tend to think of his longevity actually being a bit longer than it was.

But, mostly, I saw Sandberg play and knew he was a dominant player, and it's also a Cubs fan homer argument that I just like him a lot.

Exhibit A
The thing that really bugs me about Joe Morgan is his early years were measured as "good" just because the mound was high and it was a pitching friendly league--not because his stats were good. I realize that we have to normalize the eras and all, but it doesn't sit well that a guy with a .236/.365/.372 with 15 HRs and 43 RBIs would be considered a plus for him like OPS+ does.

Exhibit B
Another gripe is he had a TON of those types of seasons. Basically every year outside of '72-'77 strikes me as meh at best. He hit .230, .240, and .250 a ton of times--way way too much for a HOFer. Now, sure he walked a lot, but that doesn't excuse his hit rate for being so bad for the times he actually got an AB.

Exhibit C
Let's not pretend that lineup protection does not exist. While I don't think it's a HUGE concern, Morgan played on some of the best offensive teams outside of the live ball Yankees. He had more guys to drive in and just the cumulative fatigue factor for pitchers facing that Machine had to work in his favor. In short, I believe protection exists, but the effects are small, and Morgan enjoyed them to the fullest (however small).

Exhibit D
Sandberg made the most of his rare playoff opportunities. .385/.457/.641 is a pretty crazy line for Sandberg, and Morgan (though he gets all the credit for being a winner and champ) was pretty bad/mediocre in the playoffs .182/.323/.348.

Exhibit E
A HOF leadoff hitter who never got 200 hits in a season?? Excuse me? Sure, again he walked a lot, BUT maxing out at 167 hits in a season in your prime while getting near 700 PAs every year for a decade doesn't scream "HOF hitter" to me. There are other guys who walk a lot AND get a ton of hits and Morgan just wasn't one of them.

So, there's some pieces of an argument I would make through the lens of denying Joe Morgan HOF entry. It's a moot point cause he's in and I have no power. I also think he probably belongs and he was 80% on his 1st ballot in 1990. That's all fine. My main point is more that Morgan is not the no doubt, can't touch this surefire lock that a couple of guys were saying. I view him closer to a borderline case than that (though I said I'd admit him).

[G3no_11]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I get that too. Some would vote him out 100% on character. The only problem I have with that is, well, Ty Cobb is the obvious one.

I was going to mention his character... but he had such an incredible career that his character is really redundant.

Personally, the steroid use really isn't a make or break kind of thing to me.. but as long as Pete Rose is out for breaking the rules, steroid users should be out too. Just my opinion.

[55]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Batting average is a pretty worthless stat in the grand scheme of things.

Any stat that values a grand slam home run and an infield single as being worth the same can **** off.

[DrJones]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I'd probably have to say no. If you put him in, then you have to allow the other HoF caliber, steroid users, to get in IMO.

Most of the top PED users & suspected users (Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, Manny, Pudge, McGwire, Braun, Bagwell, Piazza, etc.) are getting in someday IMO, although it may be 10-20 years down the line. I suspect that someone thought to be "clean" will be voted in the HoF, later revealed to have used PED's, endless media hand-wringing will ensue, and the floodgates will open.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Batting average is a pretty worthless stat in the grand scheme of things.

Any stat that values a grand slam home run and an infield single as being worth the same can **** off.

No stat is perfect, but average tells you what you want to know, namely how frequently does a guy get on base by virtue of his bat. There are other stats to tell you what kind of hit, like SLG or others. In conjunction, they can be very effective. But Morgan's AVG and SLG were lower than Ryno's.

[G3no_11]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Helton's road numbers are incredibly far off from Manny, Pujols, and Bonds. Jeter (SS) and A-Rod (SS/3B) have played key defensive positions their entire careers. If Helton put up identical stats as a middle infielder, he'd be a HoF lock, Coors or no. The offensive standards for 1B are much higher (as they should be).

I can agree with that to an extent. He's not incredibly far off from those players on the list, but I can agree that his road numbers should be higher for a 1st baseman. My point behind saying his road numbers aren't that far off was to show that he wasn't a bad player on the road at all. He put up insane numbers at home so people think he was bad on the road... but he wasn't, he was good on the road and extremely good at home. It's just because there is a drop off that makes people think he was only good at home.

Arod hit .293 on the road, Helton hit .289... that's comparable, but obviously Arod blows him out as far as HR's go.