Modern Era (1970-87) Committee's turn to vote on HOF

rico43

rico43

<B>Director of Minor League Reports</B>
On December 8th, the voting will be announced on the "Modern Era" Veterans Committee for the Baseball Hall of Fame. The "Modern Era" is considered to be 1970-87.
An unofficial companion site to the Hall of Fame (HallofStats.com) has listed candidates on a points system. If they are anywhere near accurate, it means another year of disappointment for Dale Murphy. Their ratings have Murph tied for 34th among "worthy" candidatates.

Their system has these rated as the top 10 candidates. Any candidate needs 75 percent of the vote to be admitted:

(points in parentheses)
1. Lou Whitaker (145)
2. Bobby Grich (141)
3. Rick Reuschel (136)
4. Luis Tiant (129)
5. Graig Nettles (126)
6. Reggie Smith (125)
7. Willie Randolph (124)
Buddy Bell (124)
Dwight Evans (124)
10. Sal Bando (117)

Among favorites of many fans and past campaigns include Bobby Bonds (14th, 112 points), Tommy John (17th, 106), Thurman Munson (20th, 102), Murphy, Jim Kaat (tied for 37th with 87 points); Dave Parker and Don Mattingly (tied in 50th with 78 points).
Also a finalist: Ted Simmons (13th, 113), Steve Garvey (84th, 62), and non-player, Marvin Miller.

***PLEASE NOTE***
I laugh at the system because it seems remotely attached to reality. That's because in the "regular" Hall of Fame vote for 2020, first-time candidate Derek Jeter (likely close to a unanimous pick) was ranked LOWER than 6 holdover candidates: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, Larry Walker, Scott Rolen and Manny Ramirez -- and just one point ahead of Andruw Jones. Jeter is rated the same at Tiant (129).

But it's a system, and one that could certainly generate plenty of debate. But I make no claim to it other than to use it to spark this forum.

ACTUAL NOMINEES IN BOLD

Link HERE.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, my gut is that Lou Whitaker (19 seasons, 2,369 hits, Rookie of the Year, 5-time all-star, 4 Silver Sluggers, 3 Gold Gloves) is certainly no less deserving that his DP mate Trammell.

Luis Tiant (19 seasons, 239-172, 3.30 ERA career, 4-time 20-game winner, two-time ERA champ, 3-time all-star) was starting to build momentum in his final years on the regular ballot.

Neither one would cause much of an outcry if named.
 
rico43 said:
For what it's worth, my gut is that Lou Whitaker (19 seasons, 2,369 hits, Rookie of the Year, 5-time all-star, 4 Silver Sluggers, 3 Gold Gloves) is certainly no less deserving that his DP mate Trammell.

Luis Tiant (19 seasons, 239-172, 3.30 ERA career, 4-time 20-game winner, two-time ERA champ, 3-time all-star) was starting to build momentum in his final years on the regular ballot.

Neither one would cause much of an outcry if named.
Click to expand...

Tiant deserves to get in simply based off of how dirty he is in Diamond Dynasty on MLB The Show. Most ridiculously filthy pitcher in that game.
 
Tommy John should go in just for his impact on the game from his surgery
 
Sadly Murphy is not a HOFer by almost any standard.

Jeter is a HOFer but not nearly as good as his vote % will indicate.
 
thewupk said:
Sadly Murphy is not a HOFer by almost any standard.

Jeter is a HOFer but not nearly as good as his vote % will indicate.
Click to expand...

The standard is that he was one of the top two or three players in the game for a period of time...about 5-6 years to be exact. And since Jim Rice is in now, the standard is that Murphy was better than Rice and should go in.

Not that I'm biased or anything.
 
Ted Simmons was getting a lot of talk yesterday on XM - Jayson Stark mentioned that Marvin Miller was the most talked about guy from this year's nominees when he (Stark) was on the committee two years ago.
 
Hot stove just few minutes ago were discussing some committee voting for HOF. Rosenthal gushed over Murphy and Reynolds did same over Tommy John. Is lots of different names than clvclv has listed. Are there more than one committee?
 
DirkPiggler said:
The standard is that he was one of the top two or three players in the game for a period of time...about 5-6 years to be exact. And since Jim Rice is in now, the standard is that Murphy was better than Rice and should go in.

Not that I'm biased or anything.
Click to expand...

Was Murphy better than Rice? And no Rice shouldn't be in either but we shouldn't farther devalue the HOF.

Murphy is the equivalent of Johan Santana. Neither deserve to be in despite how great they were for a short time.
 
thewupk said:
Was Murphy better than Rice? And no Rice shouldn't be in either but we shouldn't farther devalue the HOF.

Murphy is the equivalent of Johan Santana. Neither deserve to be in despite how great they were for a short time.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the veterans putting in my favorite player, who was also the face of a franchise, and one of the three or four best players of the 80s. He represented the game well and if the Vets put him in that's as valuable an endorsement after so much time as what the writers thing. The Vets do take things seriously if not quite as analytically.

Murphy would have the blemish of not getting in through the writers vote and I feel that should be a sufficient balm to the tedious small hall crowd.

I don't care that I am biased. I don't have a vote.
 
Southcack77 said:
I have no problem with the veterans putting in my favorite player, who was also the face of a franchise, and one of the three or four best players of the 80s. He represented the game well and if the Vets put him in that's as valuable an endorsement after so much time as what the writers thing. The Vets do take things seriously if not quite as analytically.

Murphy would have the blemish of not getting in through the writers vote and I feel that should be a sufficient balm to the tedious small hall crowd.

I don't care that I am biased. I don't have a vote.
Click to expand...

If I watched the team through the 80's I might have a different opinion. I am pro Andruw for the Hall after all.
 
thewupk said:
If I watched the team through the 80's I might have a different opinion. I am pro Andruw for the Hall after all.
Click to expand...

As the greatest defensive outfielder ever Andruw should be a shoo in. The fact that we were worried he’d fall off the ballot in one year is a joke.
 
thewupk said:
If I watched the team through the 80's I might have a different opinion. I am pro Andruw for the Hall after all.
Click to expand...

As one who was subjected to the entire decade of the 80s (as well as most of the sad 70s) I would say that the pro-Andruw crowd should be on board the Murph train as s well - obviously different points to be made on behalf of either player, but Murph deserves anything Andruw does for different reasons.

The Rice/Murph debate is a really good one, but most anyone who watched both of them in their prime as much as possible in those days wouldn't be going out on a limb when saying they were 2 of the 4-5 most feared hitters of that era.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top