General Forum

The list of ten nominees for Modern Era HOF (1970-1987) vote was released today. Each of the 16 voting members get to vote for a maximum of 2 people. The list of nominees are below. Who makes it? It take 12 votes (75%)?

Steve Garvey

Tommy John

Don Mattingly

Marvin Miller

Jack Morris

Dale Murphy

Dave Parker

Ted Simmons

Luis Tiant

Alan Trammel

Marvin Miller absolutely HAS to get in.  The fact that he isn't already in is a crime.  Trammell would get my second vote.  The rest of the lot are good players, but none are great (or weren't great long enough in Mattingly's case).

None are screaming to me as a lock but I like Jack Morris and Dale Murphy on that list.

None.  Alan Trammell has the best chance, though.

The Modern Era Comittee is a joke - they rarely elect anyone, and I predict no one will get in this year either. That being said, I believe Miller and Trammell should have been in a long time ago, it's a shame Lou Whitaker and Dwight Evans aren't on the list, and the rest desrve a long hard look.

I agree withthe Whitaker and Evans ommissions. I'm partial to Dewey as he has always been my favorite. Bias aside in light of the era and the players presented by the committee he matches up well with them and should be allowed another look.

Miller deserves to be in and has a chance.

As far as players go, I agree with Kep75. And I hate that no players get in this way. That said, this is a tough list. None leap out above the others, and I predict, with only two votes per voter, none will get in this year. Here're my thoughts:

Steve Garvey -- great player, an MVP, and four Gold Gloves, never felt like a dominant player of his generation, though, HOVG

Tommy John -- 288 wins, great career, and surgery that changed the game, but not dominating, not a top three or four picture of his era, right on the edge 

Don Mattingly -- dominating for about six years; an MVP and seven Gold Gloves, I'd probably put him in

Marvin Miller -- yes, completely altered the game

Jack Morris -- great player, HOVG, never above third in Cy Young voting, 3.90 era, nope

Dale Murphy -- seven great years, two dominating ones, surrounded by some very good ones, longevity, five gold gloves, I think he should be in, by the skin of his teeth

Dave Parker -- about seven great years, an MVP, some gold gloves, 2700 hits and a .290 career average, as feared a hitter as there was for awhile, probably yes

Ted Simmons -- ooh these are tough, underrated catcher, one of the four or five best catchers in the game during his era (Bench, Fisk, Munson...Freehan? Simmons, overlapped with Carter, too), never a true MVP candidate, though; solid hitter, but not quaking in your boots like Parker and Murphy. For awhile, I thought he really belonged, just because catchers are underrepresented, now I'm not sure. Right on the edge.

Luis Tiant -- great player, only four or five truly great years, never close to a Cy Young, always a top ten pitcher, but never THE pitcher, I'm thinking no

Alan Trammell -- great player, four gold gloves, on and off MVP votes, a very good, but rarely terrifying hitter, I'll get grief for this, but I think HOVG

I wouldn't be upset with any of these guys getting in. And I truly wish the Modern Era or other "veteran's committee" would vote someone in. But only Miller has a chance.

v3

Parker and Garvey as they were high production players on great teams and very consistent.

So for arguments sake let's ask this? What's the difference between Rice and Parker? Both had comparible stats and reputation; feared hitters, but Parker was more liked than Rice by the media. Rate stats and per 162 rates slightly favor Rice, but Parker was a better leader. So if Rice gets in and Parker doesn't? BTW, Parker spent more time playing OF than Rice did and Parker only moved to DH at the tail end of his career.

HOVG?

Do not believe they deserve to be in the HOF