Hall of Fame Trial - Tommy John

[splitterpfj]

A man who absolutely, positively, changed the game of baseball. Oh, and he got a lot of guys out, too.

 

What do you say brewerfans? Is Tommy John worthy of the Hall of Fame?

 

http://www.brewerfan.net/ViewHome.do

[RobertR]

It really comes down to how much credit you give him for being a human guinea pig. I think most people would agree that he falls behind Blyleven and even Morris, despite the win total. You can still make an argument for him based on strictly his baseball career, but he'd be a below average / borderline candidate at best. If he didn't have something beyond the field going for him we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

That said, I'm giving him a lot of credit for forcing the issue and being a human guinea pig. That's why he'd get my vote. At the very least, when he falls out of player eligibility, he should be inducted, along with Yoakim and Jobe, as Baseball Pioneers. I think that's the biggest no brainer of all since they did change the game and make it better.

 

Robert

[Fatter than Joey]

Good Job!

 

I think he was a HOF type pitcher from 1977-1981ish but overall I agree with a big no.

 

Certainly to come back the way he did and as well as he did was a monumental achievement.

[JohnBriggs12]

Absolutely Tommy John belongs in the HOF. The argument against is his strikeout total? What difference does it make how you get guys out? Also that he took more years to get 288 wins than Blyleven did to get 287? John missed a year and a half in the prime of his career. Had he been healthy he would have had 310 wins. He was cost another 6-8 wins by the strike in 1981 which wiped out two months of that season. Besides 288 wins is a lot and deserving on it's face.

 

Not only did he win one more game than Blyleven with virtually the same ERA, he also had a significantly better winning percentage .554 to .534. His winning percentage was comparable to Don Sutton's .558. He also compiled a 4-1 record in the World Series with a glittering 2.08 ERA. Compare that to Sutton's 2-3, 5.26.

 

He did benefit from playing for some good Yankee and Dodger teams but he also was hurt playing for three of the worst teams of all time, the White Sox from 68-70. John also wasn't a bad hitter, with 5 career HR and 54 career RBI though half his career was with a DH.

 

During the time the Yankees were big time Brewer rivals, there was nobody better against the best Brewer teams of all time. John was 17-9 with a 3.13 ERA vs. the Brewers of Cooper, Molitor, Yount, etc. On that alone, I've got him in the HOF. The Brewers had much better luck against Ron Guidry. John would frustrate the heck out of the best hitters in the game.

[splitterpfj]

The argument against is his strikeout total? I didn't say that, I said the difference must be noted, but that it can be overlooked, because Ks weren't John's game.

[JohnBriggs12]

splitterpfj,

 

Tommy John came up as a hardthrowing lefty and a good one. He was dealt by the White Sox for Dick Allen, one of the biggest stars of the game at the time. That gives you an idea of his value. The Sox were desperate for offense and a gate attraction in those days.

 

That he basically re-invented the way he pitched and actually became more successful is one of the most remarkable stories in the history of the game. But even if he didn't do that, his numbers are HOF worthy in my opinion. He won 52 games after turning 40. Other than the great Warren Spahn who won 75 after his 40th birthday, that was unheard of prior to that time.

[splitterpfj]

Whether before or after his injury, John never struck out more than 138 batters in a season. By itself, that's not a reason to vote against a guy, but it is hard not to notice a stat like that when you're talking about Hall of Famers. The Ks wouldn't stop me, I remember John for the last half of his career, I do recall how well he pitched for the Dodgers and the Yankees - he had a great run.

 

I tried to show both sides, I did point out John's excellent control and his low HR allowed in comparison to the elected Hall of Famers, I also mentioned his winning percentage. I did point out the trade involving Dick Allen, but I will never use a thing like that to sway me on a player's Hall of Fame credentials, if I did, I'd have to have to score points for Doyle Alexander and Larry Andersen.

 

My problem with Tommy John is the late phase of his career. I remember him as a man who pulled on a Madison Muskies uniform, after he'd been shown the door by the Angels. I remember him as the guy who hung on as long as he possibly could, trying to get to 300 wins - which is the sort of thing that turns me off - especially when you don't wind up getting there.

 

I like him, I'll be very happy for him if he gets elected, but I wouldn't vote for him. There are a lot of nice stats, he certainly deserves the consideration he's been given, but I would vote no.

 

I am glad JBriggs is presenting a case for the yes voters, that's the point here, I'm not here to tell everyone what they should think, I'm just trying to frame the discussion and offer my own conclusion.

[davego]

As pointed out, his stats at least give him some consideration. How much does the injury, et al factor in? To me, that is the tipping point.

[apirk]

He is responsible for the best performance enhancing surgery of all time

[RockCoCougars]

No way is John a Hall of Famer in my mind. If somebody should get in for the surgery, it would be Dr. Frank Jobe.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Being a person who's had TJ surgery, I vote yes!

 

Seriously though, I'd lean towards yes. I know some say John "hung on" for the sake of racking up personal statistics, but if you're good enough to pitch well into your 40's, I think longevity should also be a factor (at least to me). He was 13-6 in 87, at the age of 44, with an ERA+ of 110. He was certainly contributing still at that point, and not just eating a roster spot. He as still decent at age 45, putting up a 9-8 record, with a 3.89 ERA. I'll grant that in '89, he was downright bad, but he only hung around for 10 starts.

 

I honestly do not have a problem with guys who hang on into their 40's to pile up stats. If there's a team willing to pay you, why wouldn't you?