Catfish Hunter Is In The Hall of Fame And Tommy John Is Not-Why?

[Mitchell]

Many times, I don't understand how the people who choose election to the Baseball Hall of Fame think.

As baseball fans know, Tommy John is not in the Hall of Fame. while he did fall short of 300 wins, Mr John posted a 288-234 record during his career, with a 3.34 lifetime E.R.A., and 2245 strikeouts.

The late Catfish Hunter, on the other hand, is in the Hall of Fame. Mr Hunter's career record is 224-166, with a 3.26 lifetime E.R.A. and 2012 strikeouts.

It would seem to me that some inconsistency exists here. How is it that Tommy John, who had 64 more lifetime wins that Catfish Hunter, a lower E.R.A., and 200 more strikeouts, isn't in the Hall, and Hunter is? Also, if 300 wins for a pitcher is a barometer for the Hall of Fame, and John, who fell short of that by 12 wins, didn't make it, how is it that Hunter, who fell 76 wins short of 300 wins, did make it?

It would seem to me that one of two scenarios exists here. A. Neither Tommy John nor Catfish Hunter deserve to be in the Hall, because both fell short of 300 wins. Or, B. Both of them should be in the Hall, because, it seems inconsistent to elect a guy with only 224 wins, less strikeouts, and a higher E.R.A, and keep a guy with 288 wins, more strikeouts, and a higher E.R.A. out.

For the record: I have always believed that Tommy John has been shortchanged by being kept out of the Hall, and that he belongs there. Yes, he had "Only" 288 wins, but, he also missed a year and a half due to ligament transplant surgery in 1974 and 1975, and, his arm injury revolutionized the baseball world, by allowing pitchers with ligament tears, to undergo the procedure, sit out a year, and then have long, productive, careers after the surgery. John Smoltz was an example of this. He was merely a good pitcher before his Tommy John Surgery, and afterwards, turned into the best closer in baseball for three years from 2002 to 2004, and became an even more effective starting pitcher.

Thoughts on this? Is the Hall of Fame election process inconsistent? Does Tommy John belong in the Hall? If not, does Catfish Hunter belong there?

Mitch

 

[obama666]

I watched them both pitch... Catfish Hunter was a#1 starter and a stopper!...He had a stretch where he was a top five pitcher for about 6 years... John was dominant for a period of 4 years. Maybe a top five pitcher for 3 or 4 years. Much of his career John was a #2 and # 3 starter. Hunter was 9-6 in postseason... John 6-3... John with out a doubt gets the longevity nod. Hunter without a doubt gets the in-your prime nod!... He was revered like Marichal, Gibson, Koufax, Palmer and Seaver.during his prime... They both deserve it... Catfish is a no brainer, his win pct. is awesome, and in his prime one of the very best!

 

[obama666]

I will give you another example. I hated the A's during their championship run. I remember watching a game (Big Red Machine?) with my father, an uncle and two cousins. Hunter was a combo of come right at you and some off-speed stuff. Power and craft. By The fourth-inning we were saying, "they are not going to beat this fucking guy!" and they didn't. He was ahead on nearly every count. He seemed to strike out a guy whenever he had to. If he wasn't striking someone out, they were fouling out or hitting weak broken bat grounders. He was like Mariano Rivera for 9, 10 or 11 innings, real dominant stuff. John was more like a Jimmy Key, Denny Moyer, Ted Lilly or Tom Glavine. Cute stuff, never overpowering, had to expand the strike zone. No matter his record, if you could keep him close you could beat him... Not as much so with Hunter.

 

[mass1926]

Because nobody likes Tommy John surgery.

 

[mass1926]

After looking at his numbers, he won 288 games, but he also had a 26 year career in the majors to get to 288 wins!!! That is roughly only 12 wins per season on average, not to mention he had 8 losing record seasons in his career.