Hall of Fame Day

[Bomber]

If you had a Baseball Hall of Fame ballot who would be on it?

Here's mine:

Wade Boggs
Ryne Sandberg
Goose Gossage
Bruce Sutter
Alan Trammell
Bert Blyleven

[Ramzavail]

Its Sutter and Alan.

but I'd just vote Boggs and Sandberg in right now.

[Crapshoot]

Blyven being excluded is ridiculous, especially in favor of Jack 3.90 ERA Morris on some ballots.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Blyven being excluded is ridiculous, especially in favor of Jack 3.90 ERA Morris on some ballots.

I'm sure many of you have read it, but this is a great article about Blyleven.

http://baseballbeat.blogspot.com/200...37049107073512

[bigdawg2003]

Boggs and Sandberg are in

[bigdawg2003]

dola w/ link

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1958895

The way Sutter is progressing, he's bound to get in someday

[Bomber]

And Gossage should follow him right in.

[Ramzavail]

boggs and sandberg deserve it the most.

[ISiddiqui]

Damn... Blyleven deserved better vote totals. C'est la vie. Boggs definetly deserved it, Sandberg is a decent choice.

[Ksyrup]

Anyone have last year's numbers - I'm wondering what direction most of these guys are headed. What did Morris have last year?

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Anyone have last year's numbers - I'm wondering what direction most of these guys are headed. What did Morris have last year?

22.78% in 2003, 26.28% in 2004, 33.3% in 2005.

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/in...s/election.htm
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/history/hof_voting/

[korme]

Pete ROSE

[Ksyrup]

Cool. Morris seems to be gaining a bit of momentum. He was stuck in the teens/low 20's, now he's gained 10% in the past 2 years. Some of these 80's guys have got to start making it with a bit more regularity.

[digamma]

Damn. No votes for Otis Nixon.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Cool. Morris seems to be gaining a bit of momentum. He was stuck in the teens/low 20's, now he's gained 10% in the past 2 years. Some of these 80's guys have got to start making it with a bit more regularity.

I pray to god Jack Morris does not make the Hall of Fame.

[Bomber]

For the Steve Garvey fans:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...=kimmel/050104

My favorite part:

Hindsight is cold. We have computers now that "re-value" baseball players of the past. They travel back in time with new and frequently nonsensical formulas designed to quantify greatness -- or, more often, to make a case against it. Some of these ratios and quotients even purport to rank a player's leadership, a ridiculous notion when you think about it. These are the "facts" pointed to most often when Garvey's Hall of Fame qualifications are discussed: Random, machine-generated equations. His on-base percentage wasn't good enough. His OPS (whatever that is) doesn't compare to some of the other guys. He hit into too many double plays. Even the stats from his MVP season were apparently so "subpar," I'm surprised they haven't tried to take the trophy back.

[Radii]

WOOHOO SANDBERG

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by digamma

Damn. No votes for Otis Nixon.

Otis Nixon was a funny guy to watch. Dude could bitchslap the ball like very few could and he was built like a horse jockey.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

Otis Nixon was a funny guy to watch. Dude could bitchslap the ball like very few could and he was built like a horse jockey.

And had a face like evil Michael Jackson in the Thriller video.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bomber

For the Steve Garvey fans:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...=kimmel/050104

My favorite part:

I love it when people get all pissy that facts and stats have devalued unreasonable subjective judgements . It just makes me happy.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I love it when people get all pissy that facts and stats have devalued unreasonable subjective judgements . It just makes me happy.

God damn those random computer formulas like OBP and OPS.

[ISiddiqui]

Hehe... it's so unfair!

[Fonzie]

Nice to see that Blyleven is trending in the right direction:

Year Election Votes Pct
1998 BBWAA 83 17.55
1999 BBWAA 70 14.08
2000 BBWAA 87 17.43
2001 BBWAA 121 23.50
2002 BBWAA 124 26.27
2003 BBWAA 145 29.23
2004 BBWAA 179 35.38
2005 BBWAA 211 40.9

FWIW, these are the guys I would've voted for:

Sandberg
Boggs
Blyleven
Gossage
Sutter

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

FWIW, these are the guys I would've voted for:

Sandberg
Boggs
Blyleven
Gossage
Sutter

You've got my ballot, exactly, fonz. Although, Sandberg just barely makes it on my ballot.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Bomber

I pray to god Jack Morris does not make the Hall of Fame.

He should be in, IMO. His ERA should not be the sole reason he isn't elected. He won 250+ games, was a 5-time All-Star, 5 times in the top 5 for Cy Young voting, completed 175 games at a time when complete games were rapidly becoming extinct, was first or second in wins 4 times...and then there's his post-season performance.

Plus, his ERA, which is what everyone cites as the main reason to keep him out, was not all that bad for his era. For his career he had an ERA+ of 105, which means he was slightly better than league average. And he was in the top 10 in ERA 5 times, so it's not like the guy has a career 4.50 ERA or something.

I've always felt like his willingness to complete games and pitch tons of innings probably led to his higher ERA, but I don't know that for a fact. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of his ERA by innings, though. The guy was top 5 in innings pitched 7 times, and top5 in CGs 8 times. I don't see much difference between a guy pitching 6-7 innings and giving up 2 runs in a win, or a guy pitching 8-9 innings and giving up 4 or 5 runs in a win. Morris was the latter, and his ERA suffered for it I believe, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't get in.

Besides, on the bigger picture, I have a real problem with so many mid-70's through early 90's stars being passed up for the HoF. It seems like there's this gap between the beginning of free agency and the bastardization of free agency that began after the 1994 strike (not to mention the juiced ball), where all of the guys who had their entire careers during that time are not being given their proper due. I don't think we need to go overboard and put everyone who was an all-star during those times in the HoF, but the best of the best for that 2 decade period should get in.

Just my $.02.

[Bomber]

First of all, that pesky 3.90 career ERA would be the highest in the Hall. Second, the only other stat you've used in your argument was wins. Morris played for good teams, he only experienced two losing years in his whole career. Anyone could have won a lot of games. That 105 career ERA+ is not HoF worthy.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I love it when people get all pissy that facts and stats have devalued unreasonable subjective judgements . It just makes me happy.

Im with you- I love the "OPS suk JEtr knows huw to win" arguements- a useful barometer of intelligence.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

He should be in, IMO. His ERA should not be the sole reason he isn't elected. He won 250+ games, was a 5-time All-Star, 5 times in the top 5 for Cy Young voting, completed 175 games at a time when complete games were rapidly becoming extinct, was first or second in wins 4 times...and then there's his post-season performance.

Plus, his ERA, which is what everyone cites as the main reason to keep him out, was not all that bad for his era. For his career he had an ERA+ of 105, which means he was slightly better than league average. And he was in the top 10 in ERA 5 times, so it's not like the guy has a career 4.50 ERA or something.

I've always felt like his willingness to complete games and pitch tons of innings probably led to his higher ERA, but I don't know that for a fact. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of his ERA by innings, though. The guy was top 5 in innings pitched 7 times, and top5 in CGs 8 times. I don't see much difference between a guy pitching 6-7 innings and giving up 2 runs in a win, or a guy pitching 8-9 innings and giving up 4 or 5 runs in a win. Morris was the latter, and his ERA suffered for it I believe, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't get in.

Besides, on the bigger picture, I have a real problem with so many mid-70's through early 90's stars being passed up for the HoF. It seems like there's this gap between the beginning of free agency and the bastardization of free agency that began after the 1994 strike (not to mention the juiced ball), where all of the guys who had their entire careers during that time are not being given their proper due. I don't think we need to go overboard and put everyone who was an all-star during those times in the HoF, but the best of the best for that 2 decade period should get in.

Just my $.02.

K, search on BP - this pitching to the score arguement about Morris was dealt with and disbanded. Hell, if you want to make a case for an 80's pitcher, Dave Steib was a lot better than Morris ever was- and no one ever makes a case for him.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Im with you- I love the "OPS suk JEtr knows huw to win" arguements- a useful barometer of intelligence.

Doesn't Jeter have a pretty good OPS for a SS? Well I guess unless you're comparing him to A-Rod or peak Nomar that is.

[Bomber]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=1815

I think this is the article you're talking about.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Bomber

Doesn't Jeter have a pretty good OPS for a SS? Well I guess unless you're comparing him to A-Rod or peak Nomar that is.

Yeah, I just meant the Rob Dibble crowd that kept arguing he was better than A-rod because he knew how to win, and that he plays good defense.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

K, search on BP - this pitching to the score arguement about Morris was dealt with and disbanded. Hell, if you want to make a case for an 80's pitcher, Dave Steib was a lot better than Morris ever was- and no one ever makes a case for him.

Thanks for the link. Still really doesn't change my opinion, because I wasn't really referring to "pitching to the win" specifically, but rather, how many runs he gave up late in games - which, of course, would be reflected somewhat in the analysis that was done in this article, but not directly.

Anyway, my disagreement about Morris (or even Stieb) is probably related more to this statement than any statistical argument:

"He happened to have a career in a down period for starting pitchers, so he stands out among his peers more than someone with his performance record would in the 1970s or 1990s."

My opinion is that every "era" should be recognized in the HoF - there should be some recognition for the stars of that 20 year chunk of time, which was really a transitional period to the juiced ball era. The Carltons, Seavers, Suttons, etc., all ended their careers in the 80's. What about the guys whose prime was the 80's?

I just don't think you can say, in a comparison to other eras, that these guys played in a "down period" for starting pitchers, and then completely disregard them based on that comment. They have to be judged, in some respects, by the competition they played with. In 2010, we'll be doing just that in trying to decide whether some guys who hit 400-500+ HRs really deserve to be in the HoF, since compared with the other players of their time, they really didn't stand out like previous 500 HR hitters. Same thing here, but going th other way - just because these guys didn't win 300 games, or have ERAs around 3, doesn't mean that they weren't the best of the best when they played.

Again, I'm not saying we should have dozens of all-stars from the 80's make the HoF, but one or two starting pitchers should get in as a representation of greatness during their careers.

And BTW, Morris is split on the 4 HoF factor tests on baseball-reference.com. I never said he was a sure-thing, but I think he should get in eventually.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

For his career he had an ERA+ of 105, which means he was slightly better than league average.
The guy was top 5 in innings pitched 7 times, and top5 in CGs 8 times. I don't see much difference between a guy pitching 6-7 innings and giving up 2 runs in a win, or a guy pitching 8-9 innings and giving up 4 or 5 runs in a win.

Besides, on the bigger picture, I have a real problem with so many mid-70's through early 90's stars being passed up for the HoF. It seems like there's this gap between the beginning of free agency and the bastardization of free agency that began after the 1994 strike (not to mention the juiced ball), where all of the guys who had their entire careers during that time are not being given their proper due. I don't think we need to go overboard and put everyone who was an all-star during those times in the HoF, but the best of the best for that 2 decade period should get in.

Just my $.02.

A couple of responses. ERA+ adjusts for park and era. Five percent better than the league is not the best of the best-- it's the best of the average.

The era argument doesn't work for Morris as it does for Sandberg or Larkin or Jim Rice.

The innings argument doesn't work because-- though he was in the top 5 seven times-- he only led the league once. Real workhorse Hall of Famers had multiple league leads ( e.g. Phil Neikro[4], Steve Carlton [5], even Orel Hershiser [3]-- all of whom had significantly better rate stats).

If you want to talk prototypical workhorse, you're talking Robin Roberts. That's a Hall of Famer. He led the league in Innings five times and was top five ten times. But he also managed to have an ERA+ of 113 over his career.

Don't get me wrong, I think Morris was a good pithcer. He was very good in his prime. But he never had a Hall of Fame season let alone career.

Morris's best year was 1983:
21-8, 15 CGs, 3.27 ERA, 127 ERA+, 267 IP, 233 Ks, 82 BBs, 6 SOs

Roberts's best was either 1952 or 53. Let's use 1952:
28-7, 2 Svs, 30 CGs, 2.59 ERA, 141 ERA+, 330 IP, 148 Ks, 45 BBs, 3 SOs

That's a Hall of Fame Season. These are very similar pitchers in that they were both workhorses. Neither one ever won a Cy young award. Roberts had to wait five years to get in. That's about the situation Morris is in now. But Morris is not even close to Roberts, who was not a lock, first-ballot guy.

A number of Morris's AL contemporaries were better than he was. Palmer,Blyleven, Blue, and Ryan at the front-end; Guidry and Stieb as almost direct contemporaries; and Clemens and Saberhagen towards the end of his career.

Those are eight American League guys that were significantly better than him over the course of his career.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Im with you- I love the "OPS suk JEtr knows huw to win" arguements- a useful barometer of intelligence.

While Jeter wasn't horrible this year, I know this one friend of mine who claims that the stats like Range Factor and Zone Rating are biased against the Yankees! LOL!

[Alan T]

I think in the whole Morris discussion, the biggest problem I have is purely subjective. When I look at the stats it is apparent that Morris does not compare. To me however the mid-80s was when I truly fell in love with baseball. I started watching in the end of the 70s watching mainly my Braves and paying only attention to them. It wasnt till the early-mid 80s that I started following baseball as a whole (I like to think it was when Brett Butler went to the Indians in that accursed trade that still makes me hate Len Barker). The ballplayers I first started to idolize were those like Dale Murphy, Andre Dawson, Ryne Sandberg, Jack Morris, Rick Suttcliffe, etc.. I don't really know why but somewhere around 1987 or so all of the sudden offense picked up, more dominant players came around and you started seeing players who were far superior to the ones that I saw in the mid 80s statwise. But there were 4 - 5 years there that just feel very unappreciated when talking pure stats. I wish I had a better reason why some of these guys deserve to get in the hall of fame.. They wern't the best for a decade or a generation, but they were the best for the few years when it mattered to me.

[Ksyrup]

Guidry and Stieb really don't have the longevity to be considered, IMO, and they certainly didn't have Koufax's numbers to make up for it. Saberhagen is a bit closer, agreed; and of course, there's no argument about Clemens. Palmer and Blue benefited from spending more of the prime of their careers in the 60's/70's, when they could pile up wins in 4-man rotations and when pitching was more dominant than it was in the 80's. For instance, Morris had a run higher ERA than Palmer (a sure-thing HoFer), but the league ERA during his career was a half-run higher.

I still think Morris deserves a spot - maybe not now, maybe not for the next 5 years, but eventually I believe he should get in. He's not Jim Palmer, but I'm not saying he is.

[Crapshoot]

From my OOTP post regards pitcher in the 80's who were better than Morris:

No, Morris really wasnt - Im not sure why this is argued. Morris's best career year had an ERA+ of 133, and an ERA of 3.28 - 197 innings. That was in 1979 fyi. In his "peak", from 85-87, he had ERA+ of 122, 127, and 126, with 257, 267, and 255.3 innings respectively, which sounds great, until you realize he wasnt even top 5 in his league in innings in any of those years. And those were his best years! He was very good in that 3 year strectch- one of the 10 best in baseball, maybe 5 best. But the season with the Twins was the only other season he had where he was significantly above average- hell, the rest of his career, he was league average or worst, even adjusting for the quantity!

Pitchers in the 80's (why does the decade matter anyway- 65-74 is just as impressive as 80-89, without the catchy round number bit) who were better than Morris:
Saberhagen
Clemens
Steib (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/stiebda01.shtml) - most underrated pitcher of the 80's.
Gooden
Mike Scott
Blevyn
Hershiser
Sutter/Goosen
Valenzuela
Dave Stewart
Dennis Eckersly
Nolan Ryan - about equivalent.

Hell, Bob Welch is Morris' equivalent.

That's just looking for about 15 min- Im confident I can at least add 10 pitchers to that list.

[Ksyrup]

You're really stretching it with some of those guys - Mike Scott, Dave Stewart, Steib? I guess I value longevity more than 1 or 2 exceptional years. Many of these guys didn't have decent careers beyond a 5 year period.

And btw, I'm not just referring to the 80's as if 1980-89 is some discreet period that should be looked at independently; I'm talking more about mid 70's through mid-90's. Most of the guys you mention were better than Morris in a comparison of their best years, but don't have the longevity. Do you remember how bad Dave Stewart and Mike Scott were before they figured it out for a short 5 year period? I don't even see Gooden as being as good a pitcher over his entire career as Morris - even counting how fantastic he was at the beginning. Fernando, Steib, and Welch are decent comparisons - except Morris threw around 800-900 more innings than they did!

I don't know...maybe I''m crazy. But just looking at Hershiser, Welch, Gooden, Scott, Steib, Fernando, Saberhagen - none of those guys hits even one of the 4 HoF monitors, and Morris meets 2 of them. When considering HoF, longevity does matter.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

From my OOTP post regards pitcher in the 80's who were better than Morris:

No, Morris really wasnt - Im not sure why this is argued. Morris's best career year had an ERA+ of 133, and an ERA of 3.28 - 197 innings. That was in 1979 fyi. In his "peak", from 85-87, he had ERA+ of 122, 127, and 126, with 257, 267, and 255.3 innings respectively, which sounds great, until you realize he wasnt even top 5 in his league in innings in any of those years. And those were his best years! He was very good in that 3 year strectch- one of the 10 best in baseball, maybe 5 best. But the season with the Twins was the only other season he had where he was significantly above average- hell, the rest of his career, he was league average or worst, even adjusting for the quantity!

Pitchers in the 80's (why does the decade matter anyway- 65-74 is just as impressive as 80-89, without the catchy round number bit) who were better than Morris:
Saberhagen
Clemens
Steib (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/stiebda01.shtml) - most underrated pitcher of the 80's.
Gooden
Mike Scott
Blevyn
Hershiser
Sutter/Goosen
Valenzuela
Dave Stewart
Dennis Eckersly
Nolan Ryan - about equivalent.

Hell, Bob Welch is Morris' equivalent.

That's just looking for about 15 min- Im confident I can at least add 10 pitchers to that list.

I mostly agree with that list. But I'd take Scott, Stewart and Valenzuela off. I'd also leave off the relievers (even though they were better).

[Bomber]

For what its worth the Hall of Fame measures used by James that Morris misses are the ones that measure:
"the overall quality of a player's career as opposed to singular brilliance" - HoF Standards

and

"how often a player led the league in a variety of "important" stats." - Black-Ink

He succeeds in these
"Essentially the same as the Black-Ink above, but it counts appearances in the top ten of the league" - Gray-Ink

and

"It attempts to assess how likely (not how deserving) an active player is to make the Hall of Fame" - HoF Monitor

[Ksyrup]

Alright, my final argument...I'm from Detroit, so give me a friggin' break!

I also think a case could be made for Trammell, but I wouldn't vote for Whitaker. Rob Neyer and I exchanged a few emails a couple of years ago on Trammell because he agrees.

[oykib]

The most important thing he fails on is the Ken Keltner test.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

NO

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Yes, in his prime

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

No and No

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Yes

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Yes

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

Most certainly not

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

As has been said about the 3.90 ERA, No

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

250 wins with an ERA only 5% better than the league, no other pitcher in the hall has those numbers. No

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

No. His 3.90 ERA is about how well he pitched. His park and league adjusted numbers are not impressive.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

No. Any number of pitchers trump him in any number of categories. Blyleven
alone has more black and grey ink, more wins, more strikeouts, a lower ERA, and a better ERA+.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Zero. As a pitcher he didn't win any Cy Youngs and never lost out on one he deserved.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

Five appearances. Generously, six all-star type seasons. Many pitchers have gotten in with this level of all-star representation.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Yes. But it'd be a tight race. Still, that's a yes.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

No

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Yes



So Morris is six out of fifteen on the test. I dare you to try to find a deserving Hall of Famer that does as poorly.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Alright, my final argument...I'm from Detroit, so give me a friggin' break!

I also think a case could be made for Trammell, but I wouldn't vote for Whitaker. Rob Neyer and I exchanged a few emails a couple of years ago on Trammell because he agrees.

I could probably be convinced on Trammell, as well. Puckett, particularly, makes Trammell look better as a candidate.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by oykib

So Morris is six out of fifteen on the test. I dare you to try to find a deserving Hall of Famer that does as poorly.

Candy Cummings

http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cummica01.shtml

[rkmsuf]

I'd love to meet the Jim Abbott and Terry Steinbach voters.

[Ksyrup]

My problem with several of those questions (1, 2, 3, 6, 10) is that there is only one answer. If Cal Ripken was considered the best SS in baseball, that means that any other SS who played during his career automatically misses that question. If there's one other person more deserving of being in the Hall, then everyone else misses that question.

I don't buy most of that test - especially since we're talking about on-the-edge candidates, not the cream of the crop. This test fails to recognize that the HoF is not made up of just the players who were considered the best player in baseball, at his position, in his league, or on his team. There are a number of HoFers who would do poorly on this test.

That said, I don't disagree with any of your comments on Morris, aside from the fact that ignored that he was in the top 5 on Cy Young voting 5 times. While not "close" to winning (I guess), top 5 in voting is usually thrown around as an indicator of some sort.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Bomber

Candy Cummings

http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cummica01.shtml

We need more porn star names in the Hall. If Jack Morris was named "Jack MoreAss" then I'd say he's a shoo-in.

[Crapshoot]

Great Rob Neyer quote on Jim Rice:
"Another ridiculous revision of history. If nobody worried about Boggs with a man on second base, why did he lead the American League in intentional walks for six straight seasons? Opinions are great, but facts are even better."

[oykib]

The Keltner test isn't like the SAT. But it does help frame the argument on a player. Those fifteen things are the basic thing we ask of Hall of Famers. If a guy scores poorly on it and/or is borderline on many of the questions, it tells you that he really wasn't a Hall of Famer.

[Honolulu Blue]

Congratulations to the new Hall of Famers, both well deserving of the honor.

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I also think a case could be made for Trammell, but I wouldn't vote for Whitaker.

Well, why not Whitaker? They were hitters of comparable value, though Whitaker's career OBP and SLG were a bit better. They were fielders of comparable ability, though Trammell played the more demanding position. Tram had bigger years and two of his best ('84 and '87) came when the Tigers won big, and that has value. But Whit was more consistent throughout his career, especially in the years past '88, when Wagner and Hornsby in their primes couldn't have dragged the Tigers to the pennant. Consistency, IMO, also has its value.

There's no evidence that one is significantly more Hall worthy than the other unless you exaggerate the small differences between them. I feel both are worthy and will eventually get in.

P.S. Another no vote for Jack. Great pitcher, wish he would have been a Tiger forever, but just not enough there.