MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: ChitownSpaceForRent on January 09, 2014, 04:13:56 PM
-
First I want to say congrats to Glavine, Thomas and Maddux for making the hall. Growing up Frank Thomas was far and away my favorite player and probably the reason im a Sox fan despite growing up on the north side of the city. That being said I hate the way MLB voters work. There is no reason Maddux should not have been a unanimous vote. Also I may be in the minority but I think Bonds should undoubtedly be in the hall. Even if he did take steroids it is damn near impossible to see a 90 mph fastball let alone hit one. Plus there were way more pitchers juiced up then hitters. I just feel like guys like Rose and Bonds should be in the Hall because even before Bonds ballooned he was still one of the best baseball players of his time.
-
There is no reason Maddux should not have been a unanimous vote.
Maddux is friends with Tom Crean. There are consequences in life for bad headwork.
-
Acknowledging my Tiger bias, but Jack Morris and Alan Trammel should be in.
-
Acknowledging my Tiger bias, but Jack Morris and Alan Trammel should be in.
No question. The AL East back then was fearsome and the Tigers were a major factor. And Ernie Harwell (and Bob Ufer) could call a game.
-
There is no reason Maddux should not have been a unanimous vote.
This could be a problem with the system. Voters are only able to choose 10 inductees. It's possible that some voters, (knowing Maddux was in, regardless), didn't bother voting for Maddux and instead used their votes on borderline players like Trammell, Raines, Jack Morris, etc.
-
Acknowledging my Tiger bias, but Jack Morris and Alan Trammel should be in.
Morris was as great pitcher, the bigger the stage the better. He gets my vote, no question. Not as sure about Trammel.
-
Morris was as great pitcher, the bigger the stage the better. He gets my vote, no question. Not as sure about Trammel.
Trammel and Whitaker were awesome together. The NL East had strength up the middle back then:
NYY: Munson, Randolph, BFD, Rivers
Mil: Simba, Molitor, Yount, Thomas
Det: Parrish, Whitaker, Trammel, Leflore
Bal: Dempsey, Dauer, Belanger, Bumbry
Bos: Pudge, Remy, Burleson, Lynn
-
Acknowledging my Tiger bias, but Jack Morris and Alan Trammel should be in.
The baseball HOF has become a joke. Gary Carter? Jim Rice? Bert Blyleven? Those guys are on the same level as Yogi Berra, Hank Aaron and Warren Spahn? Really?! Andre Dawson is my all-time favorite baseball player but even I can admit that he wasn't a HOFer.
I liked Morris and Trammel a lot but they'd have no business being in the HOF. They were very good players but let's not kid ourselves. Morris' career was most statistically significant to Dennis Martinez and El Presidente isn't going into the HOF any time soon. Trammell played 20 years and made 6 All-Star teams, which means for 70% of his career, he wasn't one of the 2-3 best players at his position in his league, yet he should be considered an all-time great? Not a chance.
-
The HOF needs to be blown up and started from scratch. There's so much bad in there it's ridiculous.
-
Interestingly, the same guys who say that Trout is better than Cabrera say that Trammel was the third best shortstop of his era, behind Ripken and the Wizard. Better hitter than the Wizard, better glove than Ripken. His WAR is off the charts. And now, I officially feel unclean, because sabermetrics that I loathe make my point.
-
The HOF needs to be blown up and started from scratch. There's so much bad in there it's ridiculous.
It's kind of become the 'Hall of Very-good'
-
The HOF needs to be blown up and started from scratch. There's so much bad in there it's ridiculous.
There are only 211 members in the HOF elected as players. Even if you disagree with recent picks--given that less than 1.1% of players are in-- I'm not sure the Hall has reached "ridiculous" yet.
-
Interestingly, the same guys who say that Trout is better than Cabrera say that Trammel was the third best shortstop of his era, behind Ripken and the Wizard. Better hitter than the Wizard, better glove than Ripken. His WAR is off the charts. And now, I officially feel unclean, because sabermetrics that I loathe make my point.
He probably was the third-best of his era. However, who were the other SS of that era? Barry Larkin (another guy who shouldn't be in the HOF), Shawon Dunston, Gary Templeton, Tony Fernandez. Not exactly a who's who of all-time greats at the position...though it was fun for me to rack my brain for 80s shortstops ;)
Is career WAR calculated by adding up yearly WAR? I thought I heard that but, if that's true, it can be a very misleading statistic considering it would basically reward quantity over quality (i.e. 20 solid years > 12 great years).
-
He probably was the third-best of his era. However, who were the other SS of that era? Barry Larkin (another guy who shouldn't be in the HOF), Shawon Dunston, Gary Templeton, Tony Fernandez. Not exactly a who's who of all-time greats at the position...though it was fun for me to rack my brain for 80s shortstops ;)
Robin Yount was a very good SS for the first half of the 80's.
-
Robin Yount was a very good SS for the first half of the 80's.
Downplaying it a bit, huh? He was better than very good as one of his MVPs was as a SS.
-
how bout the Miami writer who lost his vote b/c he let deadspin fans choose his ballot?
-
There are only 211 members in the HOF elected as players. Even if you disagree with recent picks--given that less than 1.1% of players are in-- I'm not sure the Hall has reached "ridiculous" yet.
Okay, only the veterans and old timers committees entries suck.
-
Downplaying it a bit, huh? He was better than very good as one of his MVPs was as a SS.
Sorry. I meant he was orgasmic as a shortstop in the early 80's. Better?
-
Downplaying it a bit, huh? He was better than very good as one of his MVPs was as a SS.
Someone argued that Yount was only good but got into the Hall because of longevity. Frankly, I think there is nothing wrong with being good for a long time but at the end of the day 3,000 hits gets you in. The beauty of baseball is the metrics. Ask how many career rushing yards does Emmitt Smith have and you get a blank look. But baseball numbers stick and fuel the imagination.
714, 56, 60/61*, 2130, 2362, 660, 262, 755, 130, 536, 511, 7, 363/63...
-
at the end of the day 3,000 hits gets you in.
Craig Biggio is the only player with 3,000 that I would argue against. (excluding Palmerio).
-
Craig Biggio is the only player with 3,000 that I would argue against. (excluding Palmerio).
You don't think Biggio did candy, do you? I have always heard he was clean.
-
how bout the Miami writer who lost his vote b/c he let deadspin fans choose his ballot?
Dan Le Batard. (has a really funny show on espn you should check out) People were giving him a lot of grief but his reasoning behind it made a lot of sense. He was also exposing the system, hopefully that will be a jump start to restructure it.
-
You don't think Biggio did candy, do you? I have always heard he was clean.
He doesn't belong in because he was never among the best of the best in the game of baseball. He was a solid player for a long time, but that doesn't make him a HOFer.
If you want to get into the PED issue...he looked about finished but then set a career high in HR at age 37 and then again at age 38. Take that however you see fit.
-
Dan Le Batard. (has a really funny show on espn you should check out) People were giving him a lot of grief but his reasoning behind it made a lot of sense. He was also exposing the system, hopefully that will be a jump start to restructure it.
I think Le Batard is a blow hard antagonist...but in a good way, unlike Skip Bayless who just sucks at life. I don't care for Le Batard's schtick but I do think he is general very correct in his opinions. I thought he absolutely pointed out the hypocrisy that is HOF voting.
The biggest issue in the voting is the old boy network "making a stand" against PEDs. Since baseball didn't bother to test until 2007 (NFL started in 1984 I think) there is no way to define the era's timeline. I'm willing to bet there are a number of players that did PEDs in the Hall already, maybe not steroids but certain uppers or HGH or something. If they feel strongly about this, then put something in the hall about the PED era and shut up about it.
-
He doesn't belong in because he was never among the best of the best in the game of baseball. He was a solid player for a long time, but that doesn't make him a HOFer.
If you want to get into the PED issue...he looked about finished but then set a career high in HR at age 37 and then again at age 38. Take that however you see fit.
Couldn't agree more with Biggio.
And he played with these freaks:
(http://cache.boston.com/images/bostondirtdogs//Headline_Archives/BDD_LGRS_9.19.95_bgjd_JBHA_.jpg)
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2004/12/23/magazine/26cami.184.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTP3GbN8Gks5A6z_YPc41AglkR--WpKL9t3ylT7kYeFUsSMH3iS)
-
I think Le Batard is a blow hard antagonist...but in a good way, unlike Skip Bayless who just sucks at life. I don't care for Le Batard's schtick but I do think he is general very correct in his opinions. I thought he absolutely pointed out the hypocrisy that is HOF voting.
The biggest issue in the voting is the old boy network "making a stand" against PEDs. Since baseball didn't bother to test until 2007 (NFL started in 1984 I think) there is no way to define the era's timeline. I'm willing to bet there are a number of players that did PEDs in the Hall already, maybe not steroids but certain uppers or HGH or something. If they feel strongly about this, then put something in the hall about the PED era and shut up about it.
MLB looked the other way on PEDs for a long, long time because the HR chases were great for the game and helped bring back fans after the strike wiped out the WS. The HOF-worthy players from that era (Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, etc) all deserve to be enshrined. Baseball allowed them to use PEDs without consequence. Going back now, acting high and mighty while claiming to be protecting the sanctity of the game and the HOF is hypocrisy in its highest form.
Becoming a HOFer can mean big bucks. Question for the lawyers...Could a HOF-caliber PED guy sue the HOF and/or BBWAA and/or MLB for excluding him? Would there be grounds for that? Ex post facto or something along those line? (Pardon my ignorance)
-
MLB looked the other way on PEDs for a long, long time because the HR chases were great for the game and helped bring back fans after the strike wiped out the WS. The HOF-worthy players from that era (Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, etc) all deserve to be enshrined. Baseball allowed them to use PEDs without consequence. Going back now, acting high and mighty while claiming to be protecting the sanctity of the game and the HOF is hypocrisy in its highest form.
Becoming a HOFer can mean big bucks. Question for the lawyers...Could a HOF-caliber PED guy sue the HOF and/or BBWAA and/or MLB for excluding him? Would there be grounds for that? Ex post facto or something along those line? (Pardon my ignorance)
The lawsuit aspect is interesting...I'm not a lawyer nor did a stay in a Holiday Inn Express, but I would think that would be extremely difficult to prove the reason for the denial. It would have to be someone like Bonds who is a statistical shoe in. I mean if Ty Cobb is in the hall, one of the most despicable human beings in sports history, then we can put jag bags like Bonds in.
-
I'm willing to bet there are a number of players that did PEDs in the Hall already, maybe not steroids but certain uppers or HGH or something. If they feel strongly about this, then put something in the hall about the PED era and shut up about it.
There are dozens of players in the Hall who used greenies, amphetamines, etc., that is well known.
As for players who used steroids in the Hall, I've always been suspicious of Rickey Henderson, who played with the early 90's A's team. The MLB writer Tom Boswell said he knows of at leats one HOFer who drank "Canseco milkshakes," and I think he my have been referring to Rickey.
I don't like this feeling, because R. Henderson is one of my all-time favorites.
-
There are dozens of players in the Hall who used greenies, amphetamines, etc., that is well known.
As for players who used steroids in the Hall, I've always been suspicious of Rickey Henderson, who played with the early 90's A's team. The MLB writer Tom Boswell said he knows of at leats one HOFer who drank "Canseco milkshakes," and I think he my have been referring to Rickey.
I don't like this feeling, because R. Henderson is one of my all-time favorites.
I think part of the issue is we have framed the PED era as "cheating". Malcolm Gladwell has a very interesting take, pointing out that we make distinctions between using cordizone to promote healing and HGH to promote healing, why? PEDs are only cheating because we've arbitrarily decided they were. Besides MLB looked the other way so why should you feel squimish about a guy "playing within the rules" at the time
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/09/out-loud-malcolm-gladwell-case-for-doping.html (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/09/out-loud-malcolm-gladwell-case-for-doping.html)
-
Acknowledging my Tiger bias, but Jack Morris and Alan Trammel should be in.
Trammell definitely yes. He is essentially the same player in quality as Larkin and Ozzie Smith, both of whom sailed in. I really don't understand why he is not getting more support. He got jobbed out of the MVP in 1987. That would have gone a long way toward shoring up his HOF credentials.
I have the same tough time with Morris that a lot of people do. Never had a sub 3.00 ERA in an era when that was not uncommon and the mark of a good pitcher. 3.90 ERA in his era is nothing special (only 5% better than league average adjusted for ballpark for his career). He was an above average pitcher and innings eater on high scoring teams. Very good, but falls a touch short of my HOF line. That said, I'll be surprised if he doesn't get in 3 years from now via the Veterans Committee, and that wouldn't be a travesty by any means. He'd be far from the worst pitcher inducted.
-
First I want to say congrats to Glavine, Thomas and Maddux for making the hall. Growing up Frank Thomas was far and away my favorite player and probably the reason im a Sox fan despite growing up on the north side of the city. That being said I hate the way MLB voters work. There is no reason Maddux should not have been a unanimous vote. Also I may be in the minority but I think Bonds should undoubtedly be in the hall. Even if he did take steroids it is damn near impossible to see a 90 mph fastball let alone hit one. Plus there were way more pitchers juiced up then hitters. I just feel like guys like Rose and Bonds should be in the Hall because even before Bonds ballooned he was still one of the best baseball players of his time.
I said this in another thread, but PEDS are causing guys not to get in and are causing weird voting results as some voters try to game the ballot because they want to vote for more than 10 guys. I think Clemens and Bonds would have been no doubt HOFers without the juice, but it is impossible to say. Bagwell and Piazza will make it eventually. I'll bet a lot of writers are waiting as long as possible to see if any PED proof against those guys surfaces.
-
The baseball HOF has become a joke. Gary Carter? Jim Rice? Bert Blyleven? Those guys are on the same level as Yogi Berra, Hank Aaron and Warren Spahn? Really?! Andre Dawson is my all-time favorite baseball player but even I can admit that he wasn't a HOFer.
But see no one is arguing that. No one is saying that Gary Carter is as good as Yogi Berra...Jim Rice is as good as Hank Aaron, etc.
This is the nature of all Halls of Fame. Even within a hall of fame, there is going to be a differentiation. The question is, where should that differentiation be? Right now there is 237 players. Should it be only 20? 50? 100?
16,000 or so players have played in the MLB. Is it unreasonable that only 1.5% of those players get enshrined?
-
The baseball HOF has become a joke. Bert Blyleven?
Bert Blyleven had one of the best curveballs, ever. He's #5 on the all-time K list with 3,700. That merits being in the Hall.
-
I don't understand all the bitching about the HOF voting. They nailed it this year. I do agree with some posters that some of the people they're now calling "Hall of Famers" don't pass the smell test to me. Barry Larkin was a great player for a very long time but he just never struck me as a legendary player. Frankly, I know he's got the numbers, but neither did Blyleven. Same with Biggio, who I know a lot of people advocate for. And if you're gonna vote for Jim Rice, how are Dave Parker or Dale Murphy completely dismissed? The fact is, if you've ever been to Cooperstown, it's East Coast bias at its finest.
I do think Jack Morris belongs in the Hall, but not Alan Trammell. And no way does Lee Smith belong there...Bruce Sutter? Yes! Eckersley? Yes.
-
If you have a floor, whether it's at 20, 200 or 2000 players, there will be arguments about the last 2 or 20 or 200 to get in - that's ok, in fact it's part of the fun of being a baseball fan.
-
Barry Larkin was a great player for a very long time but he just never struck me as a legendary player.
Larkin is a Michigan grad. He belongs.
-
Quite frankly, the biggest outrage is that Sidd Finch has yet to be anointed. 168 MPH deserves enshrinement.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/04/01/sports/01finch.1841.jpg)
-
Quite frankly, the biggest outrage is that Sidd Finch has yet to be anointed. 168 MPH deserves enshrinement.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/04/01/sports/01finch.1841.jpg)
Best hoax/baseball story ever.
-
Best hoax/baseball story ever.
I believe 168 MPH speaks for itself. For one reason or another the Sidd Finch Story merits preservation.
-
Larkin is a Michigan grad. He belongs.
And kudos to Barry, who left Michigan 9 credits short, but went back 25 years later to earn his degree! Let's see if his example influences Shane (though he will have two years to go). Tough to finish those 2 years when you start out with a four year $1.5 million contract.
-
The HOF needs to be blown up and started from scratch. There's so much bad in there it's ridiculous.
I feel the same way about the Rock 'n Roll HOF.
-
I feel the same way about the Rock 'n Roll HOF.
good call Chick. RnR HOF is a complete joke and it's only been around for like 20 years. They should call the the "I had more than 1 good record club."
-
good call Chick. RnR HOF is a complete joke and it's only been around for like 20 years. They should call the the "I had more than 1 good record club."
Not exactly:
http://rockhall.com/exhibits/one-hit-wonders-songs-that-shaped-rock-and-roll/ (http://rockhall.com/exhibits/one-hit-wonders-songs-that-shaped-rock-and-roll/)
-
One of the people I'm closest to is a Hall voter and he likes writing about it because few subjects engender as much discussion. For whatever reason, the Baseball HoF brings out incredible emotion and passion.
I might be biased, but I think the writers do a pretty darn good job. There can always be arguments about a few players, but of the couple hundred the BBWAA has voted in, there really is debate about only a tiny percentage.
-
One of the people I'm closest to is a Hall voter and he likes writing about it because few subjects engender as much discussion. For whatever reason, the Baseball HoF brings out incredible emotion and passion.
I might be biased, but I think the writers do a pretty darn good job. There can always be arguments about a few players, but of the couple hundred the BBWAA has voted in, there really is debate about only a tiny percentage.
That's the thing. There shouldn't be arguments or a vote or debate or any of that. When a player retires, he's either a HOFer or he's not. Maddux, Glavine, Thomas? No doubt. Biggio, Morris, Bagwell? Maybe...which means they're all no's.
The current process is too complicated.
-
That's the thing. There shouldn't be arguments or a vote or debate or any of that. When a player retires, he's either a HOFer or he's not. Maddux, Glavine, Thomas? No doubt. Biggio, Morris, Bagwell? Maybe...which means they're all no's.
The current process is too complicated.
You make it sound pretty cut-and-dried. Even if you lift the bar higher, you are just lifting the "maybe" area higher. You are always going to have debates.
-
You make it sound pretty cut-and-dried. Even if you lift the bar higher, you are just lifting the "maybe" area higher. You are always going to have debates.
But there shouldn't be room for debate. It IS cut and dry.
Is there a debate about Maddux, Glavine or Thomas?
How about any of these first-ballot guys?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer)
How about Cy Young or Joe Dimaggio? Yogi Berra, Rogers Hornsby or Eddie Matthews?
If there's a legitimate debate, the guy shouldn't be in the Hall. Period.
-
That's the thing. There shouldn't be arguments or a vote or debate or any of that. When a player retires, he's either a HOFer or he's not. Maddux, Glavine, Thomas? No doubt. Biggio, Morris, Bagwell? Maybe...which means they're all no's.
The current process is too complicated.
There's the rub, though. To some folks, Jack Morris is a "no-doubter," because he pitched an unbelievable WS Game 7 and had a cool mustache. Others feel his career numbers mean he's not a "no-doubter." To some, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are "no-doubt" because, looking just at their accomplishments, they had two of the greatest careers in professional baseball history. To others, the fact that they took PEDs removes them from all consideration. That "no doubt" line will always mean different things to different people.
-
But there shouldn't be room for debate. It IS cut and dry.
Is there a debate about Maddux, Glavine or Thomas?
How about any of these first-ballot guys?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer)
How about Cy Young or Joe Dimaggio? Yogi Berra, Rogers Hornsby or Eddie Matthews?
If there's a legitimate debate, the guy shouldn't be in the Hall. Period.
But you are looking at it through the lens of today's Hall of Fame. But if you up the criteria, you just change the debate.
And frankly I don't really understand your "no debate, no hall" stance. I mean why does it have to be that exclusive?
-
But there shouldn't be room for debate. It IS cut and dry.
Is there a debate about Maddux, Glavine or Thomas?
How about any of these first-ballot guys?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer)
How about Cy Young or Joe Dimaggio? Yogi Berra, Rogers Hornsby or Eddie Matthews?
If there's a legitimate debate, the guy shouldn't be in the Hall. Period.
Who decides what the threshold is for a "legitimate debate"? Only first balloters? 80%? 90%? Unless you shrink it to a very, very small number, the guys at the bottom will look different that the guys at the top. Somebody graduates at the bottom of his class at MIT every year whether the class size is 50, 100, 200 or 1000.
-
There's the rub, though. To some folks, Jack Morris is a "no-doubter," because he pitched an unbelievable WS Game 7 and had a cool mustache. Others feel his career numbers mean he's not a "no-doubter."
Perfect example. Legit argument against him. Therefore, he's out.
And frankly I don't really understand your "no debate, no hall" stance. I mean why does it have to be that exclusive?
Frankly, I don't understand why someone would not want a Hall of Fame to be as exclusive as possible.
-
Frankly, I don't understand why someone would not want a Hall of Fame to be as exclusive as possible.
OK...let's just call it the Babe Ruth Museum then.
-
OK...let's just call it the Babe Ruth Museum then.
Or have it your way and call it The Hall of Guys Who Made a Couple All-Star Games.
-
Or have it your way and call it The Hall of Guys Who Made a Couple All-Star Games.
There at least is a lot more to see.
-
There at least is a lot more to see.
I'll take quality over quantity. To each his own.
-
I'll take quality over quantity. To each his own.
But even under your scenario there will be a debate regarding the last few guys who get in versus the first few who don't.
-
OK...let's just call it the Babe Ruth Museum then.
Or have it your way and call it The Hall of Guys Who Made a Couple All-Star Games.
get a room already
-
Not exactly:
http://rockhall.com/exhibits/one-hit-wonders-songs-that-shaped-rock-and-roll/ (http://rockhall.com/exhibits/one-hit-wonders-songs-that-shaped-rock-and-roll/)
Eight Six Seven Five Three Oh Nine
-
When a player retires, he's either a HOFer or he's not.
And in a perfect world we wouldn't need a Marine Corps.
Think of it this way: the annual HoF vote triggers some exciting discussions in bars, dinner tables, break rooms, and basketball chat boards. Fact is, there is no objective standard. Blondes, Brunettes, or Red Heads? Tits or A$$? Free Will or Determinism? Red or Blue?
-
Eight Six Seven Five Three Oh Nine
Now I have that damn song stuck in my head.
-
That's the thing. There shouldn't be arguments or a vote or debate or any of that. When a player retires, he's either a HOFer or he's not. Maddux, Glavine, Thomas? No doubt. Biggio, Morris, Bagwell? Maybe...which means they're all no's.
The current process is too complicated.
1. Debates are fun. A big part of what makes sports great for fans.
2. Until every man, woman and child is infused with the same opinion on every subject, there's no such thing as "there should be no debate." We humans love to debate everything! To deny that is totally unrealistic.
-
We humans love to debate everything!
What in bloody hell do you mean by that?? Explain yourself!
-
I agree, if you need to an argument to get in, you don't belong.
-
I agree, if you need to an argument to get in, you don't belong.
Should notorious racist Ty Cobb be in?
I think it's a legitimate question, therefore the answer is no.
-
I agree, if you need to an argument to get in, you don't belong.
Nobody has ever received 100% of the vote on the first ballot. Shut Cooperstown down.
-
Should notorious racist Ty Cobb be in?
I think it's a legitimate question, therefore the answer is no.
Yeah, he deserves it. A guy from the deep south was racist at the turn of the century? Shocking. Half of America was also racist, it's a product of the culture, that doesn't dictate his baseball prowess.
-
Nobody has ever received 100% of the vote on the first ballot. Shut Cooperstown down.
And nobody ever will because of old baseball writers.
If you're not first ballot, GTFO. They should remove all veterans and old timers selections as well.
-
OK...let's just call it the Babe Ruth Museum then.
Does Babe Ruth belong? The man was a womanizer. And a drunkard. And a trencherman. Good Lord but what about standards?
-
The Hall of Fame was never meant to be only for the Babe Ruths and Hank Aarons. It is a museum, a tourist attraction. If people don't get inducted, people aren't going to visit it. Right now they enshrine something like 1.25% of players, which is reasonable. I'm sure basketball inducts a higher percentage and football inducts more guys year to year, but since their rosters are larger I'm not sure of the percentages.
The way I look at it is that if a guy is as good as the average guy at his position that is already in the HOF, then it is a no-brainer and he should go in. Below that, and it is a discussion.
Discussion is important. When Nolan Ryan went in, he got the second highest percentage of votes ever, and people complained about who are the knuckleheads that didn't vote for him. The same people complained when Phil Niekro got in because he was just a compiler. But look at their careers. Ryan had 6 more wins, while Niekro pitched more innings, had a better winning percentage despite similar quality teams pitched for and a better career ERA adjusted for era/ball park. It is not a no-brainer that Ryan was better than Niekro. In fact it is very debatable.
-
The Hall of Fame was never meant to be only for the Babe Ruths and Hank Aarons. It is a museum, a tourist attraction. If people don't get inducted, people aren't going to visit it. Right now they enshrine something like 1.25% of players, which is reasonable. I'm sure basketball inducts a higher percentage and football inducts more guys year to year, but since their rosters are larger I'm not sure of the percentages.
The way I look at it is that if a guy is as good as the average guy at his position that is already in the HOF, then it is a no-brainer and he should go in. Below that, and it is a discussion.
Discussion is important. When Nolan Ryan went in, he got the second highest percentage of votes ever, and people complained about who are the knuckleheads that didn't vote for him. The same people complained when Phil Niekro got in because he was just a compiler. But look at their careers. Ryan had 6 more wins, while Niekro pitched more innings, had a better winning percentage despite similar quality teams pitched for and a better career ERA adjusted for era/ball park. It is not a no-brainer that Ryan was better than Niekro. In fact it is very debatable.
Excellent post.
-
The Hall of Fame was never meant to be only for the Babe Ruths and Hank Aarons. It is a museum, a tourist attraction. If people don't get inducted, people aren't going to visit it. Right now they enshrine something like 1.25% of players, which is reasonable. I'm sure basketball inducts a higher percentage and football inducts more guys year to year, but since their rosters are larger I'm not sure of the percentages.
The way I look at it is that if a guy is as good as the average guy at his position that is already in the HOF, then it is a no-brainer and he should go in. Below that, and it is a discussion.
Discussion is important. When Nolan Ryan went in, he got the second highest percentage of votes ever, and people complained about who are the knuckleheads that didn't vote for him. The same people complained when Phil Niekro got in because he was just a compiler. But look at their careers. Ryan had 6 more wins, while Niekro pitched more innings, had a better winning percentage despite similar quality teams pitched for and a better career ERA adjusted for era/ball park. It is not a no-brainer that Ryan was better than Niekro. In fact it is very debatable.
Baseball Hall of Fame attendance has been in decline for a few years. It can still be a baseball museum without the likes of Jim Rice, Gaylord Perry and Bill Mazeroski being enshrined.
-
Baseball Hall of Fame attendance has been in decline for a few years. It can still be a baseball museum without the likes of Jim Rice, Gaylord Perry and Bill Mazeroski being enshrined.
Rice was one of baseball's consistently dominant players for 12 years solid, during which he finished in the top-5 in MVP voting an amazing six times and had eight 100-plus-RBI seasons. His career totals aren't as gaudy as some because he didn't hang around for a bunch of extra seasons and because, during his pre-steroids, post-live-ball era, 30 HR and 100 RBI were a lot to hit in a season.
I happen to think he belongs in the Hall -- and so did hundreds of voters from all over the country -- but at the very least he shouldn't casually be dismissed as not deserving.
He is a perfect example of why a debate is better than a bunch of internet dorks like us arbitrarily deeming Player A worthy and Player B unworthy.
(BTW, I'm not a Boston fan. In fact, I was a Yankee fan who hated the Red Sox back when Rice was playing for them.)
Perry is more of a borderline case -- a stat-compiler and an admitted cheat. Maz shouldn't be in the Hall, as is the case with many (maybe even most) veteran's committee choices.
-
Baseball Hall of Fame attendance has been in decline for a few years. It can still be a baseball museum without the likes of Jim Rice, Gaylord Perry and Bill Mazeroski being enshrined.
That's just it! Less and less guys of recent vintage are getting into the HOF, so you gotta be old now or dead to remember most of the guys in there. I guarantee a lot more visitors are getting their picture taken with the Jim Rice plaque than are getting their picture taken with the Old Hoss Radbourne plaque. Less recent inductees translates to less visitors. Last year they inducted some ancient owner and an umpire or something. I'll bet they drew great crowds for that. A much higher percentage of guys from the 1800s are in the Hall of Fame than guys from the 1970s. The HOF is way more selective now than it has ever been.
And Gaylord Perry is an odd choice to demonstrate an unworthy Hall of Famer. 314 wins and 2 Cy Youngs is a pretty good case for a Hall of Famer. Rice isn't the greatest choice ever, but he is a deserving guy who I wouldn't have argued much one way or the other. Mazeroski was a pretty rough choice.
-
Among active players, who should get in? Pujols? (Steroids?) Miguel Cabrera? (Trout is better ::)) Jeter? (Longevity made his numbers great) Ortiz? (A DH? the horror) Clearly, Rivera should, but he is retired and someone will make the argument that he was a 1-inning pitcher who didn't usually come in in pressure situations. Among current starting pitchers? King Felix (numbers aren't that great) Verlander? (down year last year, injured now, who knows how it turns out) Lee? Halladay? Will 200 career wins become the new 300 career wins, since starters don't start as many games, go as many innings, or last as long?
My point is that an excuse can always be found for exclusion. It's silly. It isn't some contest. It is a shrine to celebrate the best the game has to offer, those who have made an impact. The more, the merrier.
-
Clearly, Rivera should, but he is retired and someone will make the argument that he was a 1-inning pitcher who didn't usually come in in pressure situations.
There's actually a good argument to be made against Rivera (and all closers). First off, the only reason Rivera is a closer is because he was sent to the bullpen after being a failed starter. I'll bet there are actually a lot of middle of the pack starters who would be tremendous closers. A 200 inning, 5% better than league average starter is a more valuable commodity and harder to find than an elite closer. I can't find the actual numbers but I remember reading somewhere that the Yankees won less than 1% more often in the 18 years of Rivera as closer with a lead in the 9th inning than they did in the 18 preceding years (like 93% vs 92.5% or something). Because basically, saving your best pitcher to just pitch one inning in games you're going to win more than 90% of the time anyway is a pretty stupid allocation of resources.
If you're not going to vote for Edgar Martinez because he's a DH I don't see how you could vote for any closer.
All that said, I would vote for Rivera every time and I'm a Red Sox fan.
-
Among active players, who should get in? Pujols? (Steroids?) Miguel Cabrera? (Trout is better ::)) Jeter? (Longevity made his numbers great) Ortiz? (A DH? the horror) Clearly, Rivera should, but he is retired and someone will make the argument that he was a 1-inning pitcher who didn't usually come in in pressure situations. Among current starting pitchers? King Felix (numbers aren't that great) Verlander? (down year last year, injured now, who knows how it turns out) Lee? Halladay? Will 200 career wins become the new 300 career wins, since starters don't start as many games, go as many innings, or last as long?
My point is that an excuse can always be found for exclusion. It's silly. It isn't some contest. It is a shrine to celebrate the best the game has to offer, those who have made an impact. The more, the merrier.
Out of your list:
Pujols, Cabrera, Trout, Mariano, Halladay, Verlander and Felix will all make it.
-
There's actually a good argument to be made against Rivera (and all closers). First off, the only reason Rivera is a closer is because he was sent to the bullpen after being a failed starter. I'll bet there are actually a lot of middle of the pack starters who would be tremendous closers. A 200 inning, 5% better than league average starter is a more valuable commodity and harder to find than an elite closer. I can't find the actual numbers but I remember reading somewhere that the Yankees won less than 1% more often in the 18 years of Rivera as closer with a lead in the 9th inning than they did in the 18 preceding years (like 93% vs 92.5% or something). Because basically, saving your best pitcher to just pitch one inning in games you're going to win more than 90% of the time anyway is a pretty stupid allocation of resources.
If you're not going to vote for Edgar Martinez because he's a DH I don't see how you could vote for any closer.
All that said, I would vote for Rivera every time and I'm a Red Sox fan.
You and Tower amplify a point I was trying to make - a guy who's "debatable" to some is a shoe in to others. Saying "if there's any debate, he's out" is bad for the Hall of Fame, bad for baseball and an elitist position that if really applied would mean no Hall of Fame whatsoever.
-
You and Tower amplify a point I was trying to make - a guy who's "debatable" to some is a shoe in to others. Saying "if there's any debate, he's out" is bad for the Hall of Fame, bad for baseball and an elitist position that if really applied would mean no Hall of Fame whatsoever.
Couldn't agree with you more.
-
Out of your list:
Pujols, Cabrera, Trout, Mariano, Halladay, Verlander and Felix will all make it.
Absent steroids allegations, Pujols will cruise in. Rivera will also cruise in. Halladay only has 203 wins, and will probably make it but may have to wait a while, as voters aren't too kind anymore to starters with low win totals. The rest of the guys on your list are good bets but have plenty of work left to do (possible exception Cabrera), so need to stay healthy.
-
You and Tower amplify a point I was trying to make - a guy who's "debatable" to some is a shoe in to others. Saying "if there's any debate, he's out" is bad for the Hall of Fame, bad for baseball and an elitist position that if really applied would mean no Hall of Fame whatsoever.
Craig Biggio not being elected to the HOF would be bad for baseball? Really?!
We can agree to disagree on what makes a HOF player. I'll continue to believe it's the best of the best. Others can believe it's guys who were pretty good for a while ;)
An interesting vote will be David Ortiz. He's got the numbers and he's a jovial, media-friendly guy beloved by teammates and fans...but he's also a PED user.
-
Craig Biggio not being elected to the HOF would be bad for baseball? Really?!
No. One guy getting in every 10 years or so would.
-
No. One guy getting in every 10 years or so would.
Why do you think that would be the case?
Since 2001, 22 players have been enshrined. With the "no doubt" system, 19 players would have gone in. (Yes, I'm putting the PEDs guys in)
2014
Maddux
Glavine
Thomas
2013
Bonds
Clemens
Sosa
2011
Alomar
2009
Henderson
2007
Ripken
Gwynn
McGwire
2005
Boggs
2004
Molitor
Eckersley
2003
Murray
Sandberg
2002
Smith
2001
Winfield
Puckett
-
You and Tower amplify a point I was trying to make - a guy who's "debatable" to some is a shoe in to others. Saying "if there's any debate, he's out" is bad for the Hall of Fame, bad for baseball and an elitist position that if really applied would mean no Hall of Fame whatsoever.
Exactly. I mean Robin Yount was a first ballot HOFer, but was his career that much different that Jim Rice's?
Just because you get in the first year, doesn't mean that you are a "no doubt" candidate. I mean Yount only received 77% of the vote. And if you look at their stats, Rice's might be considered better.
And I'm a Brewer fan.
-
Why are Winfield and Puckett no doubt but Rice doesn't belong?
Look at Tim Raines compared to Tony Gwynn. Not much difference. Same plate appearances Raines around 200 more runs, Gwynn around 150 more RBIs. Very similar OBPs. They both even had sons who had short MLB careers. Raines much better base runner (maybe the best base runner ever). Gwynn better, but not way, way better. The basic difference between the two is how you value singles vs walks. If your HOF has Gwynn but not Raines, then Gwynn has to be the bottom of the line.
There's no difference in true value between Ozzie Smith and Alan Trammell. Ozzie the much better fielder (though Trammell was excellent) and Trammell the much better hitter (though Ozzie better than he uis usually given credit for).
Dennis Eckersley? 1 or 2 HOF type seasons out of 12 as a starter and 5 great years as a closer and he's a slam dunk Hall of Famer? I'm a big HOF guy and I wouldn't have voted for him.
And that's the point. The guys who are no-doubters to you may not be no doubters to someone else and vice versa.
-
The Hall of Fame was never meant to be only for the Babe Ruths and Hank Aarons. It is a museum, a tourist attraction. If people don't get inducted, people aren't going to visit it. Right now they enshrine something like 1.25% of players, which is reasonable. I'm sure basketball inducts a higher percentage and football inducts more guys year to year, but since their rosters are larger I'm not sure of the percentages.
The way I look at it is that if a guy is as good as the average guy at his position that is already in the HOF, then it is a no-brainer and he should go in. Below that, and it is a discussion.
Discussion is important. When Nolan Ryan went in, he got the second highest percentage of votes ever, and people complained about who are the knuckleheads that didn't vote for him. The same people complained when Phil Niekro got in because he was just a compiler. But look at their careers. Ryan had 6 more wins, while Niekro pitched more innings, had a better winning percentage despite similar quality teams pitched for and a better career ERA adjusted for era/ball park. It is not a no-brainer that Ryan was better than Niekro. In fact it is very debatable.
We scored some box seats along the first base line for a day game between the Brewers and Angels. Ryan was pitching for the Halos and we got there when Ryan was warming up. The man lets out an audible grunt with every pitch and the pop in the mitt was like a fire cracker. 8 innings later he was still grunting and the pop was just as pronounced as it was 2.5 hours earlier.
Numbers only tell part of the story. Nolan Ryan was an hurler who struck fear in the hearts of batters. Guys were afraid when standing in against him. And Ryan, like Bob Gibson, was a warrior. He practiced the art of chin music like a maestro.
I liked Niekro and I believe he belongs in the Hall. But to compare him as a pitcher to Nolan Ryan is naïve. Most of the pitcher-batter duel is mental. And one of the masters of that battle was Ryan. You simply cannot compare Ryan's heat with Niekro's butterfly.
-
We scored some box seats along the first base line for a day game between the Brewers and Angels. Ryan was pitching for the Halos and we got there when Ryan was warming up. The man lets out an audible grunt with every pitch and the pop in the mitt was like a fire cracker. 8 innings later he was still grunting and the pop was just as pronounced as it was 2.5 hours earlier.
Numbers only tell part of the story. Nolan Ryan was an hurler who struck fear in the hearts of batters. Guys were afraid when standing in against him. And Ryan, like Bob Gibson, was a warrior. He practiced the art of chin music like a maestro.
I liked Niekro and I believe he belongs in the Hall. But to compare him as a pitcher to Nolan Ryan is naïve. Most of the pitcher-batter duel is mental. And one of the masters of that battle was Ryan. You simply cannot compare Ryan's heat with Niekro's butterfly.
How come Niekro won games at a higher percentage rate and allowed runs at a lower rate? If fear was that big a deal those things wouldn't be true.
-
Why are Winfield and Puckett no doubt but Rice doesn't belong?
Look at Tim Raines compared to Tony Gwynn. Not much difference. Same plate appearances Raines around 200 more runs, Gwynn around 150 more RBIs. Very similar OBPs. They both even had sons who had short MLB careers. Raines much better base runner (maybe the best base runner ever). Gwynn better, but not way, way better. The basic difference between the two is how you value singles vs walks. If your HOF has Gwynn but not Raines, then Gwynn has to be the bottom of the line.
There's no difference in true value between Ozzie Smith and Alan Trammell. Ozzie the much better fielder (though Trammell was excellent) and Trammell the much better hitter (though Ozzie better than he uis usually given credit for).
Dennis Eckersley? 1 or 2 HOF type seasons out of 12 as a starter and 5 great years as a closer and he's a slam dunk Hall of Famer? I'm a big HOF guy and I wouldn't have voted for him.
And that's the point. The guys who are no-doubters to you may not be no doubters to someone else and vice versa.
+1. Take a minute to look at Puckett's and Winfield's career statistics next to Craig Biggio. Craig Biggio certainly looks to have had at least as good a career (I would argue a better career) than Kirby Puckett or Dave Winfield.
Not that there isn't room for that debate - but that's the point. Even within your list, players are in totally different stratospheres. Kirby Puckett, Ryne Sandberg, Dave Winfield... don't even come close to Cal Ripken or Ricky Henderson. Greg Maddux had a tremendously more impressive career than Dennis Eckersley.
-
How come Niekro won games at a higher percentage rate and allowed runs at a lower rate? If fear was that big a deal those things wouldn't be true.
Not sure if you ever played baseball but read what MLB hitters said about standing in against either Gibson or Ryan. Fear is a considerable factor in the Pitcher-Batter construct.
Winning % is one indicator but is King Felix a lesser pitcher because he plays for a really terrible Mariners team?
http://voices.yahoo.com/top-ten-most-intimidating-pitchers-all-time-7440374.html
-
Not sure if you ever played baseball but read what MLB hitters said about standing in against either Gibson or Ryan. Fear is a considerable factor in the Pitcher-Batter construct.
Winning % is one indicator but is King Felix a lesser pitcher because he plays for a really terrible Mariners team?
http://voices.yahoo.com/top-ten-most-intimidating-pitchers-all-time-7440374.html
I played baseball through high school and have coached 20 years in youth leagues (i've coached from 5 year olds through age 16) but don't think of those things as terribly helpful to me in this discussion. I understand everything you are saying. But the bottom line is that Nolan Ryan and Phil Niekro pitched very similar totals of innings and using ERA+ (putting ERA in context of environment) Niekro prevented runs at a slightly better rate than did Nolan Ryan. The primary goal of pitcher is not to scare the other guys. It is not to impress the other guys. It is to prevent runs and Ryan did not do that any better than Niekro did. You think the way Ryan did it (throw hard, lots of walks and strikeouts) makes him better than Niekro somehow. I don't. I can agree to disagree. One of the beauties of baseball is the many ways you can accomplish the same goal.
-
I played baseball through high school and have coached 20 years in youth leagues (i've coached from 5 year olds through age 16) but don't think of those things as terribly helpful to me in this discussion. I understand everything you are saying. But the bottom line is that Nolan Ryan and Phil Niekro pitched very similar totals of innings and using ERA+ (putting ERA in context of environment) Niekro prevented runs at a slightly better rate than did Nolan Ryan. The primary goal of pitcher is not to scare the other guys. It is not to impress the other guys. It is to prevent runs and Ryan did not do that any better than Niekro did. You think the way Ryan did it (throw hard, lots of walks and strikeouts) makes him better than Niekro somehow. I don't. I can agree to disagree. One of the beauties of baseball is the many ways you can accomplish the same goal.
As I said in my original post, Niekro belongs in the Hall. He was a damned effective pitcher. I just think Nolan Ryan was more electric. I also liked Nolan Ryan as a person. I recall being back in Plano on PepsiCo business and reading the Morning News Sports page. The writer catalogued the cars driven by the various Ranger players. The list was full of luxury and ultra high performance. And one 15 year old Ford F 350. Driven by Nolan Ryan.
-
We scored some box seats along the first base line for a day game between the Brewers and Angels. Ryan was pitching for the Halos and we got there when Ryan was warming up. The man lets out an audible grunt with every pitch and the pop in the mitt was like a fire cracker. 8 innings later he was still grunting and the pop was just as pronounced as it was 2.5 hours earlier.
Numbers only tell part of the story. Nolan Ryan was an hurler who struck fear in the hearts of batters. Guys were afraid when standing in against him. And Ryan, like Bob Gibson, was a warrior. He practiced the art of chin music like a maestro.
For hitters, McCovey and Dawson did the exact same thing. Very good hitters, but THEY scared pitchers.
-
For hitters, McCovey and Dawson did the exact same thing. Very good hitters, but THEY scared pitchers.
There was a great Nike ad for baseball bats in the later '90's. Just a shot of a pitcher toeing the rubber and a large piss stain on his pants.
I coached little league in Jakarta then and we were looking at the ad in the dugout. I asked one of the Japanese kids on the team if he understood what it meant and he replied, "That man is a coward!" I nodded approvingly.
-
For hitters, McCovey and Dawson did the exact same thing. Very good hitters, but THEY scared pitchers.
Non Hall-of-Famers Jim Rice, Gorman Thomas, and George Bell can also be added to the list of very intimidating hitters.
Personally, I find the fear put into an opposing player to be too subjective to be factored into voting. I LOVED Lee Smith growing up, but don't think the fact that he was intimidating pushes him into the Hall. Additionally, Maddux may be the least intimidating athlete of all time.
-
Non Hall-of-Famers Jim Rice, Gorman Thomas, and George Bell can also be added to the list of very intimidating hitters.
Personally, I find the fear put into an opposing player to be too subjective to be factored into voting. I LOVED Lee Smith growing up, but don't think the fact that he was intimidating pushes him into the Hall. Additionally, Maddux may be the least intimidating athlete of all time.
"People pay to see me hit home runs, run into the wall, and strike out. I try to accommodate them in at least 2 of those every game."
--Gorman Thomas
That guy could hit dingers at County Stadium but not the Kingdome. Go figure.
-
Non Hall-of-Famers Jim Rice, Gorman Thomas, and George Bell can also be added to the list of very intimidating hitters.
Personally, I find the fear put into an opposing player to be too subjective to be factored into voting. I LOVED Lee Smith growing up, but don't think the fact that he was intimidating pushes him into the Hall. Additionally, Maddux may be the least intimidating athlete of all time.
Rice is in the Hall.
-
Rice is in the Hall.
Good call.
-
Non Hall-of-Famers Jim Rice, Gorman Thomas, and George Bell can also be added to the list of very intimidating hitters.
To me, two of the most menacing hitters of the last 25 years were Albert Belle and Gary Sheffield. I would not want to be the 3rd base coach when either of those guys came up.
-
To me, two of the most menacing hitters of the last 25 years were Albert Belle and Gary Sheffield. I would not want to be the 3rd base coach when either of those guys came up.
I like those two. Although he didn't have the mean streak that those two guys had, in his prime, I think Pujols was absolutely feared by any pitcher. You couldn't make even the tiniest mistake against him.
For recent pitchers, Randy Johnson and Pedro. Randy Johnson just because he sort of looked crazy and threw a slider that to a righty probably looked like it was coming at your head... at 90 mph. And he killed a bird with a baseball. And Pedro because he threw the best changeup in baseball with 97mph heat and had an affinity for coming inside... I would have been terrified of facing Pedro.
-
I didn't look at the whole thread, but if it IS the BASEBALL HOF and not the MLB HOF, then more Negro League players should be in, no?
Ask the director of the NLHOF in KC and I'm sure he can come up with at least 5 off the top of his head.
Speaking of relative "no doubt," ever tried looking up some of those turn of the century HOFers? Other than peer testimonies, it's hard for us to gauge their HOF worthiness based on numbers that appear to be borderline HOF worthy.
-
I didn't look at the whole thread, but if it IS the BASEBALL HOF and not the MLB HOF, then more Negro League players should be in, no?
Ask the director of the NLHOF in KC and I'm sure he can come up with at least 5 off the top of his head.
Speaking of relative "no doubt," ever tried looking up some of those turn of the century HOFers? Other than peer testimonies, it's hard for us to gauge their HOF worthiness based on numbers that appear to be borderline HOF worthy.
They've had multiple committees to recognize the deserving Negro Leaguers and I think they're well and fairly represented, except I think it is a shame that Buck O'Neil wasn't inducted.
The thing you need to realize when looking at the older turn of the century guys is that there wasn't near the breadth of talent then as there is now, so it was much easier for a great player to dominate. For example, I'm sure a guy like Walter Johnson would still be good now, but there are many similar guys now.