Hall of Fame Thread

[MSBNYY]

Might as well give this it's own thread...

I like some of the bios...

mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/events/hof/y2007/index.jsp?content=candidate_bios


Bobby Witt-- "Won World Series with Arizona in 2001, pitching 1.0 scoreless inning in relief..."

That alone should be a HOF stat. One whole scoreless inning in the WS.

But if that's not enough to convince you that Witt belongs in the Hall, check out this one:

"Three times pitched 200+ innings"

Screw Tony Gwynn. Get this guy a plaque!!!

[9]

I'm sold now. VOTE WITT!

[Chris]

Buster Olney says you can't keep Palmeiro, McGwire out of the Hall Of Fame only speculation of steroid use, regardless of how probable it is that the speculation is fact.

My take is that if we've learned anything about the Hall Of Fame throughout history, it's that membership is highly susceptible to being affected by popular opinion. There is no cut and dry criteria for Hall Of Fame membership...there is only interpretation of a player's stats...whether they're worthy or not. Someone interpreted that Don Mattingly's stats weren't worthy of Hall Of Fame membership while Kirby Puckett's were. Enough people interpreted that Joe DiMaggio was not first-ballot worthy, while career .262 hitter with no power Ozzie Smith was. If we have to accept opinions as reason for inclusion or exclusion of other players, then suspected steroid users should be eligible for being suspect to the same scrutiny. If enough people believe that Mark McGwire isn't HOF worthy, then he isn't. If Mark McGwire has a problem with that and if getting into the HOF is that important to him, then let him do all he can to refute the widespread speculation - The public at large are very forgiving and I'm sure they'd love for nothing more than to McGwire prove to us emphatically that he didn't take steroids - he certainly didn't make any effort to extinguish the rumors that he did...in fact he only added fuel to the fire by being evasive. Mark McGwire and his supporters have no one to blame but themselves for the widely help OPINIONS of the legitimacy of his stats....and as we've already discussed, the HOF has proven to accept those OPINIONS as the measuring stick of HOF worthiness or unworthiness.

[MSBNYY]

Buster Olney is wrong. First, it's not speculation. Palmeiro tested positive. McGwire used a performance enhancing drug. Legal or not, he did not get those numbers on his own merit. He needed a substance. And if he used that, there's certainly a strong chance he did more.

Voters who choose to bury their heads in the sand are doing the game a disservice, and really shouldn't have their right to vote.

Mark McGwire and all the cheats of the 1990s are frauds.

[Chris]

I agree with you Balls...but my point is - let's just assume Palmeiro did not test positive. Let's just assume that the only thing surrounding both McGwire and Palmeiro was widespread speculation that they were dopers.

I say, that's enough. If that's the widespread opinion amongst voters, while taking into consideration some of the other questionable entries or exclusions that have taken place due to these opinions...then I'm fine with keeping Palmeiro or McGwire out based on that alone.

Buster Olney is attempting to enforce some cut and dry criteria that simply doesn't exist, and hasn't existed over HOF voting history.

[MSBNYY]

I agree. Widespread speculation IS enough to keep them out. See Bonds or Giambi or Sheffield. I don't even care if you can say that he would have been a HOFer without the steroids. Your contribution to the game is more tainted than your piss.

[grover]

BUMP!

Ripkin and Gwynn in soon. Two class acts indeed.

[$heriff Tom]

Yes, indeed they are. And there is a good chance that one, or both, could be the first to come in with a straight up 100% of the vote.

Damn. I just realized in a couple of hours we are going to have to hear another rant from Goose Gossage bitching about not getting in.

[MSBNYY]

Actually, neither one of them should get 100 percent. At minimum, one guy mentioned that he left his entire ballot blank because he didn't have enough info on the steroid era. He said he didn't believe Gwynn and Ripken cheated, but he wasn't 100 percent sure, so he didn't vote.

[MSBNYY]

Of the people that realistically have a shot, I'd like to see Gwynn, Ripken, & Goose get in. There are obviously others I'd vote for, but they don't have a shot.

[9]

I'd vote for Jim Rice, as well, but I doubt he'll get in.

[Chris]

I wonder if Goose's public complaining year after year after year has anything to do with him not getting in.

Kind of the Susan-Lucci-Effect.

[$heriff Tom]

People are tired of hearing Gossage whine, there's no doubt of that. But it has not hurt his chances, as his votes have creeped up year to year. Most reporters just laugh it off and vote how they were going to vote regardless.

I would vote Gwynn, Ripken, Rice, and Blyleven. Maybe a couple of others, I am not looking at the ballot at this point. A wildcard for me was always Jack Morris.

[MSBNYY]

Don't know, but the man has a legitimate complaint. It just sickens me that people are voting for McGwire. He should get somewhere in the 40 percent range, if that. It's a nice slap, but not good enough.

A true statement would be to kick his juiced ass off the ballot.

Interesting about the 100 percent thing. Why HASN'T that happened before? It's not like Gwynn and Ripken are the two best players in the history of the game. They're not even close. What dickhead didn't vote for guys like Aaron, Mays, or Mantle?

Doesn't make sense.

As for Blyleven, I would vote for him, but didn't include him because I don't think he has a real shot.

[$heriff Tom]

Balls, feel free to make your picks public. Its not about "who has a shot" - its about what we would do if we had a vote.

I forgot the reasoning for some of the guys that did not get 100%, but I saw it at some point. It may have been something so simple (and dumb) as a "no one is perfect and no one should get in unanimously" sort of crap.

Tom Seaver was a fine and dandy hurler, for sure, but the fact that he got the highest percentage of votes amongst those going through the process is sort of amusing.

[MSBNYY]

It's a much bigger list, and as is well known, I consider the election of Puckett to have lowered the bar and the standard. If I go by the standard that Puckett is a HOFer, then several people, like Mattingly, who would never have got my vote before, get it now--at least for hitters. Pitchers, I will vote for based on just people I think belong.

On this year's ballot, I would give these people my vote:

Ripken
Gwynn
Gossage

I'd have to give serious consideration to Baines. At first glance, I don't think he's a HOFer, but his numbers are similar to Rice's. Very similar. He also compares very favorably to several lesser HOFers and borderline guys, like Tony Perez. I guess I would say no and discriminate against him because unlike Rice, he didn't play the field, and that has to count for something.


Jim Rice would get my vote. I don't like him because I don't think his numbers were good enough, but that Puckett standard certainly moves him on the right side of that borderline.

Andre Dawson would also be treated similarly to Rice. In fact, I think he has a strong case. Lasted longer than Rice, better overall numbers, similar era. If you put a gun to my head though and told me to choose one, I would probably give Rice the vote in part because his lifetime average was a good 20 points higher than Dawson's and I'm big on average.

Blyleven and Tommy John-- On win total alone, both these guys deserve it. Blyleven has more Ks, but given the longevity of John and the fact that he was effective for so long, and the fact that had he lost a full year in his prime where he would have easily won those 12 games, he gets my vote hands down. I can't vote for one without the other.

Mattingly gets my vote for reasons stated many times. And Garvey would get my vote for the same reasons.

Trammell would get my vote too. One of the best SS' of his era.

But again, that's just using the Puckett/lesser standard. If people like Puckett, Mazeroski, and other questionable people in there were booted, and you simply had the elite of the elite in the HOF like it was intended, the only three people I would choose from this list are Ripken, Gossage and Gwynn.

[$heriff Tom]

I'd have to give serious consideration to Baines. At first glance, I don't think he's a HOFer, but his numbers are similar to Rice's. Very similar

If you can get past the fact that this was done in 1700 more at-bats, of course.

[Chris]

Tom, I don't disagree with your Blyleven vote, but I am curious as to why you feel Blyleven IS worthy, while Goose was not listed on your list of votes?

Gossage has a higher K/Inning ratio.
Gossage has almost half the wins in the same amount of years for having not been a starter. I mean, yeah OK he doesn't have to pitch, attain, and hold a lead for as long as Blyleven did, but Gossage also didn't have the luxury of always starting off on an even playing field (a 0-0 score) like Blyleven did. And Goose has 310 saves all while everyone knows that he probably (I'm pulling this rough estimate out of my ass) has somewhere at least in the neighborhood of a 2:1 ratio of inning pitched per appearance compared to modern day relievers like Mariano Rivera, who is a lock for a first-ballot HOFer. 125 wins AND 310 saves AND a better winning percentage AND a better K/Inning ratio AND a and a lower ERA than a lot of HOFers. I meant I don't think Goose was first ballot worthy...and maybe prior to the evolution of the closer to what it's become now it was justified to keep Goose out for a period of time...but he is UNQUESTIONABLY worthy if the argument of "relativity" holds any water at all.

[MSBNYY]

Should that really be a major factor? Aaron had approximately 4000 more at bats than Ruth. There's no asterisk by that record.

[Jason Giambi]

Reminds me of when new Eagles coach Buddy Ryan cut a rb who had played for the team the following year. A reporter asked him, "Coach, why did you cut so and so, he ran for 1000 yards last year"
Ryan replied, he ran the ball 1000 times

[$heriff Tom]

Actually, Cho, I would probably put Goose on my ballot. I think I am just so weary of talking about him I ended up leaving him off in err. I do agree he's worthy, you dont need to sell me. This said, I wont burn the Earth if he does not make it in.

As for you, Balls, its simple. Look at the bigger picture. Harold Baines was NOT Jim Rice. Its that simple.

The way people look at Rice's stats, he is on the borderline. But when you break them down into an average season, his numbers were innumerably stronger than Harold Baines, year to year. When Rice played, he was always looked at as one of the most dangerous hitters in the league. Baines, not so much. Balls, you know this. You dont need me to explain this.

[MSBNYY]

Like I said, if I had to choose which player I'd put on my team, it would be Rice hands down. The power numbers were similar, but Rice was a damn good fielder. Plus, he hit 20 points higher in his career. Maybe had Rice chosen to stat pad, assuming he could have lasted a few years hitting .235/15/70, he would have beaten Baines' power numbers.

[Chris]

Going back to a point I made about Gossage....is there such as stat for pitchers that indicates the amount of innings per appearance.

Nowadays it would be useful tool for helping evaluate starters...not sure it would mean a thing for bullpen guys because whether you're a closer or a setup guy, your "I.P.A." would be exactly ONE or very close.

BUT, such a stat would go a long way in comparing Goose's 310 saves to Mariano Rivera's (for example) 300+ saves.

[Chris]

Word is in...No Goose!

Ripken and Gwynn

[grover]

Harold Baines?

So wait, Baines, 22 years playing, 3 years with over 100 RBIs, NEVER had 200 hits in a season, gets consideration, but you don't think Rice's numbers, 4 200 hit seasons, and 8 100+ RBI seasons, with a higher average, and considered one of the most feared hitters in his era by his peers, doesn't stack up? The only people keeping Rice out is the press, who think he's a dick. Everyone he played with said he was badass and everyone who pitched against him said they he scared them shitless.

Come on, Baines? He gets the courtesy vote you hate so much and that's it.

[Chris]

So Gossage got 71 1/2 percent. I'm guessing that's the highest vote percentage he's achieved to date?

[MSBNYY]

Did I say that Baines deserves it more than Rice? I could have sworn I said the exact opposite. There are worse players in the HOF than Baines.

[grover]

No, but to even consider Baines, and call Rice's numbers not good enough, even though Rice was putting up his numbers when those numbers were a big deal, and was one of the best offensive players for a decade, and to compare the two overall, is silly. There's NO comparison. I don't see how you don't find Rice's numbers to be HOF worthy, and what he was for a decade to be HOF worthy.

Oh, and my Ballot would be:

Ripkin
Gwynn
Goose
Rice

[$heriff Tom]

The power numbers were similar,

Overall, but again, broken down into seasons Rice slaughters him in production.

Maybe had Rice chosen to stat pad, assuming he could have lasted a few years hitting .235/15/70, he would have beaten Baines' power numbers.

He DID beat his numbers, in that he did what he did in nearly 2000 less at-bats. You really put too much into longevity, which explains your hard-on for Tommy John. John was so AVERAGE throughout most of his career it makes me weep.

[MSBNYY]

Tommy John was NEVER average in his career. 288 wins. It doesn't go beyond that.

Ripken and Gwynn are the only ones in. McGwire gets just 23.5 percent.