PDA

View Full Version : Hall of Fame Ballot



Kinsm
11-30-2010, 05:04 PM
The Baseball Writers' Association of America Hall of Fame ballot features 33 players, including 14 holdovers from previous elections and 19 newcomers.

Eligibility - 10 years of major league service, 5 years in retirement, in good standing with mlb.

Any candidate receiving votes on 75 percent of the ballots will earn election to the Hall of Fame. Candidates will be enshrined on Induction Weekend July 22-25 in Cooperstown.

Results of the vote will be announced January 5th, 2011. Eligible voters are members of the BBWAA with at least 10 years of service and who remain in good standing.

Candidates who receive between 5 and 74.9 percent of the vote will return to the BBWAA ballot in 2012 unless they have exhausted their 15-year eligibility window. Candidates who receive fewer than 5 percent of the vote will be no longer eligible for BBWAA Hall of Fame elections.


*I'm not going to put up the votes from last year (though they are easy to find) because I don't want them to sway anyone's votes. You may vote for up to 10...the same restriction real voters have.

**I left off Harold Baines, Lenny Harris, and Kirk Rueter. PSD only allows 30 choices for a poll.

Kinsm
11-30-2010, 05:08 PM
Refrain from voting for more than 10 players please...it's the same restriction that real voters have but PSD won't allow me to place that restriction in the poll.

VRP723
11-30-2010, 05:12 PM
I voted for Alomar and Bagwell as no brainers, and I voted for Walker, despite the Coors effect, I think he's a HOFer, and Edgar, who was such a great hitter, that was the toughest call, but he's in in my book.

tbone2171
11-30-2010, 05:21 PM
I voted for Alomar and Bagwell as no brainers, and I voted for Walker, despite the Coors effect, I think he's a HOFer, and Edgar, who was such a great hitter, that was the toughest call, but he's in in my book.

Why no Blyleven?

VRP723
11-30-2010, 05:23 PM
Forgot him...Blyleven too of course

tbone2171
11-30-2010, 05:26 PM
Forgot him...Blyleven too of course

:)

Hunter48MVP
11-30-2010, 05:31 PM
My picks: Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Edgar Martinez , Don Mattingly and Tim Raines

Kinsm
11-30-2010, 05:37 PM
Also, need to ask mods to keep this thread in this forum. This is mlb news of the month.

VRP723
11-30-2010, 05:38 PM
I agree, this should be allowed to stay here

MooseWithFleas
11-30-2010, 05:48 PM
Tim Raines never gets enough respect.

RTL
11-30-2010, 06:20 PM
Alomar is the only one I voted for as he is the only surefire HOFer in my opinion

Young2Kinsler
11-30-2010, 06:27 PM
Alomar is the only one I voted for as he is the only surefire HOFer in my opinion

Bagwell is a lock as well

Kinsm
11-30-2010, 06:30 PM
Bagwell is a lock as well

And Larkin...and so on...there are definitely more than 1

RTL
11-30-2010, 06:32 PM
Maybe to you guys, not to me and since its my vote........

todu82
11-30-2010, 08:38 PM
Alomar, Bagwell, Blyleven, Larkin, Murphy, Smith. Didn't see Edgar Martinez there at first but he'd have my vote as well.

drty snchz
11-30-2010, 08:43 PM
Alomar is the only one I voted for as he is the only surefire HOFer in my opinion

same here

darkfire423
11-30-2010, 09:18 PM
Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Edgar Martinez, Barry Larkin, Lee Smith

RTL
11-30-2010, 10:00 PM
I almost forgot Pete Rose

VenezuelanMet
11-30-2010, 10:29 PM
Bagwell is so underrated :(

Az_Dodgers_Fan
12-01-2010, 01:27 AM
I'm glad I wasnt the only one to vote for Palmeroid. His hit total gets the vote for me.

Mr Haha
12-01-2010, 02:55 AM
My picks: Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Edgar Martinez , Don Mattingly and Tim Raines

I had the same except for Rock... don't know what's holding me back on him.

justndav
12-01-2010, 05:19 AM
I voted for Blyleven, Edgar Martinez, and Barry Larkin...thats it. Bagwell is not a HOF'er because it was, IMO, pretty obvious why he put up such great #'s and then seemingly fell off a cliff in a flash. The other guys are just meh, not great players and not worthy of election. We want it to be the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Pretty Good. If they weren't in the top echelon of players during the time they played they are not worthy, and I mean the best of the best year out the whole time they were playing. And no votes for admitted or caught steroid users.

Havoc Wreaker
12-01-2010, 08:06 AM
I will comment solely on the Puerto Ricans on there

Carlos Baerga = Really?
Benito Santiago = Meh
Igor Gonzalez = A monster, but the question mark of steroids is over him.
Edgar = Holy ****, I had never noticed his offensive numbers :speechless:, but I hate DH's...

Alomar = :worthy:

Jeffy25
12-01-2010, 11:49 AM
The fact that about 36% of you don't vote for Blyleven is a damn shame and a crime. PSD officially worse than the voters.

I voted for Bly, Alomar, Larkin, Trammel, Raines, Bagwell, Brown as my for sure votes.

I gave the vote to McGwire and Palmerio, but they are my borderline picks


Juan Gonzalez was my closest that didn't make it.

Jeffy25
12-01-2010, 11:51 AM
I voted for Blyleven, Edgar Martinez, and Barry Larkin...thats it. Bagwell is not a HOF'er because it was, IMO, pretty obvious why he put up such great #'s and then seemingly fell off a cliff in a flash. The other guys are just meh, not great players and not worthy of election. We want it to be the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Pretty Good. If they weren't in the top echelon of players during the time they played they are not worthy, and I mean the best of the best year out the whole time they were playing. And no votes for admitted or caught steroid users.

I guess a career 80 WAR for Bagwell is just not Hof good, because you assume he did something.


You would make a great voter.

I agree with a smaller hall of fame too, but some guys deserve to be in, and not based solely on notoriety.

Jeffy25
12-01-2010, 11:52 AM
And why is Don Mattingly getting more votes than Mark McGwire, Tim Raines, Allan Trammel and Kevin Brown?


And what the hall on Kevin Brown, I am the only person that voted for the 34th (by WAR) greatest pitcher of all time?

He was more valuable than John Smoltz, David Cone, Carl Hubbel, Juan Marchial, Dennis Eck, Whitey Ford, Koufax, and about the same as Don Drysdale.

poodski
12-01-2010, 12:13 PM
It makes me sad that a guy like Tom Glavine will probably be a first ballot HOF'er but a guy like Kevin Brown only got two votes.

Really sad stuff. Kevin Brown is so much better than he gets credit for.

ShockerArt
12-01-2010, 12:45 PM
**I left off Harold Baines, Lenny Harris, and Kirk Rueter. PSD only allows 30 choices for a poll.

Not that I would have voted for Baines, but I enjoyed that you left him off and put Bobby Higginson on the ballot. :laugh2:

JackB
12-01-2010, 04:06 PM
Alomar is the only one I voted for as he is the only surefire HOFer in my opinion

I agree. I tired of the HOF getting watered down with guys that were very good plyers and NOT superstars . Are these guys on the same level with Aaron, Mays Mantle and Ruth? I think not.
Maybe they should start a HOF 2 for the rest of the guys.
I also STILL think Pete Rose SHOULD be in the HOF.

RedSox>Yankees
12-01-2010, 05:33 PM
I hope Blyleven gets in, but he has tough competition in Alomar, Bagwell, Martinez, Walker and Larkin.

DrS16
12-01-2010, 06:32 PM
Bagwell is a lock as well

Roberto Alomar was a perennial MVP candidate because he made each team he was on that much better. Best defensive 2B of all-time.

RTL
12-01-2010, 08:51 PM
And why is Don Mattingly getting more votes than Mark McGwire, Tim Raines, Allan Trammel and Kevin Brown?


And what the hall on Kevin Brown, I am the only person that voted for the 34th (by WAR) greatest pitcher of all time?

He was more valuable than John Smoltz, David Cone, Carl Hubbel, Juan Marchial, Dennis Eck, Whitey Ford, Koufax, and about the same as Don Drysdale.

A prime example why WAR isn't everything!!!

Kinsm
12-07-2010, 01:20 AM
bumping it

bagwell368
12-07-2010, 09:19 AM
Roberto Alomar was a perennial MVP candidate because he made each team he was on that much better. Best defensive 2B of all-time.

Nonsense. Alomar was brutal his last 5 years, and not the special in the middle third of his career either. He's not in the top 5 all time for fielding or as a 2B. But, he is a HoF'er.

bagwell368
12-07-2010, 09:22 AM
I voted for Blyleven, Edgar Martinez, and Barry Larkin...thats it. Bagwell is not a HOF'er because it was, IMO, pretty obvious why he put up such great #'s and then seemingly fell off a cliff in a flash. The other guys are just meh, not great players and not worthy of election. We want it to be the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Pretty Good. If they weren't in the top echelon of players during the time they played they are not worthy, and I mean the best of the best year out the whole time they were playing. And no votes for admitted or caught steroid users.

Bagwell hurt his shoulder. Trammell has as much right to the HoF as Larkin and Edgar, Bagwell was better then all 3 of those guys.

bagwell368
12-07-2010, 09:23 AM
And why is Don Mattingly getting more votes than Mark McGwire, Tim Raines, Allan Trammel and Kevin Brown?

The NY MF Y influence?

Jeffy25
12-07-2010, 11:02 AM
A prime example why WAR isn't everything!!!

Of the following, which are/is a hall of famer, and which are/is not?

Pitcher A: 211-144, 3.28 ERA, 3256.1 IP, 127 ERA+, 64.8 WAR
Pitcher B: 216-146, 3.46 ERA, 3261.0 IP, 128 ERA+, 69.7 WAR
Pitcher C: 213-155, 3.33 ERA, 3473.0 IP, 125 ERA+, 63.9 WAR

The fact that John Franco and Al Leiter have more votes than Brown makes me really happy that PSD posters aren't the people to actually vote for the hall of fame.

Jeffy25
12-07-2010, 11:05 AM
playing devil's advocate.

The other two had a lot more career k's (about 700 more) and have a lot more playoff credentials. I am not disputing that Brown should be in, but when comparing him to those two, those two facts should probably be weighed as well.

But in reality, his career compares to two guys that will likely be first ballot hall of famers, and it's a shame because Brown may not even garner enough support to remain on the ballot after this year.

JackB
12-07-2010, 11:09 AM
I go by my quote .

bagwell368
12-07-2010, 12:40 PM
playing devil's advocate.

The other two had a lot more career k's (about 700 more) and have a lot more playoff credentials. I am not disputing that Brown should be in, but when comparing him to those two, those two facts should probably be weighed as well.

But in reality, his career compares to two guys that will likely be first ballot hall of famers, and it's a shame because Brown may not even garner enough support to remain on the ballot after this year.

Problem is Brown was a dick. Much like Steib who also went nowhere.

I have Smoltz, Cone, Schilling - all ahead of both of those guys. For peak value - being #1 aces, in tougher envs., and playoff dominance. If I had to pick just for a game, guys like Saberhagen and Tiant elbow Brown right out the way as well.

Brown was a fine #2 type SP, but never took the final step. He lasted a long time, but never took the step. He is not going to be voted in.

But he is worthy of long thought at least.

p.s. I saw each guy I mentioned pitch at least 25 times - including at their peaks.

RTL
12-07-2010, 01:06 PM
Of the following, which are/is a hall of famer, and which are/is not?

Pitcher A: 211-144, 3.28 ERA, 3256.1 IP, 127 ERA+, 64.8 WAR
Pitcher B: 216-146, 3.46 ERA, 3261.0 IP, 128 ERA+, 69.7 WAR
Pitcher C: 213-155, 3.33 ERA, 3473.0 IP, 125 ERA+, 63.9 WAR

The fact that John Franco and Al Leiter have more votes than Brown makes me really happy that PSD posters aren't the people to actually vote for the hall of fame.

All three of them are not HOFers. It also makes me happy you are not a HOF voter if you actually thought you were in the presence of greatness when watching Brown pitch. He had a very good career but I reserve the HOF for the great!

Jeffy25
12-07-2010, 01:08 PM
All three of them are not HOFers. It also makes me happy you are not a HOF voter if you actually thought you were in the presence of greatness when watching Brown pitch. He had a very good career but I reserve the HOF for the great!

So you don't think Smoltz or Schilling are hall of famers or that they were greatness?

And you think Franco and Lieter were greater than Brown?


Honestly?

JackB
12-07-2010, 01:13 PM
All three of them are not HOFers. It also makes me happy you are not a HOF voter if you actually thought you were in the presence of greatness when watching Brown pitch. He had a very good career but I reserve the HOF for the great!

AMEN BROTHER !!!!! Damn it. The HOF is getting watered down. I'm so happy they didn't vote somebody in just to say they did. Its about time .:clap:

RTL
12-07-2010, 01:27 PM
So you don't think Smoltz or Schilling are hall of famers or that they were greatness?

And you think Franco and Lieter were greater than Brown?


Honestly?

Smoltz and Schilling were great in the postseason but if I had to choose between the two, Smoltz would get my vote. He was a dominant starter as well as a dominant closer. Schilling's sock is already in the HOF:)

No I do not. Franco was a very good lefty closer but that's all he should be remembered by. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

Jeffy25
12-07-2010, 01:31 PM
Smoltz and Schilling were great in the postseason but if I had to choose between the two, Smoltz would get my vote. He was a dominant starter as well as a dominant closer. Schilling's sock is already in the HOF:)

No I do not. Franco was a very good lefty closer but that's all he should be remembered by. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

my complaint was that Franco and Leiter had more votes than Brown.

And Browns career accomplishments were basically the same as Smoltz and Schilling except for their post season resumes....and even then, it's a very thin line.

The playoff thing is there, but you're drawing an awfully thin HoF line if you're using the differences in their playoff performances to keep Brown out of the Hall and put Schilling and Smoltz in. I'd rank Schilling and Smoltz ahead of Brown, but I don't see how you can put those two in and keep Brown out. The differences are far too tiny to draw the in/out line between.

You can't eye ball the stats of Brown, Schilling, and Smoltz and see the differences, that is the point. They were all equally as good. So if you are going to support a vote for one of them, I would want to understand your logic between one of them over the other two, or two of them over the other one.

Their career accomplishments are basically no different in terms of value offered.

In case I lost you, Pitcher A, B and C in my example are Brown, Schilling and Smoltz

Pitcher A: 211-144, 3.28 ERA, 3256.1 IP, 127 ERA+, 64.8 WAR
Pitcher B: 216-146, 3.46 ERA, 3261.0 IP, 128 ERA+, 69.7 WAR
Pitcher C: 213-155, 3.33 ERA, 3473.0 IP, 125 ERA+, 63.9 WAR

What is the big difference that two of these guys should be allowed in and the other should not?

Unless you don't think Schilling and Smoltz are hall of famers.

RTL
12-07-2010, 01:34 PM
I only put Smoltz in and I gave my reason for it. Pitcher C was missing some saves then.

Jeffy25
12-07-2010, 01:36 PM
I only put Smoltz in and I gave my reason for it.

Because he was also a closer? And you leave Schilling out?

RTL
12-07-2010, 01:38 PM
Because he was also a closer? And you leave Schilling out?

Because he was dominant as a starter and closer yes. Only MLB in history to have 200+ wins and 150+ saves. Schilling could get in and I wouldn't sry about it because like I said, he was great in the postseason but if forced to choose between the two, Smoltz.

Kinsm
12-07-2010, 03:32 PM
Kevin Brown isn't getting votes because of steroids.

RTL
12-07-2010, 03:46 PM
Was Brown even linked to steroids?

Kinsm
12-07-2010, 03:55 PM
Was Brown even linked to steroids?

Absolutely, the Mitchell report documents allegations by Kirk Radomski that he sold Brown human growth hormone and Deca-Durabolin over a period of two or three years beginning in either 2000 or 2001. Radomski claims he was introduced to Brown by Paul Lo Duca. Radomski's claims were supported by an Express Mail receipt dated June 7, 2004, addressed to Brown. The report also contains notes from a meeting of Dodgers executives in 2003 during which they question the medication Brown takes and include a note stating "Steroids speculated by GM".

Just so happens that corresponds with his best years (after the age of 31).

RTL
12-07-2010, 04:30 PM
Wow! I guess Brown's name never got my attention. Thanks.

Jeffy25
12-07-2010, 06:22 PM
Wow! I guess Brown's name never got my attention. Thanks.

Yes, Brown was linked to steroids, so were several other pitchers, Clemens and Mussina for example. As I have said in other hall of fame threads, that doesn't bother me, I care about on field accomplishments.

The line between Schilling, Smoltz and Brown is basically non-existent, other than a small sample size post-season argument.

I support and fully respect the opinion of people that want a smaller hall of fame. I agree with them quite often. But to not have one of Schilling, Smoltz or Brown in, but to have the other two, or to have one of them and not the other two, is pretty awful. And if you are going to elect to not have one of them, then I would need to understand the argument. Brown had a much more valuable career than many current hall of famers.

During Browns career, you have two groups of starters. The group that includes Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Pedro..and then the lesser group of Glavine, Schilling, Smoltz and Brown. After that, it's a fairly large drop off, no one else really touches them in terms of peak, and career value.

Maddux, Johnson, Pedro, and Clemens all pitched elite, they were the best of the best during their time in the big leagues. The argument against Clemens could be roids, but I am positive he will get in.

After that, you have the very very good pitchers, that were aces for a long enough time, or number two starters behind a guy like a Clemens or a Maddux and pitched long enough to gain enough career value for their Cooperstown argument. The last four, if one of them gets in, essentially, all four deserve to be in. Their career credentials are minuscully different.

Again, take a look at what Brown accomplished in his career. He lacked the popularity of the other three, and was never that 'ace' household name of the other three, he also was never really with one team long enough, and he dragged his career on in the end (which actually hurts his hall of fame value). But if those are the reasons to limit the guy from Cooperstown and the others get in because people recognize their names as dominance, when stats support Browns inclusion, then that is simply a crime.

Again

Pitcher A: 211-144, 3.28 ERA, 3256.1 IP, 127 ERA+, 64.8 WAR (Brown)
Pitcher B: 216-146, 3.46 ERA, 3261.0 IP, 128 ERA+, 69.7 WAR (Schilling)
Pitcher C: 213-155, 3.33 ERA, 3473.0 IP, 125 ERA+, 63.9 WAR (Smoltz)
Pitcher D: 305-203, 3.54 ERA, 4413.1 IP, 118 ERA+, 69.0 WAR (Glavine)

I didn't include Glavine earlier because he pitched so much longer than the other three, but obtained about the same career value as the rest, he pitched longer, and wasn't as effective because of it overall, but his value is still there.


Mike Mussina ends up kind of in between both groups, so I didn't mention him.

RTL
12-08-2010, 11:54 AM
You keep excluding Smoltz's saves which bothers me a ton!! Being the only pitcher in history with 200+ wins and 150 saves to go along with all the other numbers says a lot to me.

Epic89
12-08-2010, 01:21 PM
Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Morris, Bagwell, E. Martinez

Illinirob83
12-08-2010, 02:03 PM
Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Bagwell, Walker, McGriff, Morris

JackB
12-08-2010, 04:41 PM
I'm happy the voters are seeing it my way. Great players but not superstars worthy of the HOF. Except maybe and thats a huge MAYBE. Alomar. The rest had very nice careers but to talk about them in the same breath as Ruth and Mays is criminal

Jeffy25
12-08-2010, 04:42 PM
You keep excluding Smoltz's saves which bothers me a ton!! Being the only pitcher in history with 200+ wins and 150 saves to go along with all the other numbers says a lot to me.

Eck is right there with him. Smoltz still gained value for those years. They count for his innings pitched, and his era+, strike outs etc.

He also lost years of starting pitching when compared to his counter parts. If you want to do that, then we should excluded his numbers for those years, and apply them to other closers of those years.

He is still fully credited with those numbers. I don't count saves as a real stat, it's a very artificial stat when applying value to someone. It's similar to wins and loses. You can vulture it very easily, when it really applies to the team, more than the individual. His WAR, ERA+, IP etc are all included in the stats I posted above. If you want to include his closer numbers, then we should probably cut out that portion of his numbers then. In my example, he is given full credit for those years. A player adds value no matter where he is, whether it is negative or positive. Smoltz was an excellent closer, but he has more value pitching 200 innings a year, than he does 50 innings a year. 4 times as much value in fact. A pitchers job is to create outs, that is what these guys did. Smoltz had tremendous value as a closer. But he also pitched less as a starter than the guys he is grouped with because of those closer years. He is still in the same group with the rest of Schilling and Brown in terms of career value offered while on the ball field.

Jeffy25
12-08-2010, 04:52 PM
I'm happy the voters are seeing it my way. Great players but not superstars worthy of the HOF. Except maybe and thats a huge MAYBE. Alomar. The rest had very nice careers but to talk about them in the same breath as Ruth and Mays is criminal

What about Chick Hafey, Freddie Lindstrom, Jim Bottomley, and George Kell?

Because they are all in the hall of fame as well. Almost every guy on this list had more career value than each of these guys.

It's not just Mays and Ruth that are in the hall of fame, the inner circle only great players. There are several players that are borderline at the very best, and have no business being compared to Ruth or Mays or Cobb or Williams. But they are in.

If you want to start keeping out guys like Schilling, Smoltz, Brown, Alomar, Larkin, then we have a lot of guys we need to start kicking out.

If the hall of fame is the inner circle guys only, the Pujols, Bonds, Clemens, Maddux type players only, where Mike Mussina isn't in and Pedro isn't in...then we really need to start re-evaluating the guys that are currently in.

I base my analysis on the type of average players that get into the hall of fame. Guys with above a career 60 WAR as a pitcher, and above a 65 as a position player. Everyone else that is close to there, then I start looking at their peaks, and see if they are borderline because they are Kenny Lofton like (played a long time and thus gained a lot of value) or if they are guys like Norm Cash that had one hell of a peak but didn't play long enough to make it in. The hall of fame isn't just for those that reach 3000 base hits because they played long enough or they reached 300 wins. Those are counting stats, those are gained by simply staying healthy long enough to reach those milestones. Sometimes, a guy like Addie Joss, or Sandy Koufax should get in because his peak was out of this world good. He was the best player in the game for 10 years, but his career was short. There are factors, but using WAR at least gives us a good basis to determine what sort of career value a player should earn to be in the discussion. Then other factors can weigh in. But the guys that get voted in, should be compared to everyone that is in the hall of fame, not just the inner circle greats.

If you want to turn back time, and make it inner circle type players only, I would be perfectly fine with that, and in fact, I would support it. But we need to allow in guys in this era that had careers as good as those that are already in the hall of fame by the majority.

JackB
12-08-2010, 04:59 PM
I agree. Too many borderline players or below borderline are already in. That doesn't mean we continue to add to mistakes.
Why continue to water in down.
As my quote says.
"Just because the path is well beaten that doesn't mean its the right way to go."
Another one.
"Two wrongs don't make a right."
Time to stop the bleeding. Put a band aide on it.

2009mvp
12-08-2010, 05:06 PM
Why do Mattingly and McGriff have more votes than McGwire???

Never mind, I know the answer. Keep him out if you're adamant about it, but don't vote good not great players in in his place. (And that's coming from a guy who's far and away favorite player growing up was the Crime Dog)

JackB
12-08-2010, 05:14 PM
Does that question really need to be answered?

JackB
12-08-2010, 05:16 PM
The Crime Dog was fun to watch play but a HOFer? Sorry. I don't think so. But thats my opinion.Hey . as I said before . They all were very good players. Maybe they should have a HOF 2 for guys like McGriff. Kidding

Jeffy25
12-08-2010, 05:17 PM
Does that question really need to be answered?

Personally, if I was the Commish of the MLB, and started the hall of fame, the criteria would need to be stricter. Make the WAR bottom like at 70. Teams can have their own hall of fame, cooperstown needs to be the elite only. Too many guys like Kevin Brown can get in because they played long enough as number two starters and achieved enough value.

That is me personally. But since the hall of fame openly accepts guys of lesser caliber, I can't in good conscious keep players out that are of similar career value.

RTL
12-08-2010, 05:37 PM
Eck is right there with him. Smoltz still gained value for those years. They count for his innings pitched, and his era+, strike outs etc.

He also lost years of starting pitching when compared to his counter parts. If you want to do that, then we should excluded his numbers for those years, and apply them to other closers of those years.

He is still fully credited with those numbers. I don't count saves as a real stat, it's a very artificial stat when applying value to someone. It's similar to wins and loses. You can vulture it very easily, when it really applies to the team, more than the individual. His WAR, ERA+, IP etc are all included in the stats I posted above. If you want to include his closer numbers, then we should probably cut out that portion of his numbers then. In my example, he is given full credit for those years. A player adds value no matter where he is, whether it is negative or positive. Smoltz was an excellent closer, but he has more value pitching 200 innings a year, than he does 50 innings a year. 4 times as much value in fact. A pitchers job is to create outs, that is what these guys did. Smoltz had tremendous value as a closer. But he also pitched less as a starter than the guys he is grouped with because of those closer years. He is still in the same group with the rest of Schilling and Brown in terms of career value offered while on the ball field.

Eck is close but was never as dominant as a starter as Smoltz was and not apart of Smoltz's exclusive club of one. You don't count saves as a real stat and I don't count WAR as one so I guess we're even:) Nothing takes away from the fact that he was a dominant starter and closer, something the others were not and that is a lot more telling to me than any stat. If my thought process was based on stats alone, what joy would this game bring me?

2009mvp
12-08-2010, 05:46 PM
The Crime Dog was fun to watch play but a HOFer? Sorry. I don't think so. But thats my opinion.Hey . as I said before . They all were very good players. Maybe they should have a HOF 2 for guys like McGriff. Kidding

I'm basically stealing this from Bill Simmons' idea about basketball, but a tiered HOF really is the best way to present the history of the game and properly honour the all time greats properly. The logistics of how they decide who goes where could be problematic, but it sure as hell would be a lot of fun to debate.

Jeffy25
12-08-2010, 06:57 PM
Eck is close but was never as dominant as a starter as Smoltz was and not apart of Smoltz's exclusive club of one. You don't count saves as a real stat and I don't count WAR as one so I guess we're even:) Nothing takes away from the fact that he was a dominant starter and closer, something the others were not and that is a lot more telling to me than any stat. If my thought process was based on stats alone, what joy would this game bring me?

None of the other guys even tried to be a closer....how can you hold that against them?

KingPosey
12-08-2010, 07:18 PM
i voted for mcgriff because his nickname is so sick. And benito is not getting near enough love for a catcher of his caliber in the time period he started in.

Vottomatic19
12-08-2010, 07:40 PM
Yes, Brown was linked to steroids, so were several other pitchers, Clemens and Mussina for example. As I have said in other hall of fame threads, that doesn't bother me, I care about on field accomplishments.

The line between Schilling, Smoltz and Brown is basically non-existent, other than a small sample size post-season argument.

I support and fully respect the opinion of people that want a smaller hall of fame. I agree with them quite often. But to not have one of Schilling, Smoltz or Brown in, but to have the other two, or to have one of them and not the other two, is pretty awful. And if you are going to elect to not have one of them, then I would need to understand the argument. Brown had a much more valuable career than many current hall of famers.
During Browns career, you have two groups of starters. The group that includes Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Pedro..and then the lesser group of Glavine, Schilling, Smoltz and Brown. After that, it's a fairly large drop off, no one else really touches them in terms of peak, and career value.

Maddux, Johnson, Pedro, and Clemens all pitched elite, they were the best of the best during their time in the big leagues. The argument against Clemens could be roids, but I am positive he will get in.

After that, you have the very very good pitchers, that were aces for a long enough time, or number two starters behind a guy like a Clemens or a Maddux and pitched long enough to gain enough career value for their Cooperstown argument. The last four, if one of them gets in, essentially, all four deserve to be in. Their career credentials are minuscully different.

Again, take a look at what Brown accomplished in his career. He lacked the popularity of the other three, and was never that 'ace' household name of the other three, he also was never really with one team long enough, and he dragged his career on in the end (which actually hurts his hall of fame value). But if those are the reasons to limit the guy from Cooperstown and the others get in because people recognize their names as dominance, when stats support Browns inclusion, then that is simply a crime.

Again

Pitcher A: 211-144, 3.28 ERA, 3256.1 IP, 127 ERA+, 64.8 WAR (Brown)
Pitcher B: 216-146, 3.46 ERA, 3261.0 IP, 128 ERA+, 69.7 WAR (Schilling)
Pitcher C: 213-155, 3.33 ERA, 3473.0 IP, 125 ERA+, 63.9 WAR (Smoltz)
Pitcher D: 305-203, 3.54 ERA, 4413.1 IP, 118 ERA+, 69.0 WAR (Glavine)

I didn't include Glavine earlier because he pitched so much longer than the other three, but obtained about the same career value as the rest, he pitched longer, and wasn't as effective because of it overall, but his value is still there.


Mike Mussina ends up kind of in between both groups, so I didn't mention him.

Steroids don't bother you...that annoys the ***** out of me...THEY ARE ILLEGAL...if you or I were caught with them...we'd be in jail, not serving a suspension...If you say steroids aren't a disqualifier, then I say breaking the cardinal rule of baseball...betting on baseball isn't one either, so let Peter Edward Rose in also...he broke that cardinal rule that is posted in every clubhouse...but he never did drugs like rock raines, darryl strawberry, steve howe, etc. etc. etc....never took steroids like clemens, manroid, a-roid, Barroid, Palmeiroid, etc... Do I think he should be allowed to have any on field position in the game...ABSOLUTELY NOT...but put the man where he belongs...right next to Doggie, Johnny, Joe, Sparky, and if the Veteran's committee ever wises up...Davey!
Furthermore, the betting on the game occured as a manager, not as a player...Pete is a Hall of Fame PLAYER...not a Hall of Fame Manager...ok...for now, I will step off of my soapbox :)

Jeffy25
12-08-2010, 08:22 PM
Steroids don't bother you...that annoys the ***** out of me...THEY ARE ILLEGAL...if you or I were caught with them...we'd be in jail, not serving a suspension...If you say steroids aren't a disqualifier, then I say breaking the cardinal rule of baseball...betting on baseball isn't one either, so let Peter Edward Rose in also...he broke that cardinal rule that is posted in every clubhouse...but he never did drugs like rock raines, darryl strawberry, steve howe, etc. etc. etc....never took steroids like clemens, manroid, a-roid, Barroid, Palmeiroid, etc... Do I think he should be allowed to have any on field position in the game...ABSOLUTELY NOT...but put the man where he belongs...right next to Doggie, Johnny, Joe, Sparky, and if the Veteran's committee ever wises up...Davey!
Furthermore, the betting on the game occured as a manager, not as a player...Pete is a Hall of Fame PLAYER...not a Hall of Fame Manager...ok...for now, I will step off of my soapbox :)

Personally, I think Pete Rose and Joe Jackson should be in the hall too. That is a different debate though.

If we are going to disqualify guys from the hall of fame for steroids, then we should disqualify players that used other drugs as well. Especially when we don't know who did and didn't cheat. If you exclude roid users like A-Rod for example, then what about the guys that you do let in and then later find out they did roids? Kick them out?

We can't control it, so I hate that we try to explain cheating with an asterisk or by justifying that they shouldn't be in the hall of fame. How do we really know? where do you draw the line? You can only penalize them for what they did on the field, not outside the lines, because that is all speculation. What happened between the lines we do know, and we can calculate the quantifiable value they offered to the game. Outside of the lines, innocent until proven guilty, and even then, we don't know the time periods, and the measure of the cheating, or even how much, if at all, that it improves ones performance. We are better off only judging a player by what we do know on the field.

Pete should be in as a player, not as a manager, but as a player. Same with Joe Jackson. He certainly wasn't the first player to do what he did, how can we justify or qualify it when compared to others that we speculate of cheating? They are only not in the hall because they were banned, a ban that could be lifted if requested and deemed justifiable by the commissioner...both players have the numbers to be in the hall for absolute truth. Of course, some writers will never allow their morals to accept such a player in the hall. Which is their prerogative, but isn't how the voting should be done. Voting should be for the players that earned their hall of fame place by what they did on the field, and not anywhere else. Hall of Fame for baseball, not hall of fame of morals or ethics, but of baseball. We can only measure them by what they did in baseball.

Until we know what cheating happened, and on what level and by exactly who, then how can we honestly justify who should and not be in the hall of fame by simply making judgments and assumptions? What we can control, is what we know happened on the field.

bagwell368
12-08-2010, 09:23 PM
I agree. Too many borderline players or below borderline are already in. That doesn't mean we continue to add to mistakes.
Why continue to water in down.
As my quote says.
"Just because the path is well beaten that doesn't mean its the right way to go."
Another one.
"Two wrongs don't make a right."
Time to stop the bleeding. Put a band aide on it.

The HoF was never meant to be only for the best of the best. take a look at who is there. There are maybe 20 guys too too many - and about 12 guys that should be in.

Bobby Doerr, Joe Gordon, Luis Aparicio - all deserving. Are any of them babe Ruth?

Kinsm
12-09-2010, 12:08 PM
Can a mod please sticky this for me. Leave it up till the poll closes.

That way I don't have to keep bumping it.

Don't worry...it won't clutter the page.

RTL
12-09-2010, 12:15 PM
None of the other guys even tried to be a closer....how can you hold that against them?

I don't it AGAINST them but that is what separates Smoltz from the rest while you say there is nothing that does. To me, going from dominant starter to dominant closer back to an All Star starter is a sign of greatness to me. Not everyone can handle the 9th inning!

MooseWithFleas
12-09-2010, 12:15 PM
Funny, if PSD was the HoF committee, no one would get in this year.

RTL
12-09-2010, 12:17 PM
Alomar would and that's all I care about.

metfan4life775
12-09-2010, 01:40 PM
ok im not going to lie i hate john franco but i think he deserves to get some votes he is 4th all time in saves with 424 the most for any left handed closer and one of 5 pitchers to ever reach 400 save mark

mike_noodles
12-09-2010, 01:57 PM
I can't believe Fred McGriff doesn't get more love. First player to hit 200HR in both leagues, 493 career HR (t-26th all time), 7 straight 30+ HR seasons, 8 times had 100 RBI or more in a season, 1550 career RBI (41st all time), 40th all time in walks.

And I never heard of a steroid whispering about him

I like him, he's my pick.

Kinsm
12-14-2010, 10:53 AM
bumping again since no mods felt like this was worthy of sticky(ing) this thread for the next 3 weeks till the votes are made public.

Dale Murphy
12-15-2010, 03:46 AM
Alomar, Bagwell, Blyleven, Larkin, Murphy, Smith. Didn't see Edgar Martinez there at first but he'd have my vote as well.


Finally!!! I see someone that picked Murphy. He may never ever make it to the real HOF but he'll always get my vote.

I picked Murphy (of course)
Raines
Bagwell
Alomar

Dale Murphy
12-15-2010, 03:52 AM
ok im not going to lie i hate john franco but i think he deserves to get some votes he is 4th all time in saves with 424 the most for any left handed closer and one of 5 pitchers to ever reach 400 save mark

Yeah, but the problem is the HOF don't give closers the credit they deserve....

Jeffy25
12-15-2010, 06:22 AM
Yeah, but the problem is the HOF don't give closers the credit they deserve....

I personally don't think Sutter and the Goose belong in....what closers aren't given credit? Lee Smith?

Hoffman and Mo are hall of fame closers, but you have to by dynamite good to get in pitching only about 1000 innings in your career.

thefeckcampaign
12-16-2010, 05:39 PM
I still am not sure how I would vote this year. There are too many border players.

ruckus16969
12-16-2010, 06:05 PM
I'm glad people gave Mark McGwire some love. I really hope he gets in

Bravo95
12-17-2010, 10:02 AM
Alomar, Bagwell, Blyleven, Larkin, Martinez, McGriff, Murphy, Smith

NYYrdbest
12-17-2010, 11:54 AM
Robby Alomar, Blyleven and Bagwell

Where's KG?
12-17-2010, 12:11 PM
I would like to say that I am happy to see the respect for Blyleven. I think he should be in already. The guy was a stud in his time, and I know this doent matter...but he is a damn good announcer too. At any rate...287 wins...3700 strikeouts and a career ERA of 3.31 is more than enough I think.

hoggin88
12-17-2010, 01:54 PM
Benito Santiago. :laugh2:

Fred
12-17-2010, 02:11 PM
I went with the following: Alomar, Bagwell, Blyleven, Larkin, Morris, Raines, Smith, Trammel

I didn't want anyone that was a specialty guy (exception of Smith) or anyone that could have been juicy at any point...I also didn't pick guys like mattingly because on a team not from NY, I don't think he is as good or as noticed...