Debate of the Week, who is on your HOF Ballot

zitothebrave

zitothebrave

Connoisseur of Minors
Obviously none or almost none of us have a say, but who would be your up to 10 guys?

For me I'd go

Maddux (whoever the schmuck is that doesn't vote for him because "so and so didn't get 100%" should be shot out of a cannon into the nearest landfill)

Bagwell (crime he hasn't gotten in yet)

Bonds

Clemens

Schilling

Mussina

Glavine

Thomas

Walker

Trammell

I could really stop at 8, but it would be a shame for Walker and Trammell to drop off. Of course some fools will have Jack Morris on their ballot, and that will ruin the chances of someone who should be in. Need to get some guys in this year, or things will start log jamming really bad. Next year you have Smoltz, Pedro, and RJ going on the ballot, year after that Griffey and Edmonds, year after that Manny, Pudge, and Vlad, year after that Chipper, Thome, Rolen, and Druw. Year after that Mo and Doc (borderline) and maybe some more. There's a big log jam coming after years of weak ballots not inducting anyone last year is likely to hurt the Hall voting process next year and make some veterans committees do a lot of work.
 
Good list, glad to see Bonds on it. I'm really torn on Schilling/Mussina -- both of whom were dominant at times and basically have the numbers to back it up ... but neither screams 'Hall of Fame' to me in terms of pure pedigree. I'd drop one and add Piazza.
 
Don't see the PED-tainted group getting in any time soon. Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, Piazza, Pudge, Manny, McGwire, Sosa. Rumors about Biggio might keep him waiting as well.

The inner circle HOF types get in their first year of eligibility. That group would include Maddux, Griffey, Pedro, Randy Johnson, Mariano Rivera and Chipper.

Past voting patterns suggest that some very good candidates will not get in their first year, but should get in soon after. That group would include Glavine, Smoltz, Frank Thomas, Schilling.

It is pretty unusual to get more than two players inducted per year (not counting the guys who get voted in by the veterans committee). I think this means a large number of pretty strong candidates are going to be waiting a while or maybe not getting in at all.
 
Thomas should be inducted this year. He is a top 20 hitter all-time. Sadly I think he does wait one year as voters are dumb and likely don't remember just how good he was.
 
Guys I'd put in:

1. Maddux
2. Glavine
3. Thomas
4. Piazza
5. Bagwell
6. Trammell
7. Biggio
8. Walker
9. McGriff (for his HOFcaliber endorsement career)
10. Raines

and I'd scribble these guys at the bottom:

Schilling
Mussina
Bonds
Clemens
McGwire
S. Sosa
R. Palmeiro

nsacpi said:
Don't see the PED-tainted group getting in any time soon. Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, Piazza, Pudge, Manny, McGwire, Sosa. Rumors about Biggio might keep him waiting as well.

The inner circle HOF types get in their first year of eligibility. That group would include Maddux, Griffey, Pedro, Randy Johnson, Mariano Rivera and Chipper.

Past voting patterns suggest that some very good candidates will not get in their first year, but should get in soon after. That group would include Glavine, Smoltz, Frank Thomas, Schilling.

It is pretty unusual to get more than two players inducted per year (not counting the guys who get voted in by the veterans committee). I think this means a large number of pretty strong candidates are going to be waiting a while or maybe not getting in at all.
Click to expand...

You can see the probabilities based on disclosed ballots here: (link). It was fairly accurate last year.

Bagwell, Biggio, and Piazza aren't really PED-tainted, except by the extremely intellectually lazy. They are getting dinged by some, but they'll all go in pretty soon. Biggio probably gets in this year, and maybe Piazza too. Bagwell is already on 2/3 of the ballots, and the number almost always go up over time, so he's sitting pretty as well. Here's the current projections from that link:

Updated: Jan.3 - 12:15 ~ 107 Full Ballots ~ (18.8% of vote ~ based on last year)

100 - Maddux
97.2 - Glavine
90.7 - F. Thomas
80.4 - Biggio
———————————
72.9 - Piazza
66.4 - Bagwell
60.7 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
56.1 - Raines
45.8 - Bonds
44.9 - Clemens
39.3 - Schilling
34.9 - Mussina
22.4 - Trammell
20.6 - E. Martinez
18.7 - L. Smith
15.0 - McGriff
14.0 - Kent
11.2 - L. Walker
10.3 - McGwire
8.4 - S. Sosa
7.5 - R. Palmeiro
———————————
4.7 - Mattingly
0.9 - P. Rose (Write-In)
 
Interesting data. I would venture a guess that those who publish their ballots are not an entirely representative group. They seem to be more "inclusive" than the overall electorate. Those not publishing their ballots probably have fewer names on theirs.

The tendency over the years has been that when you have some strong first-year candidates the vote totals of those who were on the ballot the previous year tends to get depressed.
 
Whoever is the c--t that decides to not give Maddux the 100%, should be publicly shamed and have their voting privilege removed.
 
Hawk said:
That doesn't mean anything to me (or about 95% of the BBWAA).

Edit: In other words, give me more than that.
Click to expand...

Poop on you and your BBWAA

Mussina won 270 games which is high for the modern era. And had a 3.68 ERA pitching in the AL East during the Roid years. Only thing holding him back is that he never won an award aside from the GOld GLove, 5 time AS though.

Schilling I think is easier to argue in in many ways. His wins are lagging, but he pitched in Philly when they were miserable. And to boot didn't become a starter til he was 25 (Baltimore and Houston used him as a reliever) Desptie that he posted a very good 3.46 ERA in the roid era. He had over 3000 Ks under 800BB. Making him number 2 all time in K/BB. Even higher than Pedro.
 
The voters also tend to focus more on career peaks (five or six year period) than career numbers. Rightfully so imo. Sandy Koufax was a greater pitcher than say Don Sutton, regardless of career wins or other career stats. Pedro Martinez was better than Glavine. Schilling was better than Morris or Mussina. Heck I'd say Schilling was better than Glavine and more deserving of HOF inclusion..
 
nsacpi said:
The voters also tend to focus more on career peaks (five or six year period) than career numbers. Rightfully so imo. Sandy Koufax was a greater pitcher than say Don Sutton, regardless of career wins or other career stats. Pedro Martinez was better than Glavine. Schilling was better than Morris or Mussina. Heck I'd say Schilling was better than Glavine and more deserving of HOF inclusion..
Click to expand...

Schilling is way more deserving than Morris. I can argue probably 100 pitchers in over Morris. Schilling's lone blemish was no Cy Young Award. He did not luck out playing in the NL during Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Pedro, RJ, then he moved to the AL when he was really old. But if your argument (and has been for the voters who have) is Morris deserves it cause of playoff performance Schilling was just as dominant in 2001. Schilling I think gets in probably in the 5-10 year range. His regular season stats are Hall Worthy and his post season stats are awesome. 11-2 with 4 complete games in 19 starts a 2.23 ERA and striking out nearly a batter an inning with his very low walk numbers. He's a 3 time world series champ and pitched in arguably the most awesome pitching World Series feat we've seen when he and Randy Johnson carried the D-Backs on their backs against the Yankees despite Byung Hung Kim blowing 2 leads in NYC
 
I remember when Mussina came up, everyone was all about Ben McDonald and the hype surrounding his god-like arm, including myself. But when I saw both pitch a few times, I came away thinking Mussina was the better pitcher. Hadn't heard of him until he made the Bigs, but was immediately impressed. Much more than McDonald.

Strange that he only had the one 20-game winning season (his last season to boot!). As much as he impressed me early on, I never did feel like he achieved that HOF caliber level of pitching, though great to be sure. I just never saw him in the same light as, say, Clemens or Pedro or Randy or Maddux, who hitters just dreaded to face. On the other hand, he retired at his high and probably could have pitched another few seasons, getting him past that magical number of 300-game winners.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Guys I'd put in:

1. Maddux

2. Glavine

3. Thomas

4. Piazza

5. Bagwell

6. Trammell

7. Biggio

8. Walker

9. McGriff (for his HOFcaliber endorsement career)

10. Raines

and I'd scribble these guys at the bottom:

Schilling

Mussina

Bonds

Clemens

McGwire

S. Sosa

R. Palmeiro
Click to expand...

Personally think those four should be locks, and can't imagine I'd argue with another name Alex listed (except I'd write in Rose as my #10).
 
I'm gonna hijack my own thread here, and discuss PEDs and the Hall. First it baffles me that people consider Sosa and McGwire "locks" and people bring them up with Clemens and Bonds. They're not the same players. Sammy had a few great seasons aided by Roids and same with McGwire. McGwire can't stay healthy, Sosa just plain old doesn't have the numbers. Sosa offensively is barely better than Tim Raines, McGwire was a great hitter (especially on Roids) but didn't do it enough to be in the discussion. Clemens and Bonds are special cases because they're elite. Both would likely be in the Hall without Roids (both started using supposedly around 97) but what Steroids did for thme was take them from greats (similar to say Maddux and Rickie Henderson) to inner circle with Mays, Aaron, Johnson, Speaker, etc.

Heck I think Bonds and Clemens would have still been the 2 best players of their eras without roiding up, but roiding up added a healthy chunk of stats to them.

In the end, my personal opinion on steroids is let them in, if they deserve to be. Bonds and Clemens do, McGwire and Sosa don't. Their numbers are great but not alltime great. If you start attempting to guess who cheated and who didn't you're creating a massive bias. And even then the Hall has let cheaters of various nature in. ***lord Perry was known for juicing up balls. Cap Anson and Charles Comiskey robbed generations of great baseball by being key players in making MLB segregated. Don Sutton and Whitey Ford are notorious for cutting/scuffing balls. John McGraw was notorious for finding ways to break the rules. I believe it was in Ken Burns baseball where they talked about him grabbing the belt loop of a tagging runner causing him to be thrown out and more. Ty Cobb would sharpen his spikes in an attempt to injure players. Many players were (and probably still are) involved in fixing games. Many players in the hall have admitted or been credibly linked to using amphetamines which are a PED in their own right. Including Aaron, Mays, Mantle, Williams, and Schmidt. Steroids have been around a long time. Odds are there's already someone in the HOF who took steroids. Since the dawn of basebal people have tried to get the upper hand anyway possible. PEDs are just the latest way.
 
One argument I don't understand is citing the admission of past players who might have cheated as justifying admitting another group that might have cheated. Ethical standards evolve, in society at large and in baseball. There was a time when this country elected slave owners as president. Times change and past standards are at best an imperfect guide.
 
nsacpi said:
The voters also tend to focus more on career peaks (five or six year period) than career numbers. Rightfully so imo.
Click to expand...

I'm the opposite: I think peaks are overrated and personally wish longevity was more valued in determining Hall-of-Fame eligibility.
 
DaneHill said:
I remember when Mussina came up, everyone was all about Ben McDonald and the hype surrounding his god-like arm, including myself. But when I saw both pitch a few times, I came away thinking Mussina was the better pitcher. Hadn't heard of him until he made the Bigs, but was immediately impressed. Much more than McDonald.

Strange that he only had the one 20-game winning season (his last season to boot!). As much as he impressed me early on, I never did feel like he achieved that HOF caliber level of pitching, though great to be sure. I just never saw him in the same light as, say, Clemens or Pedro or Randy or Maddux, who hitters just dreaded to face. On the other hand, he retired at his high and probably could have pitched another few seasons, getting him past that magical number of 300-game winners.
Click to expand...

Which isn't really fair to any other pitchers of this era because those 4 aren't just HOF pitchers. They are top 10 all-time starters imo. Nobody, even other HOF pitchers, is going to be seen in the same light as those 4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top