HOF List Quick Take

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:48 pm

Hall of Fame ballot
The 23 players on this year's Hall of Fame ballot:
- Harold Baines - No, but not bad
- Jay Bell - No, not even close
- Bert Blyleven - Yes, absolutely, 100% yes
- David Cone - No, but I have great memories
- Andre Dawson - No, people, on-base percentage counts - it just does - good not great
- Ron Gant - No, Jesus Christ on a crutch no
- Mark Grace - No, nice player, HELL no thought
- Rickey Henderson - Yes, he should be a 100%, and I bet - with the crappy candidates this year - he gives Seaver's mark a run
- Tommy John - No, but I get closer every year
- Don Mattingly - No, I'm resigned to no, but if we're putting Ozzie Smith in...
- Mark McGwire - Yes, players who were consistently outstanding at baseball deserve to get in - regardless of what he was ingesting, he kept taking the field - as the quote goes, this isn't the Hall of Great People who Played Baseball, it's the Hall of Great Baseball Players
- Jack Morris - No, I will vote for Jack Morris the year after Bert Blyleven gets in - I just can't find myself voting for both
- Dale Murphy - No, but as I said last year, it's closer than the numbers indicate - this guy was a GREAT player before injuries - he's Mattingly of outfielders - Don't believe me? Check out 1982-1987...I think Mattingly and Murphy who fall into the "Barely Missing the Cut, But Because of Ozzie Deserve SOME Mention"...
- Jesse Orosco - No, but hell of a career
- Dave Parker - No, but a good player
- Dan Plesac - No, who votes for these people?
- Tim Raines - Yes, absolutely, there should be no questions here
- Jim Rice - No, he falls into the Murphy/Mattingly category for me - I count four HoF years - if we are holding Dale and Don to that standard, we should hold Jim to it as well - plus he wasn't 1/10th the fielder that either of Don/Dale was...
- Lee Smith - No, but points for longevity
- Alan Trammell - No, but I think closer than people give him credit for
- Greg Vaughn - No, good grief no
- Mo Vaughn - No, what?
- Matt Williams - No, but closer than any new person not named 'Rickey Henderson'

Brett votes for:
Bert Blyleven
Rickey Henderson
Mark McGwire
Tim Raines

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:09 pm

Couple of thoughts:

I don't get the whole "I won't vote for him now, but maybe later" thing. Either a guy is a Hall of Famer or he isn't.

Baines is interesting to me because if he'd been able to hang on for another couple of years (or got some lucky bounces earlier in his career) he'd have 3000 hits and be in automatically.

Like it or not baseball deserves McGwire in the HOF.

The Hall of Fame is reserved for generational players, which is why Ozzie Smith gets in despite underwhelming numbers, he defined a certain style of baseball in much the same way Big Mac defined the steroid era (arguably more so than Bonds since he was so one dimensional).

Speaking of generational players, Rickey has to get in if for no other reason than his acceptance speech is going to be must-see TV (I'm absolutely certain he'll openly beg a team to sign him during the speech at least once).

Bert Blyleven, absolutely. Don't even begin to see a good argument against him.

Mo Vaughn's 1993-1998 was as impressive as Murphy's 1982-1987. 5 years is just not enough.

My votes:

Rickey
Blyleven
Tommy John
Big Mac
Jack Morris
Tim Raines
and one sentimental vote for the shoulder licking Matt Williams.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:14 pm

I'm pretty much with you on Blyleven, Rickey, McGwire and Raines. However, I keep going back and forth on Tommy John...decent numbers but there's not a Wow number among them

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:17 pm

To me he's a pioneer, and since we can't induct the doctors who came up with the surgery then he should get in for proving that recovering from that kind of injury is possible, that surgery is practically routine these days and it came from him.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:18 pm

That's certainly something going in his favor, but then again, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with inducting a guy for what other people have done to him

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:20 pm

so then i assume if you arent voting for lee smith, you will not be voting for trevor hoffman, correct?

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:40 pm

Because Hoffman didn't have an era 30 points lower in a more pro-offensive era?

Because Hoffman didn't have a whip 20 points lower in a more pro-offensive era?

Because Hoffman doesn't have a better K rate in a pro-offensive era?

Because, either way, Hoffman has a better career era+ of 13 points?

I mean - they aren't VERY far apart, but Hoffman was CLEARLY a better pitcher than Smith. If you think Smith's not close, Hoffman shouldn't be in. If you think Smith's close, Hoffman would have a hell of a case for being in. If you think Smith's in, Hoffman should be in.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:08 pm

Lee Smith was the guy I agonized over. I will vote for Hoffman, but I don't believe that the closer role was as well defined or as crucial to a team success in Smith's era as it was in Hoffman's. Plus Hoffman's numbers (particularly ERA, WHIP, and K-Rate) are several notches better

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:41 am

Averaging .300-30-100 for a decade (1975-1985) gets you in the Hall. Otherworldly HOF season? Check. 1978:

163 G, .315/.370/.600, 213 H, 121 R, 46 HR, 139 RBI, 406 TB! (a reeediculous number)

Drove in 100+ 8 times. Had 4 seasons of 39+ HR (pre-steroids). When you're top 5 in the MVP voting 6 times in a decade, you are one of the dominant players of that decade. He should be in. If he's not in the HOF for being one of the most dangerous sluggers of his era, then Jim Ed Rice damn well better get in for rolling right from the afro-mustache 70s look into Billy D. Williams and never looking back. That is one smooth (surly) cat. IN.

He'll get enough this year as a pre-steroid guy who can be "rewarded" by the writers for putting up numbers w/out juice.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:16 am

Jim Rice career ops+: 128
Don Mattingly career ops+: 127
Dale Murphy career ops+: 121

In that mammoth season Rice's ops+ was 157. In Don Mattingly's best season his ops+ was 161. In Dale Murphy's best season his ops+ was 157.

I'm not sure Rice should be 'awarded' baseball's most prestigious honor for being slightly better than two 'good not great' players.

Really from 1979-1987, Dale Murphy could have been considered the best player in the National League - including his defense at a premium position. From 1984-1989, Don Mattingly would be considered one of the top 5 hitters in baseball - if not one of the top 2-3. For one span of 3 years I'd consider Rice 'great' and 'pretty damn good' in another bunch of seasons. I know the HoF has a track record of rewarding mediocrity, but I still put Rice in the 'just miss' with Murphy and Mattingly.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:26 am

I was on the XM radio- Baseball this morning show... earlier today,

I posed the question "what current MLB player does Jim Rice most compare to?" Jim Duquette argued Albert Pujols, while Rice was not the best player in the game, he was feared almost as much as a hitter, and had similar attributes to Pujols (minus the OBP)....A caller called in and suggest Vlad Guerrero, which I think is a great comparison.

Quietly dominant, top 5 in MVP voting, feared as a hitter, but very underrated... When you list the top 5 hitters in baseball, how many think of Vlad?

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:39 am

To compare Jim Rice to Vladimir Guerrero is an insult of the highest level to Vladimir Guerrero.

To compare Jim Rice to Albert Pujols is a statement that should have someone committed.

Jim Rice was 'quietly quite good.'

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:48 am

I guess it's important to keep everything in context. I'm not a huge Rice guy, but he definitely did not play in a hitters era.

Anyway, guys who played or managed against Rice agreed that the Vlad comparison was not a bad one at all, but what do they know?

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:36 pm

I think that by comparing Albert Pujols to Jim Rice our good friend Jim Duquette has showed us why he is no longer a major league GM. I think a better modern comp for Rice (including surliness) is Jeff Kent. Career OPS+ 127, almost a decade of awesomeness from 1997-2005, will be an interesting borderline Hall of Fame case, though he's more likely to sneak in as a second baseman than Rice.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:36 pm

The best indicator we have for 'fear' is walks. Rice never had more than 62.

Manny Ramirz is feared. Jim Rice was respected.