HoF Ballot

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:03 pm

2010 Hall of Fame Ballot
Roberto Alomar - Yes, no doubter.
Barry Larkin - No, I'm not ready to put him in yet. I'm sure I'll re-evaluate. I was a strong "no" on Trammell, so I'm not sure I can pull the trigger on Larkin yet.
Andre Dawson - No, see last year.
Bert Blyleven - Yes, rinse repeat from last year.
Edgar Martinez - Yes, changed the expectations of a DH, and had a mind-boggling career peak from a statistical perspective. Career OPS+ the same as A-Rod's. Edgar would have been MORE popular in today's game than he was in his prime.
Mark McGwire - Yes, he sucks and probably cheated - but he's also one of the greatest sluggers of all-time.
Don Mattingly - No, and it kills me a little more every year.
Tim Raines - Yes, rinse repate from last year.
Fred McGriff - No, but Fred was a heck of a player.
Lee Smith - No, but Lee was a heck of a pitcher.
Jack Morris - No, still gets my vote the year after Blyleven.
Alan Trammell - No, but he gets closer for me every year. His being a full step behind Larkin helps me keep it in perspective.
Dale Murphy - No, but they should make a Hall of Fame for him, Mattingly, and others who would have made it if not for injury. Murphy, at his peak, was brilliant.
Harold Baines - Nope.
Dave Parker - No thanks.
Andres Galarraga - No, gracias.
Robin Ventura - No way jose.
Ellis Burks - No. Really?
Eric Karros - No. Reallier?
Todd Zeile - No. Realliest?
Ray Lankford - Good grief no.
Kevin Appier - No, but the dude could pitch.
Pat Hentgen - No, but the dude could pitch.
Shane Reynolds - Hell to the no.
David Segui - The fuck?

Who makes it?
Roberto Alomar
Bert Blyleven
Edgar Martinez
Mark McGwire
Tim Raines

Love to hear thoughts...

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:46 pm

McGwire doesn't make it for these reasons (and it's not just the steroids)
Career AVG: .263
Career HR: 583
Career RBI: 1414
Career RUN: 1167

Even though he sports an insane career OPS of .982, what does it say when half of your runs scored were driven in by yourself, and 41% of your RBI were you driving yourself in off a HR?

I don't know the answer to that, but it seems that even though he was a run producer, he was best at producing HR, and only HR.

In comparison, Jim Rice, who got in on his final year of eligibility, and was a great slugger in his time, produced the following:

Career AVG: .298
Career HR: 382
Career RBI: 1451
Career RUN: 1249
OPS: 854

Both players have similar stats. Both played for 16 years. Rice did it in a 'dead-ball' era. McGwire did it in the steroid era, although in arguably tougher parks.

You make the call, but the writers have already set precedent.

Angels · Post by **Angels** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:55 pm

If I had a vote, yes for:

Alomar
Larkin
Dawson (barely)
Blyleven
Edgar (barely - homer vote)
Raines
(And yes) McGwire

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:26 pm

Mets wrote:McGwire doesn't make it for these reasons (and it's not just the steroids)
Career AVG: .263
Career HR: 583
Career RBI: 1414
Career RUN: 1167

Even though he sports an insane career OPS of .982, what does it say when half of your runs scored were driven in by yourself, and 41% of your RBI were you driving yourself in off a HR?

I don't know the answer to that, but it seems that even though he was a run producer, he was best at producing HR, and only HR.

In comparison, Jim Rice, who got in on his final year of eligibility, and was a great slugger in his time, produced the following:

Career AVG: .298
Career HR: 382
Career RBI: 1451
Career RUN: 1249
OPS: 854

Both players have similar stats. Both played for 16 years. Rice did it in a 'dead-ball' era. McGwire did it in the steroid era, although in arguably tougher parks.

You make the call, but the writers have already set precedent.

Huh? RBI's? Rice also has 2,000 more at-bats than McGwire. He has an OPS+ 30 points higher. I mean, Rice vs. McGwire isn't even a fair fight. McGwire is a FAR superior player.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:32 pm

I cant imagine Blyleven getting in. The dude deserves it more then anyone, but like he even said the voters remember him more of a jerk then his stats.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:59 pm

Nationals wrote:
Mets wrote:McGwire doesn't make it for these reasons (and it's not just the steroids)
Career AVG: .263
Career HR: 583
Career RBI: 1414
Career RUN: 1167

Even though he sports an insane career OPS of .982, what does it say when half of your runs scored were driven in by yourself, and 41% of your RBI were you driving yourself in off a HR?

I don't know the answer to that, but it seems that even though he was a run producer, he was best at producing HR, and only HR.

In comparison, Jim Rice, who got in on his final year of eligibility, and was a great slugger in his time, produced the following:

Career AVG: .298
Career HR: 382
Career RBI: 1451
Career RUN: 1249
OPS: 854

Both players have similar stats. Both played for 16 years. Rice did it in a 'dead-ball' era. McGwire did it in the steroid era, although in arguably tougher parks.

You make the call, but the writers have already set precedent.
Huh? RBI's? Rice also has 2,000 more at-bats than McGwire. He has an OPS+ 30 points higher. I mean, Rice vs. McGwire isn't even a fair fight. McGwire is a FAR superior player.

I'm wonder if the voters look at just bottom line totals or AB's as well?

My arguement is strictly statistical, without the bias of the steroid stigma.

One could argue that Rice meant just as much to MLB's offensive stars during his era as McGwire did. Difference being the HR. If Big Mac gets in, it's probably gonna be a long wait.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:28 pm

OPS+ normalizes OPS #'s to their peers at that time. The fact is that McGwire, compared to their peers, was still almost a 30% better ballplayer. I'm not saying McGwire didn't cheat, but he's a much better ballplayer by almost any metric you can use not named "Batting Average".

It will probably be a long wait - but it certainly doesn't deserve to be.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:01 am

What does it say about RBIs? It says nobody was on base for when McGwire hit 583 HRs. I don't understand that argument whatsoever.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:07 am

Mets wrote:McGwire doesn't make it for these reasons (and it's not just the steroids)
Career AVG: .263
Career HR: 583
Career RBI: 1414
Career RUN: 1167

Even though he sports an insane career OPS of .982, what does it say when half of your runs scored were driven in by yourself, and 41% of your RBI were you driving yourself in off a HR?

I don't know the answer to that, but it seems that even though he was a run producer, he was best at producing HR, and only HR.

Honestly, what a stupid comment. It reminds of the time John Kruk went off on Barry Bonds because Bonds hit too many solo home runs. You know why guys like Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire drive themselves in so often compared to guys like Jim Rice? Because when men are on base the opposing team's manager doesn't pitch to them. McGwire finished in the top 10 in intentional walks 7 times in his career in all walks 8 times. Your boy Jim Rice, on the other hand, never finished in the top 10 in walks in his career, and didn't have anything like the power McGwire did. Yes Rice didn't play in the heart of the steroid era, but he did get to do all of his hitting at Fenway Park.

Let's look at some numbers for a second, I know most sabermetricians would laugh at me for using numbers on RBI, but check out how obvious this data is. What happened in these guys' RBI opportunities. First with men on base: In his career Jim Rice came to the plate with men on base 4629 times and was intentionally walked 77 times (1.66%) and had walked 360 times overall (7.77%). For McGwire, meanwhile, he came up with men on 3656 times (by the way, Big Mac had roughly the same number of RBI as Rice in nearly 2000 fewer plate appearances, but back to the matter at hand). In those appearances Mac was intentionally walked 140 times (3.83%) and walked over all 695 times (19%). So as you can see, the other team didn't give McGwire a chance to drive in a run with men on base almost 2.5x as often as they did with Rice.

In clutch situations the numbers are even starker. Just looking at raw numbers you'll see that McGwire received as many intentional walks (77) in situations with RISP and 2 outs as Rice did during his entire career.

There's actually a really good football analogy for this argument, Deion Sanders in his prime was without question the best cover corner of all time. Deion is only 22nd on the all-time list in interceptions, and was only in the top 10 for the season 3 times (never finishing first). He was so good, quarterbacks didn't give him the chance. That's exactly what happens to guys like Bonds, McGwire, (and increasingly Pujols) in RBI situations and why so many of their RBI come from driving themselves in.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:49 am

Let me clarify, that I in no way am a Jim Rice fan. I just used him as an example since he was the most recent hall of fame inductee and had similar bottom line totals. The whole basis of my comment was that if it took him 15 years to get in, I would be shocked to see McGwire get voted in the first handful of years. The voters tend to be a spiteful bunch when they want to be.

What's most interesting is that Big Mac's numbers with runners in scoring position are:
.286/.444/.615/1.058
So even with the amount of walks he had, I would have guessed he'd have another 300+ RBI in his career.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:17 am

Who makes it this year?

Roberto Alomar
Bert Blyleven
Tim Raines (maybe, although I could see him not getting quite enough votes this year ...)

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:11 am

To clarify the below names are who I'd vote for:
Roberto Alomar
Bert Blyleven
Edgar Martinez
Mark McGwire
Tim Raines

The following names are who I think will make it:
Roberto Alomar

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:18 am

I remember when Andre Dawson was playing, and the broadcaster's used to refer to him as a future hall of famer, being a 300/300 guy at the time...If they only knew what the late-90's/00's would bring.

What concerns me about Alomar is that you have too many voters who say "he's a hall of famer, but I'm not voting for him first ballot", which is bullshit because if he's a hall of famer on the 2nd ballot, he's a hall of famer on the first ballot. But the MLB hall of fame is a very elitist establishment. It's set up in a way that you're perceived as more of a hall of famer if you're voted first ballot than you are if you're voted 4th attempt.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:31 pm

I think Alomar is going to benefit from a really weak crop of guys this year. When you look at everyone on this ballot his name pops in a way it wouldn't if he were on the ballot with someone like Rickey or the year that Ripken and Gwynn got in. McGwire would have been a first ballot hall of famer if it wasn't for the steroid questions, so Jim Rice, who is a borderline hall of famer who wouldn't have made it if he'd put up those years in San Diego instead of Boston, is a totally irrelevant comparison. McGwire will eventually be voted in after he gives an apology press conference and gives us some positive vibes to think about trotting out there in a Cardinal uniform.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:52 am

McGwire was a one dimensional player, and he cheated to achieve any depth to that dimension. IMO, Mac will never get in and doesn't deserve to. He's a disgrace. I'd sooner see Canseco in the Hall.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:58 am

At least McGwire's (and Sosa's, I'll give your boy credit Gabe

) cheating saved baseball. More than can be said for most of the other roiders out there.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:18 am

I hear the "saved baseball" argument, but I often wonder if Baseball would have never rebounded without the long ball chase. There have been lockouts & strikes in other sports, most notably Basketball in 1998, and no "record chase", and that sport seemed to 'rebound' (bad pun) just fine.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:01 pm

I'm going to go with a quote I heard on the radio the other day: It's not the Hall of Goodness or the Hall of Fair, it's the Hall of Fame.

I realize it could be taken one of two ways, but the way it was intended, and I agree - I don't care what Rose, McGwire, Palmeiro, etc. did - at the end of the day, they were among the greatest players who ever played the game. They were never suspended, or punished - and thus should not retroactively. People won 300 games throwing spit-balls, hit 700 home runs never playing against African-Americans, people played on amphetamines - the history of baseball is littered with tremendous players who cheated or had enhanced stats in some form or fashion - this era is no different - and, by any measure of stats or "saving the game", McGwire is a MORE than worthy HoFer.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:01 pm

Mets wrote:I hear the "saved baseball" argument, but I often wonder if Baseball would have never rebounded without the long ball chase. There have been lockouts & strikes in other sports, most notably Basketball in 1998, and no "record chase", and that sport seemed to 'rebound' (bad pun) just fine.

Baseball is held to a much different standard then other sports. Two obvious example are in regards to steroids and game length, with the NFL getting much more leeway on both issues. And I wouldn't say that either the NBA or the NHL has recovered from their lockouts. The NHL is limping along as a niche sport. As for the NBA, do you remember where the TV ratings were after the lockout? It basically took the emergence of a new class of stars (James, Wade, etc.) just to bring the league back to where it was before the lockout, but all of its momentum has been wiped out. At the end of the Jordan era there was talk that the NBA could supplant the NFL as the #2 sport. That talk is over. Oh yeah and the league is a financial disaster and is probably going to face another lockout next year. So yes, steroids did save baseball.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:20 pm

Athletics wrote:So yes, steroids did save baseball.

Horseshit. Much as I hate to admit it, the excitement of the Yankees dynasty, coupled with the Red and White Sox finally winning championships, the rise of Alex Rodriguez (in spite of his career long cheating), the Brilliance of Pedro martinez, the comeback of the the Diamondbacks. If nothing else, the fact that MLB has almost no pro sports competition for a huge part of its season is huge insurance for the league.

But about what I'd expect from a Bonds apologist... steroids were good for the game...

as for the notion that NFL players get off light on Steroids, I disagree. While the policies are certainly different, a 4 game suspension in the NFL may sound light, but that's a quarter of the season. In MLB, it's 10 days, 1/16th of the season.

Neither policy does blood tests though, essentially neutering them.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:37 pm

Right after the strike, the Red Sox and White Sox won the WS! yeah!

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:40 pm

That was right around the time Nixon got elected wasn't it?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:42 pm

Also, the Yankees dynasty took place what, 1996 (single year doesn't make a dynasty..), 1998 (Oh wait, did the HR chase happen that year?), 1999 (post HR), 2000 (post HR). So Ok. Pedro's dominance in the late 90s you can sell me, but that was not nearly as celebrated as the Mac/Sosa HR chase. In 1998 that is what put the fans in seats to all the visiting places the Cardinals and Cubs played - and the Cards were bad in 1998.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:14 am

JP pretty much covered what I would have responded with, but let me just add, who gave a shit about the White Sox winning a championship? Were casual fans even aware that the White Sox had a longer streak of futility than the Red Sox?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:21 am

I'm not saying the Mac/Sosa cheatathon didn't accelerate the process, but to suggest or even imply that MLB wouldn't have rebounded without them is just absurd. it might have taken a couple years longer, but it would have happened and it wouldn't have taken long.