PDA

View Full Version : HOF Ballot



mlbfan30
12-30-2007, 11:16 PM
Since it's been pretty slow. I'm asking what your HOF ballot would look like. If your going to do this, post reasons backing up each choice. Here's mine.

Bert Blyleven - He was a great pitcher for a long time. People might want to look at the losses, but also you have to consider run support. He could easily have had 300 wins. Think of him as a Harang in terms of being undervalued, yet he did it for around 15 years. He was a workhorse with 242 complete games, pitching them 35% of the time, and also has a career 118 ERA+, in the top 10 for 12 seasons. I have more but I'll save it for later

Tim Raines - He has one of the greatest leadoff mean of all-time. People don't realize that not only did he steal 808 bases, but was caught 146 times. Compare that to Brock who has 938SB/307CS. Raines stole 130 less bases, but also was caught stealing 160 less times. As a leadoff man his job was to get on base. His lifetime OBP was .385, very impressive (better than Dunn). You might think he had a short peak, yet he's had 6 seasons with an OPS+ over 130 (with over 400AB). Raines career OPS+ is 123, better than hitters like Jeter, Tejada, Soriano, Andruw Jones, Ichiro Suzuki.

Mark McGwire - I'm not holding the roids issue against him. The suppliments we saw were legal at the time, both in MLB and in terms of US Law. Mac hit 583 HR's, but also had a .394 OBP. He didn't get many hits, but he walked a lot. His Lifetime OPS+ is 162, good for 12th alltime. His AB/HR is best alltime, at 10.60. Ruth is second at 11.80. Mac is the best HR ever in the history of the game.

Rich Gossage - This is the most borderline. If Sutter is in, he has to be in. Gossage was absolutly dominating in his peak. He's had 7 seasons with an ERA under 2.30 while pitching more than 79 innings. Rivera has only pitched more than 79 innings once, and his ERA was 2.34. He has 300+ saves, which is nice. He finished in the top 3 in saves for 6 seasons, compared to 6 for Rivera, and 6 for Sutter. Gossage made 9 all-stars, compared to Riveras 8. Gossage is also 57th in career ERA+, the same as Jim Palmer. His year as a starter and his years as playing way past his prime hurt his career rate stats, but he was dominate for at least 10 seaons, which should be enough for the HOF.

Stephenk29
12-30-2007, 11:30 PM
The top three on your list seem to be the only ones worthy of the hall. Along with Concepcion I will add.

I saw an article where Davey had better numbers than Pee Wee Reese, Phil Rizzuto, and a few other shortstops already in the hall. He probably won't get in still. That's a shame, but he's never gotten over 24% I believe. 75% is the needed mark.

757690
12-31-2007, 12:30 AM
Concepcion and Trammell need to be in, but they won't. the HoF is now a joke, the list is way too long now of guys who should be in, and guys who shouldn't. They need to radically change the system.

Just a quick question for mlbfan30, or anyone else for that matter. If the allegations against McGwire that he took illegal steriods are proven true, would you still vote him in?

FlightRick
12-31-2007, 01:47 AM
We did this same thread/experiment on my website's forums (not much smaller than RedsZone), and only Andre Dawson got named on over 75% of ballots (mine was one of them). Blyleven, Goose, and Jack Morris got named on between 65-74% (nobody else was over 50%). Oddly, no love at all for Rock Raines (I was one of 2 whole people who voted for him), which I attributed to him being good, but not worthy of being "first ballot good."

And of course, McGwire was talked about on every ballot even if he wasn't named.... a whole lot of "I would, if...." scenarios, but the "if" in this case was just too damned big.

As much as folks around here get into Davey Concepcion (and, thus, by extension, into the statistically-simular Alan Trammell), my "guilty pleasure" vote this year (and for at least a few more years) goes to Don Mattingly, who would have had "Wade Boggs If Wade Boggs Had Any Power" numbers if he'd stayed healthy for about 3000 more Plate Appearances.


Rick

AmarilloRed
12-31-2007, 02:00 AM
Dale Murphy should get a mention with his 2 MVP's. Jack Morris was considered the best pitcher of the 80's, and he had 175 complete games over his career. He actually had 20 in a season. He really needs serious consideration for the hall.

757690
12-31-2007, 02:21 AM
Probably the biggest non HoF'er that should be in is Jim Rice. His stats are very close to George Brett, and played at the same time. He qualifies with the best test, was he one of the best at his position for a ten year period?
He did not play for as long, so he doesn't have the grand totals that some have, but he was a .298 lifetime hitter with a .508 SLG and a .352 OBP. Also a lifetime 128 OPS+.

His opponents biggest claim against him was that he hit a lot better at home than away. But that is true of most players, even HoF'ers. Anyway, that is a lousy argument, since it assumes that he would not adjust to whatever ballpark was his home park.

mlbfan30
12-31-2007, 04:55 AM
One thing thats really hard to judge is what the line needs to be between being in or out of the HOF. It's possible to create arguments for Trammel, Concepcion, and Rice. I would rank them Rice/Trammel/Dave. The thing is, if we elect these players, would they bring down the averages of the players already in the HOF.
You could compare Dave to Ozzie, and it's relatively close. Offensively it's a slight edge to Dave, but defensively, it's comparing the very good, to maybe the best ever. Ozzie isn't a strong candidate however. Trammel was better than Dave by a large amount in hitting. I don't buy the "x guy is in, and y is better than x arguement" when x is the worst player in the HOF to begin with. If this happens the standards will continue to decrease until the HOF becomes pointless.
I could argue the HOF is pointless anyway due to the entire BBWAA rules and their whole cultish culture, but it shouldn't get worse.
Rice is really close for me, and because he's close I'd leave him out. He might be a cutoff, even if many don't feel he should... Look at this

# - PA--- AVG OBP SLG ------- HR - RBI - RC/G - OPS+
A - 8176 .291 .363 .510 ------- 352 1206 - 6.6 --- 126
B - 7859 .303 .369 .517 ------- 332 1278 - 6.9 --- 128
C - 9058 .298 .352 .502 ------- 382 1451 - 6.0 --- 128
D - 8916 .288 .347 .499 ------- 399 1425 - 6.2 -- 118
E- 11624 .305 .369 .487 ------ 317 1595 - 6.6 --- 135

I'm pretty sure you could guess Rice in there. Give it a try. The other players are player who no one would consider a HOFer with 1 exception.

757690
12-31-2007, 05:22 AM
One thing thats really hard to judge is what the line needs to be between being in or out of the HOF. It's possible to create arguments for Trammel, Concepcion, and Rice. I would rank them Rice/Trammel/Dave. The thing is, if we elect these players, would they bring down the averages of the players already in the HOF.
You could compare Dave to Ozzie, and it's relatively close. Offensively it's a slight edge to Dave, but defensively, it's comparing the very good, to maybe the best ever. Ozzie isn't a strong candidate however. Trammel was better than Dave by a large amount in hitting. I don't buy the "x guy is in, and y is better than x arguement" when x is the worst player in the HOF to begin with. If this happens the standards will continue to decrease until the HOF becomes pointless.
I could argue the HOF is pointless anyway due to the entire BBWAA rules and their whole cultish culture, but it shouldn't get worse.
Rice is really close for me, and because he's close I'd leave him out. He might be a cutoff, even if many don't feel he should... Look at this

# - PA--- AVG OBP SLG ------- HR - RBI - RC/G
A - 8176 .291 .363 .510 ------- 352 1206 - 6.6
B - 7859 .303 .369 .517 ------- 332 1278 - 6.9
C - 8225 .298 .352 .502 ------- 382 1451 - 6.0
D - 8916 .288 .347 .499 ------- 399 1425 - 6.2
E- 11624 .305 .369 .487 ------ 317 1595 - 6.6

I'm pretty sure you could guess Rice in there. Give it a try. The other players are player who no one would consider a HOFer with 1 exception.

Good post. I agree about the whole x versus y argument, which is why so many bad choices have been made in the past.

In terms of your chart,
A = Ellis Burks
B = Moises Alou
C = Jim Rice
D = Andres Galarraga
E = George Brett

What you really have done is shown how you can't compare players who did not play at the same time. Burks, Alou and Galarraga all played at the same time, when stats were exploding. Rice and Brett played at the same time, when most guys in the top ten in HR were in the 20's and most guys in the top ten in RBI's were in the 90's.

Again, I repeat my view that the best test is to ask if the player was one of the best at his position for at least 10 years. In this test, A,B and D fail, and C and F pass.

But you are right, that Rice is at the bottom if he gets in. But there are really no other players from his era that are close to him that are not in.

And, you are so right about Raines. Why he is not getting more attention is beyond me.

mlbfan30
12-31-2007, 05:51 AM
Good post. I agree about the whole x versus y argument, which is why so many bad choices have been made in the past.

In terms of your chart,
A = Ellis Burks
B = Moises Alou
C = Jim Rice
D = Andres Galarraga
E = George Brett

What you really have done is shown how you can't compare players who did not play at the same time. Burks, Alou and Galarraga all played at the same time, when stats were exploding. Rice and Brett played at the same time, when most guys in the top ten in HR were in the 20's and most guys in the top ten in RBI's were in the 90's.

Again, I repeat my view that the best test is to ask if the player was one of the best at his position for at least 10 years. In this test, A,B and D fail, and C and F pass.

But you are right, that Rice is at the bottom if he gets in. But there are really no other players from his era that are close to him that are not in.

And, you are so right about Raines. Why he is not getting more attention is beyond me.

Yet when use OPS+, nothing different really changes. Rice is basically a Moises Alou with two more seasons. If you call Rice a HOF, then Alou would need some large debates.

757690
12-31-2007, 02:27 PM
Yeah good point, if you use OPS+ as a criteria, which I did earlier, you let in a lot of undeserving players. Just go here

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/OPSplus_career.shtml

And you will see that there are lot of guys with high OPS+ that do not deserve to get in. Kevin Mitchell has a higher one than Griffey jr or Duke Snider for one of many examples. I guess OPS+ is not as solid a factor as I thought.

Still I agree Rice is a close call, but I would vote for him.

Stephenk29
12-31-2007, 03:28 PM
Does anyone else agree that the HOF is being way to liberal with certain players getting in? I would be perfectly fine with no one getting in on a year to year basis. The HOF should be a truely elite bunch I think, and really if you have to think to long and hard about a particular player they shouldn't get in.