PDA

View Full Version : 2011 HOF class announced



huber14
01-05-2011, 02:06 PM
Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven in, Larkin snubbed.

AWA85
01-05-2011, 02:08 PM
Looking real good for next year on the bright side!

Hondo
01-05-2011, 02:24 PM
Anybody know the % Larking got?

MikeThierry
01-05-2011, 02:34 PM
I think Larkin got over 60%. He is probably going to get in next year.

Mr. Redlegs73
01-05-2011, 02:48 PM
Larkin got a little over 61%. If any Reds Shortstop should get in it will be Larkin. I still can not understand why Davey never got in to the hall.

I have to agree with Lance McAllister about the voting process for the HOF. It is old antiquated and not worth much. Let the broadcasters and HOF Members get a vote and these Baseball writers votes should not count as much as the broadcasters and the alive HOF members.

MikeThierry
01-05-2011, 03:00 PM
What would make you think broadcasters would be a much better choice than writers? I think that if you allowed broadcasters and other HOF members vote, many of the votes will be based on heart rather than any objective analysis. Sure, you get some grandstanding and some head scratching votes from the writers. The whole stance that some writers take on purposely not voting people in on the first year is insane in my opinion. However, I think you have to live with the bad when it comes to this issue. Its writers jobs to look in depth on a story and I just feel they are more qualified to do the heavy analysis it takes on this issue. If you leave it up to HOFers and broadcasters, the HOF might turn into what the Gold Glove voting is.

Furthermore, I think with the new era of stat heads and sabermatricians being eligible to vote, you are starting to see a somewhat more logical approach to HOF voting. As more of these old school sports writers leave the profession, I think you will see are more quantitative analysis in the voting process.

757690
01-05-2011, 03:04 PM
Larkin got a little over 61%. If any Reds Shortstop should get in it will be Larkin. I still can not understand why Davey never got in to the hall.

I have to agree with Lance McAllister about the voting process for the HOF. It is old antiquated and not worth much. Let the broadcasters and HOF Members get a vote and these Baseball writers votes should not count as much as the broadcasters and the alive HOF members.

Larkin got more than expected, which is very good news for next year.

But I agree with you, if you think Larkin deserves to be in, how can you not also vote for Concepcion? Both were dominant at their positions for over a decade.

Hondo
01-05-2011, 03:11 PM
What would make you think broadcasters would be a much better choice than writers? I think that if you allowed broadcasters and other HOF members vote, many of the votes will be based on heart rather than any objective analysis. Sure, you get some grandstanding and some head scratching votes from the writers. The whole stance that some writers take on purposely not voting people in on the first year is insane in my opinion. However, I think you have to live with the bad when it comes to this issue. Its writers jobs to look in depth on a story and I just feel they are more qualified to do the heavy analysis it takes on this issue. If you leave it up to HOFers and broadcasters, the HOF might turn into what the Gold Glove voting is.

Furthermore, I think with the new era of stat heads and sabermatricians being eligible to vote, you are starting to see a somewhat more logical approach to HOF voting. As more of these old school sports writers leave the profession, I think you will see are more quantitative analysis in the voting process.

I feel that this is the one thing in Baseball that works...

IMO Byleven should have been in about 10 years ago based on Stats... But for the most part they get it right...

Captain13
01-05-2011, 03:17 PM
If you add the votes for all the former Reds, we get a player in. Larkin 62.1%, Lee Arthur Smith 45.3%, The Cobra 15.3%, John Franco 4.3%, Brett Boone and Benny Santiago .2% each (and somehow Lenny Harris didn't get a single vote).

Hondo
01-05-2011, 03:27 PM
If you add the votes for all the former Reds, we get a player in. Larkin 62.1%, Lee Arthur Smith 45.3%, The Cobra 15.3%, John Franco 4.3%, Brett Boone and Benny Santiago .2% each (and somehow Lenny Harris didn't get a single vote).

Lenny Harris hit like .400 one year in pinch hitting off the bench back in the 90's for the Reds... He was like the Roy Hobbs off the bench... Without the Power.

bounty37h
01-05-2011, 03:30 PM
I think the Hall voting system is a joke to be honest. I think a player should get one year, if doenst make it then, off the list until 5 years or so for a vets committee at that point. An eligible player has been retired, if he wasnt good enough to be a HOF'er this year, he does nothing to become a better player for next years class.

brm7675
01-05-2011, 03:52 PM
The voting needs to be eliminated, with voting you will get bias. Simple way to decide, set a point value and if player X obtains enough points he is in. like say hitting 500 HR's in your career gets you 10 pts, hitting .300 for a career gets you 10 pts, finishing with 1000 RBi's gets yo 10 pts and so on if player X obtains the needed points he is in. No bias...

mckbearcat48
01-05-2011, 04:09 PM
Larkin is in very good shape to get in.

bounty37h
01-05-2011, 04:41 PM
The voting needs to be eliminated, with voting you will get bias. Simple way to decide, set a point value and if player X obtains enough points he is in. like say hitting 500 HR's in your career gets you 10 pts, hitting .300 for a career gets you 10 pts, finishing with 1000 RBi's gets yo 10 pts and so on if player X obtains the needed points he is in. No bias...

I think it needs to be changed too, but there are so many variables I wonder if the points would work. How do you take defense in, give credit to those that are a complete player but might not have power numbers? I like the idea though and think there has to be a better way then current system.

Hondo
01-05-2011, 06:12 PM
Larkin fot 62.1% of the Vote 361 out of 581

I think this was a huge mistake. Larkin should have went in this year with Alomar, IMO Alomar & Larkin were mainstays of 90's Baseball... True Great All-Around Players...

brm7675
01-05-2011, 06:19 PM
I think it needs to be changed too, but there are so many variables I wonder if the points would work. How do you take defense in, give credit to those that are a complete player but might not have power numbers? I like the idea though and think there has to be a better way then current system.

With all the saber this and saber that with numbers on everything there is on baseball, there has to be a fair and stable way to do it, anything is better then the present system. I mean really, how does player X improve from year 1 of eligibility WHEN THEY DON'T PLAY ANYMORE?

MikeThierry
01-05-2011, 08:32 PM
The voting needs to be eliminated, with voting you will get bias. Simple way to decide, set a point value and if player X obtains enough points he is in. like say hitting 500 HR's in your career gets you 10 pts, hitting .300 for a career gets you 10 pts, finishing with 1000 RBi's gets yo 10 pts and so on if player X obtains the needed points he is in. No bias...

I think what the system you propose lacks is intangibles, which are important for the HOF. I think MVP's, All Stars, Batting titles, etc count. This system would take away, in my opinion, the importance or how special it is to go into the HOF.

Jack Burton
01-05-2011, 09:03 PM
Should be cause to celebrate next year at this time.

Kingspoint
01-05-2011, 09:55 PM
Roberto Alomar: :mooner:

bounty37h
01-06-2011, 09:54 AM
With all the saber this and saber that with numbers on everything there is on baseball, there has to be a fair and stable way to do it, anything is better then the present system. I mean really, how does player X improve from year 1 of eligibility WHEN THEY DON'T PLAY ANYMORE?

I strongly agree with that and have never understood why the voting is prolonged like that...either your a HOF'er or your not. I have questioned this for years now, and never got a good response/reasoning back that makes me change my view of it.

bounty37h
01-06-2011, 09:59 AM
I think what the system you propose lacks is intangibles, which are important for the HOF. I think MVP's, All Stars, Batting titles, etc count. This system would take away, in my opinion, the importance or how special it is to go into the HOF.

I think the current system cheapens it. How can they say I am not good enough this year, but next year-when I havent touched a ball the whole year in between-I am suddenly good enough? IMO, that chepaens it greatly. I do agree there are many variables that a point system suggestion would have to take into consideration, and even then wonder if you can quantify some of them for that, but I think its the idea that can lead to a better process then what they have now. I think the current system is a joke and shame to the great players who deserve it, as well as to those that likely may not but slip through. When I was a kid, the HOF was the end al lbe all, the greatest of the greatest. Now it seems as if its for the "they were pretty good for a 5 year stretch".

Hondo
01-06-2011, 01:28 PM
I think the current system cheapens it. How can they say I am not good enough this year, but next year-when I havent touched a ball the whole year in between-I am suddenly good enough? IMO, that chepaens it greatly. I do agree there are many variables that a point system suggestion would have to take into consideration, and even then wonder if you can quantify some of them for that, but I think its the idea that can lead to a better process then what they have now. I think the current system is a joke and shame to the great players who deserve it, as well as to those that likely may not but slip through. When I was a kid, the HOF was the end al lbe all, the greatest of the greatest. Now it seems as if its for the "they were pretty good for a 5 year stretch".

Yeah the stretch is the only thing that bothers me about it... I love Goose Gossage but I don't think he is a Hall of Famer... Same goes for Jim Rice...

IMO, Sandy Koufax is the player that started the whole dominant stretch business... Because he retired so early... Now I feel 100% that Koufax is a Hall of Famer... I just believe they writers have used that stretch to quantify candidates...

IMO

Larry Walker is not a Hall of Famer.

.313 383 HR 1311 RBI 2160 Hits 1355 runs 471 Doubles 230 Steals 5 time All-Star, 1997 NL MVP, 7 Gold Gloves, and 3 Silver Sluggers

But a guy with similar stats who I feel should be in the Hall is Don Mattingly...

.307 222 HR 1099 RBI 2153 Hits 1007 runs 446 Doubles 6 time All-Star, 1985 AL MVP, 9 Gold Gloves, and 3 Silver Sluggers

Am I messed up or does anyone else agree or disagree?

bounty37h
01-06-2011, 02:59 PM
Yeah the stretch is the only thing that bothers me about it... I love Goose Gossage but I don't think he is a Hall of Famer... Same goes for Jim Rice...

IMO, Sandy Koufax is the player that started the whole dominant stretch business... Because he retired so early... Now I feel 100% that Koufax is a Hall of Famer... I just believe they writers have used that stretch to quantify candidates...

IMO

Larry Walker is not a Hall of Famer.

.313 383 HR 1311 RBI 2160 Hits 1355 runs 471 Doubles 230 Steals 5 time All-Star, 1997 NL MVP, 7 Gold Gloves, and 3 Silver Sluggers

But a guy with similar stats who I feel should be in the Hall is Don Mattingly...

.307 222 HR 1099 RBI 2153 Hits 1007 runs 446 Doubles 6 time All-Star, 1985 AL MVP, 9 Gold Gloves, and 3 Silver Sluggers

Am I messed up or does anyone else agree or disagree?

I can see that. I admit I think I have a hard time seperating my view as a child and reality now as adult. I used to think you could say the names of the greatest, and felt comfortable saying other players in the same sentance, thats when your in a HOF talk. For example, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Johnny Bench. All sound like a conversation of the greatest of the greatest, whether during time frame, position, etc. Now say Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and Roberto Alomar. That just sounds funny in my head, and he prob deserves to be in, but I dont consider him among the greatest of the greatest, just very good during a certain time frame..Will his name be discussed in 20 years in baseball talk for more then his spitting incident, or will his name sort of drop off into "oh yeah, he is in the Hall, isnt he?" when it comes up?

Hondo
01-06-2011, 03:08 PM
I can see that. I admit I think I have a hard time seperating my view as a child and reality now as adult. I used to think you could say the names of the greatest, and felt comfortable saying other players in the same sentance, thats when your in a HOF talk. For example, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Johnny Bench. All sound like a conversation of the greatest of the greatest, whether during time frame, position, etc. Now say Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and Roberto Alomar. That just sounds funny in my head, and he prob deserves to be in, but I dont consider him among the greatest of the greatest, just very good during a certain time frame..Will his name be discussed in 20 years in baseball talk for more then his spitting incident, or will his name sort of drop off into "oh yeah, he is in the Hall, isnt he?" when it comes up?

Really good point... The Hall has been about making it an event lately... Remember in the past there were years when NO players were elected...

I would just as soon not have a player in every year and keep it the Elite players... IMO

bounty37h
01-06-2011, 04:16 PM
Really good point... The Hall has been about making it an event lately... Remember in the past there were years when NO players were elected...

I would just as soon not have a player in every year and keep it the Elite players... IMO

Yeah, I saw a shirt a guy had on at a Durham Bulls game this past summer (or maybe year before, cant rememember now), that read "Baseball Hall of Pretty Good ". Was cheesy shirt but funny line.

PeteRoseBelongs
01-06-2011, 05:42 PM
I lost all respect for Alomar after he spit in that umps face. I would think that Barry should get in next year. I hope he does, he deserves it. One of my favorite all time Reds. Next to Pete which I am giving up hope that baseball will ever do the right thing as it pertains to him

MikeThierry
01-06-2011, 09:33 PM
This should tell you how boring my life is, I actually thought about this topic at work part of the day and how I was going to respond in this forum, lol.

I think there are a number of things that they can change:

1. Only allow writers to choose 5 or so players instead of the almost endless list of players they can put on this list. Aaron Boone got something like 1% of the vote this year. Seriously... Aaron Boone... really? Nice player but obviously someone is trying to grandstand or make a silly point. If they limited voting to 5 people on the Ballot, sort of like they do with the major awards like Cy Young, voters will actually take it more seriously or at least more serious than they are now.

2. Shorten the eligibility of players. I think the Veterans committee is a good thing but as someone earlier pointed out in a previous post, did somehow Alomar's stats change from last year when he got 74% of the vote to this year where he got 90%? Same with Blylevin or any number of players. I feel that the 15 some odd years that players have now is too long. Maybe if they shortened the time frame to 5 years, the HOF won't be looked on as the Hall of Very Good, which its turning into now.

3. I know this will never change but they need to find a way to get some of these writers out of the voting business who have this staunch stance of not voting someone in on their first try. There has never been a unanimous choice for the HOF. Not even Ruth, Musial, or Williams got 100% of the vote. To me there is something wrong with this process when sure lock players don't get voted in on the first ballot.

4. The last point leads into this point. There has to be a better standard of how voters vote for players. What I mean is that there are some writers who didn't vote for Bagwell simply because there was suspicion of him using PED's. This is completely wrong. There probably needs to be some rules set in place where a player cannot be overlooked simply because you suspect he used something. If he tested positive or admitted he used PED's, then fine but its a slippery slope when the Spanish Inquisition determines who is in the HOF or not.

5. I know there are some writers who didn't vote at all. If writers choose not to vote, they should lose their voting privileges for a couple of years. If they want to choose on an option of "No worthy candidates" that's fine but simply failing to mail in the vote shows me they don't take their duties as a voter seriously.

6. Maybe the HOF can go to a system like the NFL HOF system has where only a handful of guys can go in per year. Maybe if the MLB HOF was limited to only 1-2 guys per year, we might get back to the point down the road where players that go in will be comparable to Ruth or Mantle. The only flaw in the NFL HOF is that there is a log jam right now and punters have no shot of getting in, lol.

7. There might be too many voters. I think it would be much better if there was something like two writers from every MLB city who only get to vote. This would drastically reduce the grand standing and stupidity of some of the voting. I think the NFL has this sort of system in place if I'm not mistaken and it has worked well.

bounty37h
01-07-2011, 11:19 AM
Mike, I really like and agree with your points/ideas there, esp shortening the length of time on the ballot, as well as limiting how many can be on the ballot. I know all players are "technically" eligible after a time period past retirement, but seriously, is there even a point in putting most of their names out there as even possible HOF'ers? I think the HOF should review and adjust its process now instead of waiting and watering down the whole thing to the point it has little value to the players who really deserve as well as the fans and game itself.

MikeThierry
01-07-2011, 08:47 PM
bounty, I really think the MLB HOF voters could really learn a thing or two from how the NFL votes in his HOF. I think they have a nice system over there and I don't believe it would be too much of an effort to implement some of those ideas to the MLB system.