Turn Off Ads?
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Who should be voting for the HOF

  1. #1
    Member tommycash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    442

    Who should be voting for the HOF

    I know this is a little off topic, but I get mad every year I look at the HOF ballots and see Dave Concepcion's name on there knowing he will never get in because some guys in New York don't think he was good enough. That gets me to my question, should writers vote for the HOF, Retired Players vote for the HOF (ie only the Veterans Com.), Fans vote for the HOF, or a mixture. I find that sports writers often hold grudges against players, as do former players. I think that players would rather be voted in by peers, or fans.
    I think it should be a combination. Hell, we are the ones that pay for this game and the only thing we get to choose is the All-Star Game, and that is a joke. What do you guys think. I want Davey in the Hall and I hope someday the Veteran's Committee sees that.
    Jack Eliot: I'm a World Series MVP!
    Skip: That was four years ago, Jack. Last season, you hit .235.
    Jack Eliot: LAST SEASON, I led this team in ninth-inning doubles in the month of August!

    ---Mr. Baseball 1992

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Headed South
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    85

    Re: Who should be voting for the HOF

    Sometimes it makes sense to blame "East Coast Bias". However, this is not one of them. For example, I'm guy from Cincinnati who recognizes that Concepcion just wasn't good enough to merit induction into baseball's most elite corridors.

    His career OPS+ is 88. Only seven times in his 19-year career was he above the league average... meaning that for 12 seasons he was below the AVERAGE hitter. Even using an ordinary metric like BA doesn't really help his cause - lifetime .267 hitter

    I know Mazeroski and Ozzie are in the Hall with comparably poor hitting statistics. Even though I'm a Reds fan, I don't think these players really belong, just like I don't think Edgar Martinez belongs.

    Hall of Fame is for complete players. Concepcion was a fielder. If there was a Hall of Defense, he'd get my vote.

    Now, if you want to argue about Barry Larkin, that's something that's really worth debating.

    The art of losing isn't hard to master.


    - e.b.

  4. #3
    Member tommycash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    442

    Re: Who should be voting for the HOF

    How many players are there in the HOF that could only hit. Outside of pitching, it seems like only hitters get into the hall. Why doesn't Edgar get into the hall, because he was only a good hitter?

    By the way Luis Aparicio (SS) had a 82 OPS and is in the HOF, Pee Wee Reese had an OPS of 99 (Concepcion had some stats that were better than Reese) and he is the HOF, Phil Rizzuto had a OPS of 93, Not to mention a lot of SS in the HOF that he has more hits and SB than, and he was a 9 time All-Star. You must not write him off because of OPS. The SS position was redefined by ARod, and he shouldn't be measured by todays standards of power hitting shortstops.
    Jack Eliot: I'm a World Series MVP!
    Skip: That was four years ago, Jack. Last season, you hit .235.
    Jack Eliot: LAST SEASON, I led this team in ninth-inning doubles in the month of August!

    ---Mr. Baseball 1992

  5. #4
    Headed South
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    85

    Re: Who should be voting for the HOF

    You make a valid point about the definition of the shortstop position, though I would argue that the position was actually redefined by Cal Ripken Jr.

    All-Star game appearances are fairly irrelevant. Even Royce Clayton was once and All-Star!

    I guess each shortstop has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Reese gets in for a lot of non-production reasons - his role as a leader on the old Dodger teams. In a way, Concepcion's chances are somewhat damaged by his incredible supporting cast, though it could also be argued that Concepcion receives a lot of his attention because he was part of such a legendary team.

    In short, I still don't think he gets in. Thanks for the thoughtful response!

    The art of losing isn't hard to master.


    - e.b.

  6. #5
    Member tommycash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    442

    Re: Who should be voting for the HOF

    You are right about Cal. He redefined baseball. I don't think it was until ARod and Tejada though, that we all thought about powerhitting shortstops. Cal was an exception.

    Nobody still has answered my original question. Who should vote for the HOF?
    Jack Eliot: I'm a World Series MVP!
    Skip: That was four years ago, Jack. Last season, you hit .235.
    Jack Eliot: LAST SEASON, I led this team in ninth-inning doubles in the month of August!

    ---Mr. Baseball 1992

  7. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    142

    Re: Who should be voting for the HOF

    Quote Originally Posted by Keystone12 View Post
    Sometimes it makes sense to blame "East Coast Bias". However, this is not one of them. For example, I'm guy from Cincinnati who recognizes that Concepcion just wasn't good enough to merit induction into baseball's most elite corridors.

    His career OPS+ is 88. Only seven times in his 19-year career was he above the league average... meaning that for 12 seasons he was below the AVERAGE hitter. Even using an ordinary metric like BA doesn't really help his cause - lifetime .267 hitter

    I know Mazeroski and Ozzie are in the Hall with comparably poor hitting statistics. Even though I'm a Reds fan, I don't think these players really belong, just like I don't think Edgar Martinez belongs.

    Hall of Fame is for complete players. Concepcion was a fielder. If there was a Hall of Defense, he'd get my vote.

    Now, if you want to argue about Barry Larkin, that's something that's really worth debating.


    I agree 100%, but will also add this --> I really hate the "if _______ is in, then _____ should be, too" arguments.



    Just because there's some undeserving guys in the HOF (like Reese & Mazeroski) doesn't mean you should put MORE of them in there. The baseball HOF is the only one that people actually give a damn about - let's make it HARDER to get in, not easier.


    * Did ______ dominate the game during his prime?
    * Is _______ one of the all-time greats at his position?
    * Is _______ one of the all-time great period?


    My "analysis" pretty much begins and ends there.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25