SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2018 Hall of Fame vote debate
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 12:30:56 GMT -5
Manny is a no doubt Hall of Famer because he was arguably the best right handed hitter of his generation. I really, really, really hate takes like this, because it can quickly get into "Jack Morris led his generation in wins!" and then "Mark Grace led the 1990s in hits!" territory. Qualifiers and arbitrary endpoints hurt, not help, making a convincing argument. Also, Alex Rodriguez makes this argument incorrect anyway. ------ EDIT: I know it is difficult, but can we make a run at doing a Hall of Fame thread without steroids discussion? There is nothing creative or interesting that anybody has to say about the topic at this point. If you think Manny shouldn't be in on merits, that's a fun discussion. If you think he shouldn't be in because of steroids, it's hard-headed arguing that's not going to go anywhere. Like Bonds, or Clemens, or A-Rod. There's nothing really interesting about their Hall candidacy. There's nothing about their own-field accomplishments to argue about. Everyone just yelling STEROIDS ARE BAD. NO THEY ARE NOT REALLY BAD. YES THEY ARE IN FACT BAD is really boring and bad conversation. Of course debating is boring. That's why the jocks always pulled the underwear over the top of the heads of kids who are on the debate team. And now look at us ex-jocks debating daily. Ok back on topic. When This Thread was started it was meant to be a conversation or debate on the players going into the Hall of Fame. But when I looked at the percentage of votes that Clemens and Bonds had and it bothered me that they were stealing votes away from Edgar Martinez Mike Mussina Curt Schilling and Fred McGriff. After seeing how Bonds Clemens Sosa and McGwire performed after they allegedly took steroids I put it into the thread.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 22, 2018 14:03:57 GMT -5
Manny is a no doubt Hall of Famer because he was arguably the best right handed hitter of his generation. His failed tests were WELL after his career hit HOF standards so if yuh want to play the Bonds and Clemens game then it fits with Manny. If you want to say Arod and Manny don’t get in,but Bonds and Clemens should then you’re playing a game of convenience. Steroid players shouldn’t be banned anyways. It was part of the game. Guys used to do Amphetamines that are in the Hall of Fame and no one questions them. Best players should be in. Steroids were part of the game for the players who chose to make it part of the game. It wasn't part of the game for everybody. And as far as amphetamines go, I wouldn't put that in the same league as steroids. They're not even in the same league really. I'm done arguing about the PEDs stuff. I've had my 2 cents worth and it's a topic I really hate. As far as the the real HOF debate goes, I think the real debate is the voters' HOF standards. Again, what IS a hall of famer and what does it really mean? I'm pretty liberal in my definition. A lot of people are very exclusive in their definition and I certainly can't say they're incorrect to feel that way. I have my own line of what a HOFer is, but it's hard to say it's even right or not biased. I believe Dwight Evans should be a HOFer and I say it a million times, yet I haven't stumped for Dale Murphy who could be as deserving as Evans if not more so. To me, there are 1st ballot inner circle HOFers, and I'm sure there's a lot of uniformity in who those players are: the Babe Ruths, Ted Williams, Tom Seavers, Willie Mays of the world. Then there are the guys who are pretty close like the Frank Robinsons, Rod Carews of the world. Maybe not all-time greatest but pretty damn close at times. Then there are the borderline, great players who were among the best but had their moments of mortality, and we debate about these guys a lot. The Luis Tiant, Don Sutton, Catfish Hunter, Eddie Murray, Fred McGriff, Richie Ashburn guys - the where do you draw the line guys - and I'm pretty liberal in this area, as I think through time a lot of these guys are forgotten, but at least if they're HOFers there is some real recognition of their accomplishments, but even that guarantees little - I mean how many people know a lot about Chick Hafey or Vic Willis? So I will beat the drum for Evans, Tiant, Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker, Jim Edmonds, Kenny Lofton,Gil Hodges, and be disappointed terribly when Buck O'Neil doesn't get voted in.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 22, 2018 21:19:55 GMT -5
In a totally hypothetical situation where I'm starting a franchise, I take Hoffman before Vizquel or Wagner. I do think Hoffman's value suffered from because he got used in the *PROVEN CLOSER* style when he had the type of profile that could've been used for multiple innings. Unlike, say, Wagner, I think Hoffman is a stud at 100-120 innings a year as well. But, I'm not going to put him in the Hall of Fame based on how I think he would've done had he been used better. Also, over the years I've become really on board with pitchers who had short-yet-dominant peaks. I'd vote for Johan Santana, Dwight Gooden, and maybe Jose Fernandez. Pitchers are under-represented in the Hall, and I'd lean toward guys who were absurdly dominant for a short time rather than Andy Pettitte/Jamie Moyer types who posted more career value due to their durability. I feel like most people who aren't voting for Manny Ramirez and Sammy Sosa are doing so for an entirely different reason than why I (probably) wouldn't vote for Ramirez and Sosa. Hoffman, for his whole career, threw about 1100 innings and was about forty percent better than league average in them. Santana, from 2004-2008, threw about 1100 innings and was close to sixty percent better than average. If you’re going to let relievers in with 1000 good innings, I’m not sure what the argument against the Santantas of the world is.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,799
|
Post by mobaz on Jan 23, 2018 8:36:05 GMT -5
In a totally hypothetical situation where I'm starting a franchise, I take Hoffman before Vizquel or Wagner. I do think Hoffman's value suffered from because he got used in the *PROVEN CLOSER* style when he had the type of profile that could've been used for multiple innings. Unlike, say, Wagner, I think Hoffman is a stud at 100-120 innings a year as well. But, I'm not going to put him in the Hall of Fame based on how I think he would've done had he been used better. Also, over the years I've become really on board with pitchers who had short-yet-dominant peaks. I'd vote for Johan Santana, Dwight Gooden, and maybe Jose Fernandez. Pitchers are under-represented in the Hall, and I'd lean toward guys who were absurdly dominant for a short time rather than Andy Pettitte/Jamie Moyer types who posted more career value due to their durability. I feel like most people who aren't voting for Manny Ramirez and Sammy Sosa are doing so for an entirely different reason than why I (probably) wouldn't vote for Ramirez and Sosa. Hoffman, for his whole career, threw about 1100 innings and was about forty percent better than league average in them. Santana, from 2004-2008, threw about 1100 innings and was close to sixty percent better than average. If you’re going to let relievers in with 1000 good innings, I’m not sure what the argument against the Santantas of the world is. Stellar peaks are definitely historically underrated in baseball. We spent too many years chasing 3000 hits and 300 wins and 500 HR as our measures of greatness. Pedro "only" had 7 great years, but that peak topped out as greatest pitching seasons ever, plus 2004, which probably helped him avoid similar conversations. Honestly, I have no idea why Roy Halladay is seen as a no-doubt Hall of Famer and Santana isn't even going to get a second look. And McGriff was really good over a long period but somehow that's not enough either.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 23, 2018 9:23:49 GMT -5
Hoffman, for his whole career, threw about 1100 innings and was about forty percent better than league average in them. Santana, from 2004-2008, threw about 1100 innings and was close to sixty percent better than average. If you’re going to let relievers in with 1000 good innings, I’m not sure what the argument against the Santantas of the world is. Stellar peaks are definitely historically underrated in baseball. We spent too many years chasing 3000 hits and 300 wins and 500 HR as our measures of greatness. Pedro "only" had 7 great years, but that peak topped out as greatest pitching seasons ever, plus 2004, which probably helped him avoid similar conversations. Honestly, I have no idea why Roy Halladay is seen as a no-doubt Hall of Famer and Santana isn't even going to get a second look. And McGriff was really good over a long period but somehow that's not enough either. Agree with the point in general, but Halladay and Santana are pretty comparable in terms of peak. Santana's came in consecutive seasons though, where Halladay kind of had two peaks. Absurdly good in 2002-03, then very good (though sometimes hurt) from 04-08, then absurd again from 2009-11. Given that their peaks are comparable and that Halladay provided more value off-peak, he's the better candidate. It's also not helping Santana that Bartolo Colon ate his 2005 Cy Young Award. I mean, come on: www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_2005.shtml#all_AL_CYA_voting
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,799
|
Post by mobaz on Jan 23, 2018 9:55:35 GMT -5
Agree with the point in general, but Halladay and Santana are pretty comparable in terms of peak. Santana's came in consecutive seasons though, where Halladay kind of had two peaks. Absurdly good in 2002-03, then very good (though sometimes hurt) from 04-08, then absurd again from 2009-11. Given that their peaks are comparable and that Halladay provided more value off-peak, he's the better candidate. It's also not helping Santana that Bartolo Colon ate his 2005 Cy Young Award. I mean, come on: www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_2005.shtml#all_AL_CYA_votingDefinitely agree Halladay is more worthy, just pointing out that the difference doesn't seem to me as "here's your bust" vs. "get the hell out of here". On quick look, it actually looks like that Bartolo Cy Young was the last "'cuz Winz" winner. Another illustrious honor for his career.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 23, 2018 12:07:20 GMT -5
Stellar peaks are definitely historically underrated in baseball. We spent too many years chasing 3000 hits and 300 wins and 500 HR as our measures of greatness. Pedro "only" had 7 great years, but that peak topped out as greatest pitching seasons ever, plus 2004, which probably helped him avoid similar conversations. Honestly, I have no idea why Roy Halladay is seen as a no-doubt Hall of Famer and Santana isn't even going to get a second look. And McGriff was really good over a long period but somehow that's not enough either. Agree with the point in general, but Halladay and Santana are pretty comparable in terms of peak. Santana's came in consecutive seasons though, where Halladay kind of had two peaks. Absurdly good in 2002-03, then very good (though sometimes hurt) from 04-08, then absurd again from 2009-11. Given that their peaks are comparable and that Halladay provided more value off-peak, he's the better candidate. It's also not helping Santana that Bartolo Colon ate his 2005 Cy Young Award. I mean, come on: www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_2005.shtml#all_AL_CYA_votingIt would be nice if HOF discussions where used as a chance to re-evaluatate a player and consider that his worth may not have been accurately reflected by his ASG appearances, MVP vote totals, etc. It seems like the opposite is much more common however, where the mistakes of the past are compounded rather than corrected.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 23, 2018 17:40:53 GMT -5
My 10 are Jones, Thome, Guerrero, Hoffman, Martinez, Clemens, Mussina, Bonds, Schilling, and Rolen. For me those guys are clearly HOF players. Get them in and undo this crazy back log. I would also vote for Santana, Sosa and maybe Vizquel. For me I wouldn't vote for Manny or A-Rod, but they are HOF players. Anyone caught under the new rules with 100% proof doesn't get my vote. For me they are like Pete Rose, a big time warning to players going forward. In time I would hope the Veteran committee votes them in. BTW it's time to vote in Pete Rose, he has done his time. Get the guy in before he dies, he did way more good for the game than bad.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 23, 2018 17:56:06 GMT -5
My 10 are Jones, Thome, Guerrero, Hoffman, Martinez, Clemens, Mussina, Bonds, Schilling, and Rolen. For me those guys are clearly HOF players. Get them in and undo this crazy back log. I would also vote for Santana, Sosa and maybe Vizquel. For me I wouldn't vote for Manny or A-Rod, but they are HOF players. Anyone caught under the new rules with 100% proof doesn't get my vote. For me they are like Pete Rose, a big time warning to players going forward. In time I would hope the Veteran committee votes them in. BTW it's time to vote in Pete Rose, he has done his time. Get the guy in before he dies, he did way more good for the game than bad. Rose would have been in a long time ago if he would have admitted anything he did was wrong and apologized. But he's a stubborn a-hole.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 23, 2018 20:18:25 GMT -5
My 10 are Jones, Thome, Guerrero, Hoffman, Martinez, Clemens, Mussina, Bonds, Schilling, and Rolen. For me those guys are clearly HOF players. Get them in and undo this crazy back log. I would also vote for Santana, Sosa and maybe Vizquel. For me I wouldn't vote for Manny or A-Rod, but they are HOF players. Anyone caught under the new rules with 100% proof doesn't get my vote. For me they are like Pete Rose, a big time warning to players going forward. In time I would hope the Veteran committee votes them in. BTW it's time to vote in Pete Rose, he has done his time. Get the guy in before he dies, he did way more good for the game than bad. Rose would have been in a long time ago if he would have admitted anything he did was wrong and apologized. But he's a stubborn a-hole. www.masslive.com/mywideworld/index.ssf/2010/09/pete_rose_offers_tearful_apology_says_he_disrespected_the_game.htmlHe has already done that.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 23, 2018 21:29:19 GMT -5
That was from 2010. How about if he had done so in 1989 when it really mattered? He didn't. He lied about it for more than 20 years despite how obvious it was that he was lying about it.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 23, 2018 22:59:28 GMT -5
That was from 2010. How about if he had done so in 1989 when it really mattered? He didn't. He lied about it for more than 20 years despite how obvious it was that he was lying about it. He sure did, but does that mean more than his career? I'm a big believer in better late than never. He was stupid, lied and has paid a huge price. It's time to move forward. Rose belongs in the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 23, 2018 23:11:55 GMT -5
Not looking good for Edgar after the 25 odd ballots released today.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 23, 2018 23:19:45 GMT -5
That was from 2010. How about if he had done so in 1989 when it really mattered? He didn't. He lied about it for more than 20 years despite how obvious it was that he was lying about it. He sure did, but does that mean more than his career? I'm a big believer in better late than never. He was stupid, lied and has paid a huge price. It's time to move forward. Rose belongs in the HOF. I have no problem with him being kept out. To me, it would take any of these 3 things for me not to want somebody in the HOF despite their career (in no particular order): 1) bet on baseball games, particularly ones they're involved with 2) PEDs, which of course, is very debatable these days 3) was a murderer (like an OJ Simpson type scenario) Betting on baseball is a huge no-no. That said, I'm not convinced that Shoeless Joe Jackson was guilty. I am convinced Pete Rose was guilty and he stepped up - when there was a lot of money to be made from stepping up. It wasn't exactly him being sorry and unburdening himself. It was all about the money.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 23, 2018 23:58:08 GMT -5
Agree with the point in general, but Halladay and Santana are pretty comparable in terms of peak. Santana's came in consecutive seasons though, where Halladay kind of had two peaks. Absurdly good in 2002-03, then very good (though sometimes hurt) from 04-08, then absurd again from 2009-11. Given that their peaks are comparable and that Halladay provided more value off-peak, he's the better candidate. It's also not helping Santana that Bartolo Colon ate his 2005 Cy Young Award. I mean, come on: www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_2005.shtml#all_AL_CYA_votingIt would be nice if HOF discussions where used as a chance to re-evaluatate a player and consider that his worth may not have been accurately reflected by his ASG appearances, MVP vote totals, etc. It seems like the opposite is much more common however, where the mistakes of the past are compounded rather than corrected. That drove me absolutely crazy with the Blyleven detractors. "He only finished top three for the Cy Young Award twice in his whole career." Okay, so we're going to hold the idiocy of the 1973 voters against him again?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 24, 2018 0:21:30 GMT -5
He sure did, but does that mean more than his career? I'm a big believer in better late than never. He was stupid, lied and has paid a huge price. It's time to move forward. Rose belongs in the HOF. I have no problem with him being kept out. To me, it would take any of these 3 things for me not to want somebody in the HOF despite their career (in no particular order): 1) bet on baseball games, particularly ones they're involved with 2) PEDs, which of course, is very debatable these days 3) was a murderer (like an OJ Simpson type scenario) Betting on baseball is a huge no-no. That said, I'm not convinced that Shoeless Joe Jackson was guilty. I am convinced Pete Rose was guilty and he stepped up - when there was a lot of money to be made from stepping up. It wasn't exactly him being sorry and unburdening himself. It was all about the money. www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/pete-rose-banned-baseball-gambling-1989-article-1.2761183I can certainly understand your way of thinking. For me though he always bet on his team to win. Sure it's bad, but it's not betting against your team. Rigging a game type thing.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 24, 2018 9:22:29 GMT -5
I have no problem with him being kept out. To me, it would take any of these 3 things for me not to want somebody in the HOF despite their career (in no particular order): 1) bet on baseball games, particularly ones they're involved with 2) PEDs, which of course, is very debatable these days 3) was a murderer (like an OJ Simpson type scenario) Betting on baseball is a huge no-no. That said, I'm not convinced that Shoeless Joe Jackson was guilty. I am convinced Pete Rose was guilty and he stepped up - when there was a lot of money to be made from stepping up. It wasn't exactly him being sorry and unburdening himself. It was all about the money. www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/pete-rose-banned-baseball-gambling-1989-article-1.2761183I can certainly understand your way of thinking. For me though he always bet on his team to win. Sure it's bad, but it's not betting against your team. Rigging a game type thing. Actually in a way it can be. Imagine this scenario. Our manager has a bet on today's game. Doesn't matter if Chris Sale should stop pitching after the 6th inning after reaching 100 pitches. He's going to pitch no matter what. Even if it's detrimental long-term. Or imagine the bullpen scenario. Craig Kimbrel has saved games the last three nights and needs a night off but our manager has a big bet on today's game for the Sox so he decides to Kimbrel for a 4th night in a row. Don't see how that helps the team over the next few days. Perhaps my examples aren't that stellar but I think you get the gist of it. If our manager is betting on our team to win, certain players who could really use rest, whether it's the starter, a reliever, or even a guy like Mookie, might not get that rest. He's REALLY going to manage to win the game he's betting on even if it's at the detriment of the games he is not betting on.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,799
|
Post by mobaz on Jan 24, 2018 9:53:52 GMT -5
It would be nice if HOF discussions where used as a chance to re-evaluatate a player and consider that his worth may not have been accurately reflected by his ASG appearances, MVP vote totals, etc. It seems like the opposite is much more common however, where the mistakes of the past are compounded rather than corrected. That drove me absolutely crazy with the Blyleven detractors. "He only finished top three for the Cy Young Award twice in his whole career." Okay, so we're going to hold the idiocy of the 1973 voters against him again? In his Book of Basketball, Bill Simmons re-evaluated every NBA MVP and determined whether the "right" guy one, and how "good" an MVP year it was (with the gimmick of how big the trophy should be). Interesting exercise to revisit awards given hindsight and context; I'm guessing someone has done it for baseball awards.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 24, 2018 10:38:31 GMT -5
It would be nice if HOF discussions where used as a chance to re-evaluatate a player and consider that his worth may not have been accurately reflected by his ASG appearances, MVP vote totals, etc. It seems like the opposite is much more common however, where the mistakes of the past are compounded rather than corrected. That drove me absolutely crazy with the Blyleven detractors. "He only finished top three for the Cy Young Award twice in his whole career." Okay, so we're going to hold the idiocy of the 1973 voters against him again? This is where the HOF is really disgracing itself as an institution. I expect that type of thing from the vulgar masses, but if you're going to have a veterans committee, how do you put one together that puts Morris in even though his candidacy was throughly litigated and re-litigated in the public sphere, but doesn't even bother to consider Lou Whitaker?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 24, 2018 18:22:34 GMT -5
4 going in
Chipper Thome Hoffman Vlad
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 24, 2018 18:23:19 GMT -5
Johan Santana falls off the ballot.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 24, 2018 18:26:45 GMT -5
Actually in a way it can be. Imagine this scenario. Our manager has a bet on today's game. Doesn't matter if Chris Sale should stop pitching after the 6th inning after reaching 100 pitches. He's going to pitch no matter what. Even if it's detrimental long-term. Or imagine the bullpen scenario. Craig Kimbrel has saved games the last three nights and needs a night off but our manager has a big bet on today's game for the Sox so he decides to Kimbrel for a 4th night in a row. Don't see how that helps the team over the next few days. Perhaps my examples aren't that stellar but I think you get the gist of it. If our manager is betting on our team to win, certain players who could really use rest, whether it's the starter, a reliever, or even a guy like Mookie, might not get that rest. He's REALLY going to manage to win the game he's betting on even if it's at the detriment of the games he is not betting on. How is that detrimental to the game? It could be to his team, but managers overuse guys anyway. We see it every year. Farrell would do it all the time. He wore out Taz every year by the all star break. You play the game to win, he bet to win. It's against the rules, so he deserves to be punished, but he has done his time. I don't see how he ruined the integrity of the game. If he did that I can see a lifetime ban. This reminds me of Mayweather trying to bet on himself. I think one casino turned him down, not sure if he ended up making the bet. In reality as long as he bets on himself to win I just don't see the issue.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 24, 2018 18:28:09 GMT -5
Johan Santana falls off the ballot. That's a shame. Boarder line type player, but he deserves better than this!
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Jan 24, 2018 18:33:23 GMT -5
Hoffman getting in, but not Edgar is strange to me. Johan falling off is a real shame.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 18:40:04 GMT -5
2018 Baseball Hall of Fame final voting results
Chipper Jones 97.2% Vladimir Guerrero 92.9% Jim Thome 89.8% Trevor Hoffman 79.9% -------- Edgar Martinez 70.4% missed by 19 votes Mike Mussina 63.5% Roger Clemens 57.3% Barry Bonds 56.4% Curt Schilling 51.2% Omar Vizquel 37.0% Larry Walker 34.1% Fred McGriff 23.2% Manny Ramirez 22.0% Jeff Kent 14.5% Gary Sheffield 11.1% billy Wagner 11.1% Scott Rolen 10.2% Sammy Sosa 7.8% Andruw Jones 7.3% -------- Jamie Moyer 2.4% Johan Santana 2.4% Johnny Damon 1.9% Hideki Matsui 0.9% Chris Carpenter 0.5% Kerry Wood 0.5% Livan Hernandez 0.2% Carlos Lee 0.2% No votes: Orlando Hudson, Aubrey Huff, Jason Isringhausen, Brad Lidge, Kevin Millwood, Carlos Zambrano
|
|
|