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.
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2019 9:40:40 GMT -5
With 43.6% of HOF ballots known, this is what it is looking like. Halladay, Rivera, Edgar Martinez, Mussina are all above 75%. Rivera actually has 100% so far, but I'm sure the writers leaving him off because "if X can't get 100% of the vote, then no one can" will not make their ballots public. Curt Shilling is at 74.4%. Clemens 73.3%. Bonds 72.8%. So they're getting close to breaking through. HOF voting results so far
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 16, 2019 9:44:46 GMT -5
If you look at the breakdown though, Bonds and Clemens have only netted three votes from people who didn't support them last year, whereas Schilling has picked up 14 (and Larry Walker has picked up 38!!!). It's hard to say Bonds and Clemens are getting closer in any meaningful sense. But I have to think Schilling gets in next year, as well as Mussina if he falls short this year, and Walker does eventually.
EDIT: David Lennon of Newsday took Mussina, Schilling, and Edgar Martinez off of his ballot from last year, and voted for only three people. One of whom was Andy Pettitte. What the actual hell?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2019 10:13:52 GMT -5
If Harold Baines is in the HOF...
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 16, 2019 10:36:30 GMT -5
If Harold Baines is in the HOF... There are players worse than Harold Baines in the Hall of Fame. A bad inductee into the Hall doesn't change the standards, it just puts an undeserving inductee into the Hall.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2019 10:40:40 GMT -5
If Harold Baines is in the HOF... There are players worse than Harold Baines in the Hall of Fame. A bad inductee into the Hall doesn't change the standards, it just puts an undeserving inductee into the Hall. Yeah I know, just wanted to say it first since it's usually the argument for everyone to get in.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 16, 2019 11:08:59 GMT -5
There are players worse than Harold Baines in the Hall of Fame. A bad inductee into the Hall doesn't change the standards, it just puts an undeserving inductee into the Hall. Yeah I know, just wanted to say it first since it's usually the argument for everyone to get in. While it doesn't necessarily change the standards for getting into the Hall, but it does kind of make me wonder why we should bother having the debate at all if the HoF is just going to induct whoever it wants anyway.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 16, 2019 11:20:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I hate it too. It cheapens the HOF unfortunately.
I mean you can't go back and take out at least two Cubs guys who got in because of a poem way back when. You can't take guys out because Frankie Frisch made sure all of his buddies got into the HOF. It's already flawed to begin with unfortunately. Unfortunately the HOF will never be what we all want it to be - and even that varies among us. Some want it treated so that if a person is considered borderline, then that guy is not a HOFer, while others are more liberal in their definition of what makes a HOFer. And that doesn't even get to the steroid debate.
Unfortunately there are guys in there who just about everybody can agree does not belong while there are others who either have to wait much longer than they should (sadly Ron Santo who never lived to see it is an example) and others who'll never get in or really be considered who are much better than the lucky guys who got in.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 16, 2019 11:39:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I hate it too. It cheapens the HOF unfortunately. It doesn't, though. It's just a dumb thing that happened. Harold Baines shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, but I can't imagine someone walking in there and being like "meh, they let Baines in, this place is for the birds now." Yeah I know, just wanted to say it first since it's usually the argument for everyone to get in. While it doesn't necessarily change the standards for getting into the Hall, but it does kind of make me wonder why we should bother having the debate at all if the HoF is just going to induct whoever it wants anyway. Nah, the Hall of Fame arguments are the best opportunity I have to tell people that they are wrong. Harold Baines and Rube Marquard aren't going to spoil that fun for me. EDIT: I do think, if the Hall of Fame has any negative effects, it makes it harder for some to appreciate the accomplishments of guys who still shouldn't be Hall of Famers. Harold Baines and Omar Vizquel and Jim Rice and Jack Morris were really great. We can enjoy all the awesome stuff they did and acknowledge that, they don't meet the (maybe arbitrary, but at this point established) qualifications.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 16, 2019 12:03:14 GMT -5
While we are on HOF talk: I keep seeing ballots that vote for Barry Bonds but not Manny. It doesn’t make sense. Look, I don’t know how I feel about the PED cases. Bonds is probably the best player ever. If he is out, any PED player should be too. That said, if PEDs don’t keep you out, Manny has to be in. He is one of the greatest hitters in history. There is no debating his place if the PED stuff is set aside. So it baffles me that ballots would list Bonds (setting aside PEDs) but still hold it against Manny.
|
|
|
HOF Talk
Jan 16, 2019 12:22:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 16, 2019 12:22:59 GMT -5
While we are on HOF talk: I keep seeing ballots that vote for Barry Bonds but not Manny. It doesn’t make sense. Look, I don’t know how I feel about the PED cases. Bonds is probably the best player ever. If he is out, any PED player should be too. That said, if PEDs don’t keep you out, Manny has to be in. He is one of the greatest hitters in history. There is no debating his place if the PED stuff is set aside. So it baffles me that ballots would list Bonds (setting aside PEDs) but still hold it against Manny. The argument is that Manny actually has had a positive test. (not saying that I agree, just saying)
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 16, 2019 12:26:30 GMT -5
I agree that Ramirez is a Hall of Famer, but there's a definite "small Hall" argument that has Bonds in and not Ramirez. They really weren't close. No mid-tier Hall of Famers are close to Bonds. He was absurd.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 16, 2019 12:30:59 GMT -5
With 43.6% of HOF ballots known, this is what it is looking like. Halladay, Rivera, Edgar Martinez, Mussina are all above 75%. Rivera actually has 100% so far, but I'm sure the writers leaving him off because "if X can't get 100% of the vote, then no one can" will not make their ballots public. Curt Shilling is at 74.4%. Clemens 73.3%. Bonds 72.8%. So they're getting close to breaking through. HOF voting results so farBased on how these usually go, probably a Rivera, Halladay, Edgar class. My guess is Moose waits one more year. Next year's only obvious HOFer is Jeter (maybe Abreu but he'll take years, even less so would be a Giambi), so that might be the year a bunch more of these guys get over the hump. Then there's none the following year (Hudson, Buehrle, Torii Hunter). I'll be stunned if Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, and Mussina aren't in by the 2021 class.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 16, 2019 12:38:01 GMT -5
Abreu? I can't see it. He doesn't have much in terms of a counting stats argument, a sabermetric argument, or a "remember when Bobby Abreu did X" argument. I think it's more likely he falls off the ballot entirely.
Josh Beckett is eligible next year, I guess because at this point the whole exercise is to make me feel ancient (my guess is that he gets exactly one vote).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2019 13:24:03 GMT -5
While we are on HOF talk: I keep seeing ballots that vote for Barry Bonds but not Manny. It doesn’t make sense. Look, I don’t know how I feel about the PED cases. Bonds is probably the best player ever. If he is out, any PED player should be too. That said, if PEDs don’t keep you out, Manny has to be in. He is one of the greatest hitters in history. There is no debating his place if the PED stuff is set aside. So it baffles me that ballots would list Bonds (setting aside PEDs) but still hold it against Manny. The argument is that Manny actually has had a positive test. (not saying that I agree, just saying) Bonds' head grew a full hat size.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 16, 2019 13:31:37 GMT -5
While we are on HOF talk: I keep seeing ballots that vote for Barry Bonds but not Manny. It doesn’t make sense. Look, I don’t know how I feel about the PED cases. Bonds is probably the best player ever. If he is out, any PED player should be too. That said, if PEDs don’t keep you out, Manny has to be in. He is one of the greatest hitters in history. There is no debating his place if the PED stuff is set aside. So it baffles me that ballots would list Bonds (setting aside PEDs) but still hold it against Manny. When testing was finally in place, Manny still failed - was it a couple of times? With Bonds it's speculation (with valid reason to speculate), while with Manny it's a fact.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 16, 2019 13:39:02 GMT -5
I agree that Ramirez is a Hall of Famer, but there's a definite "small Hall" argument that has Bonds in and not Ramirez. They really weren't close. No mid-tier Hall of Famers are close to Bonds. He was absurd. Bonds' numbers were absurd, particularly from 1999 and after, but we can pretty much guess why. Would those numbers have existed had his head size not grown? How much air do you let out of them? When a player plays on the Rockies like Helton or Walker at least you can do splits and try to figure out how much air to let out of the numbers, but in a guy like Bonds' case? With Bonds and Clemens, they were already HOFers before they took on their superpowers. Odds are they still would have been Hall worthy had they not done what they allegedly did? I have to ask the same question with Manny? How legit were his numbers? We can all speculate. Perhaps he didn't cheat when he was with the Red Sox until 2008 when he had already been banged up and was hot to trot to get his $100 million or whatever it was his agent Boras was whispering in his ear. Maybe he had roid rage when he shoved Jack McCormick or got into it with Youkilis. His numbers in LA were ridiculous. Hard to believe that was accomplished while clean. But the above paragraph is 100% speculation and could be 100% wrong. We know he did something, but we don't exactly know when, for how long, and how much impact it had on his batting numbers. It's really hard to vote on this subject. It seems the voters who covered that era don't want these players in while the younger voters who didn't cover that era are more forgiving. I do think Bonds and Clemens might actually get in come 2021 or 2022.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 16, 2019 13:49:05 GMT -5
Bonds' numbers were absurd, particularly from 1999 and after, but we can pretty much guess why. Through the 1998 season, Barry Bonds had a career .290/.411/.556 and 99.9 bWAR. While his batting numbers improved after that, he wasn't a better player. Because he was already an absurd hitter, while also being a great baserunner and the best defensive left fielder of all time.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 16, 2019 14:23:37 GMT -5
With 43.6% of HOF ballots known, this is what it is looking like. Halladay, Rivera, Edgar Martinez, Mussina are all above 75%. Rivera actually has 100% so far, but I'm sure the writers leaving him off because "if X can't get 100% of the vote, then no one can" will not make their ballots public. Curt Shilling is at 74.4%. Clemens 73.3%. Bonds 72.8%. So they're getting close to breaking through. HOF voting results so farI hope all 7 make it, finally clear up the massive back log. They all deserve it! Then we can get back to debating guys we should be debating.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 16, 2019 14:35:34 GMT -5
Bonds' numbers were absurd, particularly from 1999 and after, but we can pretty much guess why. Through the 1998 season, Barry Bonds had a career .290/.411/.556 and 99.9 bWAR. While his batting numbers improved after that, he wasn't a better player. Because he was already an absurd hitter, while also being a great baserunner and the best defensive left fielder of all time. True the steroids didn't make him faster and it didn't slow down his aging on defense, but in the years 1999 - 2004 his offensive numbers went from being merely superstar spectacular to being video game-like. I think he would have been great had he not strayed down the path he went. I doubt he would have smacked 73 homers like he did in 2001 or come anywhere near that. Instead of 762 homers maybe he would have reached into the low to mid 600s? We'll never really know.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 16, 2019 14:49:48 GMT -5
Through the 1998 season, Barry Bonds had a career .290/.411/.556 and 99.9 bWAR. While his batting numbers improved after that, he wasn't a better player. Because he was already an absurd hitter, while also being a great baserunner and the best defensive left fielder of all time. True the steroids didn't make him faster and it didn't slow down his aging on defense, but in the years 1999 - 2004 his offensive numbers went from being merely superstar spectacular to being video game-like. In terms of the discussion, which is Hall of Fame worthiness, so what? With his credentials established, your argument has to be either "Bonds doesn't have sufficient morals to be in the Hall of Fame" or "I found Barry Bonds aesthetically displeasing because of his big head." Which... not great Hall of Fame arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 16, 2019 15:14:56 GMT -5
Bonds' numbers were absurd, particularly from 1999 and after, but we can pretty much guess why. Through the 1998 season, Barry Bonds had a career .290/.411/.556 and 99.9 bWAR. While his batting numbers improved after that, he wasn't a better player. Because he was already an absurd hitter, while also being a great baserunner and the best defensive left fielder of all time. You beat me to it. Those numbers are already outrageous. That they climbed from there doesn't change a thing about what he'd already done.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2019 15:15:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Jan 16, 2019 15:31:01 GMT -5
True the steroids didn't make him faster and it didn't slow down his aging on defense, but in the years 1999 - 2004 his offensive numbers went from being merely superstar spectacular to being video game-like. In terms of the discussion, which is Hall of Fame worthiness, so what? With his credentials established, your argument has to be either "Bonds doesn't have sufficient morals to be in the Hall of Fame" or "I found Barry Bonds aesthetically displeasing because of his big head." Which... not great Hall of Fame arguments. Bonds should definitely be in the hall of fame, so disagreeing with your "he wasn't a better player after steroids" claim is nitpicking in that sense. I do think it's worth nitpicking a little, though, because there seems to be a large contingent of people who claim Bonds is the best player of all time while citing 2001-2004 as their primary evidence. I think it's more than fair to say you don't care about Bond's steroid use in terms of HOF voting, because everybody was doing it and Bonds was already clearly an inner circle hall of famer. At the same time, I think it's completely wrong to give him full credit for those insane steroid seasons, as many people do. We saw what peak clean Bonds looked like, and, as good as it was, it definitively wasn't THAT.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 16, 2019 15:49:12 GMT -5
Please stop slamming Roger Clemens! The guys a Red Sox legend and it just feels like you're making it your mission to slam him every chance you get from Roids, now this. You don't like the guy we know.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 16, 2019 15:56:25 GMT -5
In terms of the Hall of Fame, I have no problem grading the hitters of that era on a scale, or whatever you might want to call it, rather than giving "full credit." I don't really want to get into a deep dive on how we should compare Bonds' run in the early '00's to players at other time in history. I DO know I can compare him to his immediate contemporaries. That's part of why I am a no on McGwire and Sheffield and Sosa and Giambi, and can see the argument against Ramirez: in a historical sense, their raw batting numbers are great, but you could get other contemporary players and replicate that production. McGwire was maybe the sixth best first baseman of his generation? He was great at his peak, but not consistently among the best players in baseball, despite the big career HR total.
|
|
|