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.
2020 Hall of Fame - Miller, Simmons in, (+Jeter, Walker)
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 22, 2020 13:00:16 GMT -5
Times on base demonstrates long term excellence, Agree strongly. Jeter was a borderline HOF player. Which is why this is also off the mark. Well, it's true going by WAR, but not by comparing him only to other SS. It's not like Phil Rizzuto borderline. Trout has already passed Jeter in career fWAR.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 22, 2020 13:00:47 GMT -5
I'm certainly not mad that Jeter wasn't unanimous, but it makes it all the weirder that Mariano Rivera was the first, and so far only, unanimous choice. He certainly deserved to be in the Hall but there were non-crazy arguments against it - only a reliever, pitched fewer than 1300 innings in his career, paltry WAR total, had only one pitch, and you could very legitimately argue that there were 10 more deserving guys on last year's Hall of Fame ballot. It's so surprising to me that those arguments didn't win out with a single voter. I would enjoy it, though, if the one person who abstained from voting in Jeter did so on grounds of his lack of integrity. I think it's somewhat disrespectful to all of the far superior players throughout baseball history to vote someone in unanimously over them. Someone like Mike Trout should have been the first one because he's the only guy who could stand up to historical greats like Ruth, Williams, Mays, Aaron, etc. Mariano Rivera is a failed starter who wouldn't even have been in the majors except for the era he pitched in. And Jeter isn't even half the shortstop Honus Wagner was. Jeter was a borderline HOF player, not a unanimous first ballot one. Well I don't really follow that logic. Among other things there's a coordinated action problem. Maybe you, esteemed BBWAA member, don't think player X shouldn't be a unanimous selection, but as an individual voter you don't choose whether he's unanimous - you choose whether he should be elected to the HoF or not. Like, would you have not voted for Ripken just because he wasn't as good as Babe Ruth? And if you vote against Ripken, how is that not disrespectful to him? You (presumably) think he belongs in the HoF, but you vote against him anyway... Plus I don't think anyone is going to be confused that Mariano Rivera was a better player than Ted Williams just because he was unanimously selected. None of this really matters. It's just strange how the vote shook out with Rivera.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 22, 2020 13:03:54 GMT -5
I think it's somewhat disrespectful to all of the far superior players throughout baseball history to vote someone in unanimously over them. Someone like Mike Trout should have been the first one because he's the only guy who could stand up to historical greats like Ruth, Williams, Mays, Aaron, etc. Mariano Rivera is a failed starter who wouldn't even have been in the majors except for the era he pitched in. And Jeter isn't even half the shortstop Honus Wagner was. Jeter was a borderline HOF player, not a unanimous first ballot one. Well I don't really follow that logic. Among other things there's a coordinated action problem. Maybe you, esteemed BBWAA member, don't think player X shouldn't be a unanimous selection, but as an individual voter you don't choose whether he's unanimous - you choose whether he should be elected to the HoF or not. Like, would you have not voted for Ripken just because he wasn't as good as Babe Ruth? And if you vote against Ripken, how is that not disrespectful to him? You (presumably) think he belongs in the HoF, but you vote against him anyway... Plus I don't think anyone is going to be confused that Mariano Rivera was a better player than Ted Williams just because he was unanimously selected. None of this really matters. It's just strange how the vote shook out with Rivera. The other logic being used at times is that if a player is obviously going to get in and a writer has 11 choices he really wants to vote for, he'll use that obvious choice's vote for that 11th player. Fun fact. Joe DiMaggio didn't make the HOF until his 4th year of eligibility.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 22, 2020 13:05:49 GMT -5
Well I don't really follow that logic. Among other things there's a coordinated action problem. Maybe you, esteemed BBWAA member, don't think player X shouldn't be a unanimous selection, but as an individual voter you don't choose whether he's unanimous - you choose whether he should be elected to the HoF or not. Like, would you have not voted for Ripken just because he wasn't as good as Babe Ruth? And if you vote against Ripken, how is that not disrespectful to him? You (presumably) think he belongs in the HoF, but you vote against him anyway... Plus I don't think anyone is going to be confused that Mariano Rivera was a better player than Ted Williams just because he was unanimously selected. None of this really matters. It's just strange how the vote shook out with Rivera. The other logic being used at times is that if a player is obviously going to get in and a writer has 11 choices he really wants to vote for, he'll use that obvious choice's vote for that 11th player. Fun fact. Joe DiMaggio didn't make the HOF until his 4th year of eligibility. Yeah, that's a little more justifiable. And chalk it up as yet another reason it's baffling that Mariano was a unanimous selection.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,379
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 22, 2020 13:06:27 GMT -5
Agree strongly. Which is why this is also off the mark. Well, it's true going by WAR, but not by comparing him only to other SS. It's not like Phil Rizzuto borderline. Trout has already passed Jeter in career fWAR. If you include postseason hits, Jeter is fourth all-time (having won 5 WS).... Rose, Cobb, Aaron... Jeter. He is 6th without that (Rose, Cobb, Aaron, Musial, Speaker... Jeter). How is that borderline?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 22, 2020 13:08:43 GMT -5
Well, it's true going by WAR, but not by comparing him only to other SS. It's not like Phil Rizzuto borderline. Trout has already passed Jeter in career fWAR. If you include postseason hits, Jeter is fourth all-time (having won 5 WS).... Rose, Cobb, Aaron... Jeter. He is 6th without that (Rose, Cobb, Aaron, Musial, Speaker... Jeter). How is that borderline? I don't include postseason hits, especially when the vast majority of baseball history is filled with 154 game schedules and a single playoff round.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 22, 2020 13:10:23 GMT -5
I think it's somewhat disrespectful to all of the far superior players throughout baseball history to vote someone in unanimously over them. Someone like Mike Trout should have been the first one because he's the only guy who could stand up to historical greats like Ruth, Williams, Mays, Aaron, etc. Mariano Rivera is a failed starter who wouldn't even have been in the majors except for the era he pitched in. And Jeter isn't even half the shortstop Honus Wagner was. Jeter was a borderline HOF player, not a unanimous first ballot one. This is the argument that drives me crazy. Because obvious guys weren’t unanimous, everyone forever shouldn’t be. Then why not have a ceremonial blank ballot that is ritually burned before voting? Compounding silliness is, well, silly. Absolutely obvious HOFers are actually somewhat rare, but when they come along, it takes a truly contrary voter to deny it. If Derek Jeter is not a HOFer, shut it down... and I hate the guy. Walker had considerably better numbers than Jeter both offensively and defensively. You call yourself a small-hall guy. Yet you think Walker was a bad selection, and then say this about Jeter... despite hating the guy! Does it just come down to longevity? (Jeter played about 750 more games.) If so, why do you place so much weight on longevity?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 22, 2020 14:04:19 GMT -5
Alright, here's the thing. Derek Jeter is an obvious hall of famer. If you don't think he is, then I'm not sure what you were watching all those years.
Is he the greatest SS of all-time? No. The metrics make it clear he wasn't. But his overall metrics make it obvious he's a HOFer.
And if a voter can't figure out how to vote for an obvious HOFer, then why is he voting?
And I don't want to hear those lame, "Well, Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous, so why should this obvious HOFer be?"
So, the logic there is to compound stupidity from the past with stupidity from the present. Well, that's brilliant logic.
I think whoever didn't vote for Ted Williams in 1966 should not have been eligible to vote in the first place if they couldn't figure out that Ted Williams is a HOFer. Being dumb in the past doesn't excuse being dumb in the present.
So the only other reason not to vote for Jeter was the voter wanted attention, wanted to make sure he didn't get 100%, or was trying to keep a foot in a door for a borderline 5% of the ballot player, which makes little sense, because if you have to do that to keep a player around, he'll never be voted into the HOF by the writers anyways.
I agree that sometimes players get dismissed too easily without the benefit of more time for decision, guys like a Bobby Grich, or a Bernie Williams, or a Kenny Lofton, or a Jim Edmonds, or a Bobby Abreu (I think Abreu squeaked over the 5%).
But you don't lop off an obvious HOFer to make that kind of point.
The bonehead who didn't vote for him hasn't come forward, so I would guess that he was simply trying to not vote for him because he didn't want him to be unanimous which is almost as dumb as not voting for a player in the first year because you don't think he should be a first ballot HOFer.
Either a guy is a HOFer in your opinion or he's not. The only way he shouldn't be on your ballot is if you think there are more than 10 qualified candidates.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 22, 2020 14:14:31 GMT -5
16 voters left of GREG MADDUX when he was elected. Eight voters left off Cal Ripken, who was basically Jeter's offense, plus more power, actual shortstop defense, and not being such a me-first primadonna that he actually moved off shortstop when it was clear how much he was killing his team there. Can't believe anyone is upset about Derek Jeter, something like the 80th best player in history, not being unanimous. Like I said, someone making a point, and I agree. He should be in but unanimous he is not, just like some should be but not first ballot but will get in, politics in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 22, 2020 14:40:52 GMT -5
Alright, here's the thing. Derek Jeter is an obvious hall of famer. If you don't think he is, then I'm not sure what you were watching all those years. Is he the greatest SS of all-time? No. The metrics make it clear he wasn't. But his overall metrics make it obvious he's a HOFer. And if a voter can't figure out how to vote for an obvious HOFer, then why is he voting? And I don't want to hear those lame, "Well, Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous, so why should this obvious HOFer be?" So, the logic there is to compound stupidity from the past with stupidity from the present. Well, that's brilliant logic. I think whoever didn't vote for Ted Williams in 1966 should not have been eligible to vote in the first place if they couldn't figure out that Ted Williams is a HOFer. Being dumb in the past doesn't excuse being dumb in the present. So the only other reason not to vote for Jeter was the voter wanted attention, wanted to make sure he didn't get 100%, or was trying to keep a foot in a door for a borderline 5% of the ballot player, which makes little sense, because if you have to do that to keep a player around, he'll never be voted into the HOF by the writers anyways. I agree that sometimes players get dismissed too easily without the benefit of more time for decision, guys like a Bobby Grich, or a Bernie Williams, or a Kenny Lofton, or a Jim Edmonds, or a Bobby Abreu (I think Abreu squeaked over the 5%). But you don't lop off an obvious HOFer to make that kind of point. The bonehead who didn't vote for him hasn't come forward, so I would guess that he was simply trying to not vote for him because he didn't want him to be unanimous which is almost as dumb as not voting for a player in the first year because you don't think he should be a first ballot HOFer. Either a guy is a HOFer in your opinion or he's not. The only way he shouldn't be on your ballot is if you think there are more than 10 qualified candidates. LOL, Joe Dimaggio didn't get in til his 4th year, that is funny. Maybe not if you're a Yankee fan but hey he was married to Marilyn so I can't feel sorry for him. You can rail about the historical stupidity and that not justifying the idiocy of the day and I am not disagreeing with you but like I said this is baseball politics. This is how they try to rank players careers and if they are at the very very top or very top or just the top. Sounds stupid but as you point out it has been going on for a long time and it is hard to teach old dogs new tricks. And in some ways it makes sense, they are honoring the generational talents with how they vote or at least trying to. Dewey should probably be in based on his combined hitting, defense and one of the best arms of all-time but we are biased and I am sure fans of other teams could name 1 or 2 they think should be in. Thing about Dewey is he was mostly really good for a long time not great, if he could have hit in his 20's the way he did in his 30's he would already be in.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 22, 2020 14:56:52 GMT -5
So the only other reason not to vote for Jeter was the voter wanted attention, wanted to make sure he didn't get 100%, or was trying to keep a foot in a door for a borderline 5% of the ballot player, which makes little sense, because if you have to do that to keep a player around, he'll never be voted into the HOF by the writers anyways. I agree that sometimes players get dismissed too easily without the benefit of more time for decision, guys like a Bobby Grich, or a Bernie Williams, or a Kenny Lofton, or a Jim Edmonds, or a Bobby Abreu (I think Abreu squeaked over the 5%). But you don't lop off an obvious HOFer to make that kind of point. The bonehead who didn't vote for him hasn't come forward, so I would guess that he was simply trying to not vote for him because he didn't want him to be unanimous which is almost as dumb as not voting for a player in the first year because you don't think he should be a first ballot HOFer. Either a guy is a HOFer in your opinion or he's not. The only way he shouldn't be on your ballot is if you think there are more than 10 qualified candidates. I don’t necessarily have an issue with someone who thinks that there are more than ten hall of famers eligible using a vote for someone who needs it more than Jeter. Like you can make solid cases for: Larry Walker Curt Schilling Roger Clemens Barry Bonds Omar Vizquel Scott Rolen Billy Wagner Gary Sheffield Todd Helton Manny Ramírez Jeff Kent Andruw Jones Sammy Sosa That’s more than ten other players. Would I vote for all ten of them? No, but it’s not ridiculous to vote for ten of them if you’re a big hall guy. people use strategy to vote all the time in elections (including presidential elections). Why is the hall of fame different?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 22, 2020 16:20:03 GMT -5
So the only other reason not to vote for Jeter was the voter wanted attention, wanted to make sure he didn't get 100%, or was trying to keep a foot in a door for a borderline 5% of the ballot player, which makes little sense, because if you have to do that to keep a player around, he'll never be voted into the HOF by the writers anyways. I agree that sometimes players get dismissed too easily without the benefit of more time for decision, guys like a Bobby Grich, or a Bernie Williams, or a Kenny Lofton, or a Jim Edmonds, or a Bobby Abreu (I think Abreu squeaked over the 5%). But you don't lop off an obvious HOFer to make that kind of point. The bonehead who didn't vote for him hasn't come forward, so I would guess that he was simply trying to not vote for him because he didn't want him to be unanimous which is almost as dumb as not voting for a player in the first year because you don't think he should be a first ballot HOFer. Either a guy is a HOFer in your opinion or he's not. The only way he shouldn't be on your ballot is if you think there are more than 10 qualified candidates.I don’t necessarily have an issue with someone who thinks that there are more than ten hall of famers eligible using a vote for someone who needs it more than Jeter. Like you can make solid cases for: Larry Walker Curt Schilling Roger Clemens Barry Bonds Omar Vizquel Scott Rolen Billy Wagner Gary Sheffield Todd Helton Manny Ramírez Jeff Kent Andruw Jones Sammy Sosa That’s more than ten other players. Would I vote for all ten of them? No, but it’s not ridiculous to vote for ten of them if you’re a big hall guy. people use strategy to vote all the time in elections (including presidential elections). Why is the hall of fame different? Like I said in my rant, er... I mean post, that's the only thing that makes sense, but that list you got, most of those guys are borderline at best.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 22, 2020 16:24:19 GMT -5
Alright, here's the thing. Derek Jeter is an obvious hall of famer. If you don't think he is, then I'm not sure what you were watching all those years. Is he the greatest SS of all-time? No. The metrics make it clear he wasn't. But his overall metrics make it obvious he's a HOFer. And if a voter can't figure out how to vote for an obvious HOFer, then why is he voting? And I don't want to hear those lame, "Well, Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous, so why should this obvious HOFer be?" So, the logic there is to compound stupidity from the past with stupidity from the present. Well, that's brilliant logic. I think whoever didn't vote for Ted Williams in 1966 should not have been eligible to vote in the first place if they couldn't figure out that Ted Williams is a HOFer. Being dumb in the past doesn't excuse being dumb in the present. So the only other reason not to vote for Jeter was the voter wanted attention, wanted to make sure he didn't get 100%, or was trying to keep a foot in a door for a borderline 5% of the ballot player, which makes little sense, because if you have to do that to keep a player around, he'll never be voted into the HOF by the writers anyways. I agree that sometimes players get dismissed too easily without the benefit of more time for decision, guys like a Bobby Grich, or a Bernie Williams, or a Kenny Lofton, or a Jim Edmonds, or a Bobby Abreu (I think Abreu squeaked over the 5%). But you don't lop off an obvious HOFer to make that kind of point. The bonehead who didn't vote for him hasn't come forward, so I would guess that he was simply trying to not vote for him because he didn't want him to be unanimous which is almost as dumb as not voting for a player in the first year because you don't think he should be a first ballot HOFer. Either a guy is a HOFer in your opinion or he's not. The only way he shouldn't be on your ballot is if you think there are more than 10 qualified candidates. LOL, Joe Dimaggio didn't get in til his 4th year, that is funny. Maybe not if you're a Yankee fan but hey he was married to Marilyn so I can't feel sorry for him. You can rail about the historical stupidity and that not justifying the idiocy of the day and I am not disagreeing with you but like I said this is baseball politics. This is how they try to rank players careers and if they are at the very very top or very top or just the top. Sounds stupid but as you point out it has been going on for a long time and it is hard to teach old dogs new tricks. And in some ways it makes sense, they are honoring the generational talents with how they vote or at least trying to. Dewey should probably be in based on his combined hitting, defense and one of the best arms of all-time but we are biased and I am sure fans of other teams could name 1 or 2 they think should be in. Thing about Dewey is he was mostly really good for a long time not great, if he could have hit in his 20's the way he did in his 30's he would already be in. Yeah, the HOF has different rings to it. You have Babe Ruth in with Eppa Rixey. You have your slam dunkers, your borderline HOFers, and guys you can't really figure out why they're there (or in the case of Harold Baines you know why) and others who were better aren't. The biggest arguments are for the Dwight Evans and Luis Tiants of the world, what makes Tiant on the outside in while Catfish Hunter and Don Drysdale are in. The really small HOF just wants the slam dunkers, somebody you don't have to think twice about while others who are more liberal (like myself) want others who were extremely great to also be honored as long as it's not too ridiculous. Always makes for a great debate.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,486
|
Post by shagworthy on Jan 22, 2020 17:54:20 GMT -5
LOL, Joe Dimaggio didn't get in til his 4th year, that is funny. Maybe not if you're a Yankee fan but hey he was married to Marilyn so I can't feel sorry for him. You can rail about the historical stupidity and that not justifying the idiocy of the day and I am not disagreeing with you but like I said this is baseball politics. This is how they try to rank players careers and if they are at the very very top or very top or just the top. Sounds stupid but as you point out it has been going on for a long time and it is hard to teach old dogs new tricks. And in some ways it makes sense, they are honoring the generational talents with how they vote or at least trying to. Dewey should probably be in based on his combined hitting, defense and one of the best arms of all-time but we are biased and I am sure fans of other teams could name 1 or 2 they think should be in. Thing about Dewey is he was mostly really good for a long time not great, if he could have hit in his 20's the way he did in his 30's he would already be in. Yeah, the HOF has different rings to it. You have Babe Ruth in with Eppa Rixey. You have your slam dunkers, your borderline HOFers, and guys you can't really figure out why they're there (or in the case of Harold Baines you know why) and others who were better aren't. The biggest arguments are for the Dwight Evans and Luis Tiants of the world, what makes Tiant on the outside in while Catfish Hunter and Don Drysdale are in. The really small HOF just wants the slam dunkers, somebody you don't have to think twice about while others who are more liberal (like myself) want others who were extremely great to also be honored as long as it's not too ridiculous. Always makes for a great debate. I always felt Dewey should be in. So many years of consistent lead off production and GG defense. I was too young to really see Tiant(Born in 77), and I only caught the end of Yastrzemski's career, but because of my families Polish roots and fervent Boston fandom, I was indoctrinated in all things Captain Carl. Oddly enough my first real favorite players were Tony Armas and Glenn Hoffman. As I got older they became Boggs, Greenwell, Hurst, Clemens obviously, and so the party marches on.
I believe the HOF should be more inclusive, there are so many impactful players and their careers should be celebrated. Especially the older generation guys, who it would mean the world to, I just don't see the harm. Before guys got these mega deals, they dedicated a lot of blood and sweat to entertain fans for what amounts to peanuts for today's players, and they laid the foundation for the new guys to get all this money.
I don't think it cheapens the HOF, if anything, I think it enriches it. The guys who are dead locks are going to get in anyways, but I sort of like the idea of that second tier having representation for it's time, after all isn't that what the HOF is? A monument to the history of the game? |
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 22, 2020 17:56:18 GMT -5
On a side note, Louis Tiant along with KC Jones are two of the nicest pros I have ever met. They were really good guys that were engaging and enjoyed talking about the lives they led while playing. Can never overlook the guys that were just good guys.
edit. From what I have read Dewey doesn't fall into that category, when the Sox were known as the 25 guys/25 cabs team he was a big part of that. As I said that is just what I have read no personal knowledge. THat doesn't help as Jimed Rice could tell you and now Schilling who could have trouble based on his social media and political views rubbing some the wrong way as Dan the cancer would tell you it affects his vote.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 22, 2020 22:08:12 GMT -5
On a side note, Louis Tiant along with KC Jones are two of the nicest pros I have ever met. They were really good guys that were engaging and enjoyed talking about the lives they led while playing. Can never overlook the guys that were just good guys. edit. From what I have read Dewey doesn't fall into that category, w hen the Sox were known as the 25 guys/25 cabs team he was a big part of that. As I said that is just what I have read no personal knowledge. THat doesn't help as Jimed Rice could tell you and now Schilling who could have trouble based on his social media and political views rubbing some the wrong way as Dan the cancer would tell you it affects his vote. I would say that Dwight Evans had a lot to deal with. He had two very sick children so he was spending a ton of time at hospitals. Plus he was seriously beaned in 1978. To be fair he was dealing with a lot and it might have been really difficult to be one of the boys. Some of his teammates might have been partying it up in Studio 54 and/or taking things they shouldn't have been taking, but Evans had the big family concerns, things that his teammates didn't have to deal with. I met Luis Tiant a couple of times, too. Great guy. Signed autographs even though he didn't have to. Glad he got to party it up with the Red Sox in 2013 when they won the World Series. He didn't get the chance to do that in 75 so I was glad he had that chance in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 23, 2020 11:19:36 GMT -5
How does Derek Jeter miss a single vote? How does Larry f'ing Walker get voted into the HoF? When Harold Baines, Jim Rice, Larry Walker, Craig Biggio, and Jack Morris all get into the hall you might as well just open it up to everyday regulars. At this rate, as long as Benintendi starts for the next 13 years he should be a lock. How does Mike Mussina get in and not Curt Schilling? Oh, I know, because it has nothing to do with on-the-field and everything to do with off it. It's a complete joke now.
This is the reason I feel like Pete Rose should be in the hall. Yes, he should 100% be banned from the game for the rest of his life. Gambling on the game didn't help him in anyway become the "hit king". There's a very real possibility that he tanked games as a player and as a manager, but despite this, you can't wash away that as a player he had a HoF-level career. Just put it on his plague that he did what he did and move on. That's how I feel about the steroid guys as well. Mention that they were alleged to be deeply involved with steroids during the era and move on.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 23, 2020 11:27:00 GMT -5
16 voters left of GREG MADDUX when he was elected. Eight voters left off Cal Ripken, who was basically Jeter's offense, plus more power, actual shortstop defense, and not being such a me-first primadonna that he actually moved off shortstop when it was clear how much he was killing his team there. Can't believe anyone is upset about Derek Jeter, something like the 80th best player in history, not being unanimous. Ever hear the saying, "two wrongs don't make a right?". I'm not very well versed on the baseball rules, but up until recently, everyone could submit their votes anonymously, yes? There's no reason as to why Randy Johnson should have missed a vote or Ken Griffey Jr, but they did. That highlights a problem that needs to be fixed so that the next Derek Jeter, who is "only" the 80th best player of all-time doesn't miss a vote. To piggyback off my earlier post, the only argument I will accept for a missed vote on a "obvious" guy is that they're HoF good, but not "1st year good". I myself HATE this, but when Harold Baines and Larry Walker get elected to the HoF, I like some artificial barrier between Ted Williams and Craig Biggio. To reiterate, I think that concept in of itself is stupid.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 23, 2020 11:39:20 GMT -5
In 2011 Larry Walker got 20.3% of the vote. In 2014 Larry Walker got 10.2% of the vote (he lost over 50% of his votes). In 2020 Larry Walker got 76.6% of the 75% required in his last and final year on the ballot.
What made Larry Walker go from 10% in 2014 to 76.6% in 2020? What changed that made him that much more of a HoFer? Even then, he barely squeaked in.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 23, 2020 11:41:47 GMT -5
16 voters left of GREG MADDUX when he was elected. Eight voters left off Cal Ripken, who was basically Jeter's offense, plus more power, actual shortstop defense, and not being such a me-first primadonna that he actually moved off shortstop when it was clear how much he was killing his team there. Can't believe anyone is upset about Derek Jeter, something like the 80th best player in history, not being unanimous. Ever hear the saying, "two wrongs don't make a right?". I'm not very well versed on the baseball rules, but up until recently, everyone could submit their votes anonymously, yes? There's no reason as to why Randy Johnson should have missed a vote or Ken Griffey Jr, but they did. That highlights a problem that needs to be fixed so that the next Derek Jeter, who is "only" the 80th best player of all-time doesn't miss a vote. To piggyback off my earlier post, the only argument I will accept for a missed vote on a "obvious" guy is that they're HoF good, but not "1st year good". I myself HATE this, but when Harold Baines and Larry Walker get elected to the HoF, I like some artificial barrier between Ted Williams and Craig Biggio. To reiterate, I think that concept in of itself is stupid. I get the delineation between a GOAT and the Craig Biggios of the world, who are in my opinion, HOFer, and I get the thought process of not wanting to be too liberal and turning the HOF into the Hall of Great, but it can also go the other way, too. I think it was Joe Posnanski who wrote an awesome article called the Hall of Willie Mays or something like that where if it's too strict it gets to the point where the Hall is so small, there's not much to actually celebrate. There has to be a happy medium somewhere I'd think, but where - that's up to the voter. And that's what kind of irks me here. To vote in the US Presidential election, it takes a certain age and US citizenship. It doesn't take any real intelligence, but for the HOF voting, the voting is not open to the general population. It's open to the writers, who are then considered "the experts", so if you're an "expert" of baseball you should be able to distinguish what an obvious HOFer is and vote accordingly. If not, then you aren't an expert and shouldn't get the privilege of being a voter, and if you can distinguish it, but place your personal agenda above things, then you shouldn't have that right either.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 23, 2020 11:49:17 GMT -5
Ever hear the saying, "two wrongs don't make a right?". I'm not very well versed on the baseball rules, but up until recently, everyone could submit their votes anonymously, yes? There's no reason as to why Randy Johnson should have missed a vote or Ken Griffey Jr, but they did. That highlights a problem that needs to be fixed so that the next Derek Jeter, who is "only" the 80th best player of all-time doesn't miss a vote. To piggyback off my earlier post, the only argument I will accept for a missed vote on a "obvious" guy is that they're HoF good, but not "1st year good". I myself HATE this, but when Harold Baines and Larry Walker get elected to the HoF, I like some artificial barrier between Ted Williams and Craig Biggio. To reiterate, I think that concept in of itself is stupid. I get the delineation between a GOAT and the Craig Biggios of the world, who are in my opinion, HOFer, and I get the thought process of not wanting to be too liberal and turning the HOF into the Hall of Great, but it can also go the other way, too. I think it was Joe Posnanski who wrote an awesome article called the Hall of Willie Mays or something like that where if it's too strict it gets to the point where the Hall is so small, there's not much to actually celebrate. There has to be a happy medium somewhere I'd think, but where - that's up to the voter. And that's what kind of irks me here. To vote in the US Presidential election, it takes a certain age and US citizenship. It doesn't take any real intelligence, but for the HOF voting, the voting is not open to the general population. It's open to the writers, who are then considered "the experts", so if you're an "expert" of baseball you should be able to distinguish what an obvious HOFer is and vote accordingly. If not, then you aren't an expert and shouldn't get the privilege of being a voter, and if you can distinguish it, but place your personal agenda above things, then you shouldn't have that right either. I get that and in a weak year, I can see certain guys squeaking in so that you can celebrate something, but the thing is, there are/were better candidates on the ballot who are being denied for reasons beyond baseball.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 23, 2020 11:52:22 GMT -5
I get the delineation between a GOAT and the Craig Biggios of the world, who are in my opinion, HOFer, and I get the thought process of not wanting to be too liberal and turning the HOF into the Hall of Great, but it can also go the other way, too. I think it was Joe Posnanski who wrote an awesome article called the Hall of Willie Mays or something like that where if it's too strict it gets to the point where the Hall is so small, there's not much to actually celebrate. There has to be a happy medium somewhere I'd think, but where - that's up to the voter. And that's what kind of irks me here. To vote in the US Presidential election, it takes a certain age and US citizenship. It doesn't take any real intelligence, but for the HOF voting, the voting is not open to the general population. It's open to the writers, who are then considered "the experts", so if you're an "expert" of baseball you should be able to distinguish what an obvious HOFer is and vote accordingly. If not, then you aren't an expert and shouldn't get the privilege of being a voter, and if you can distinguish it, but place your personal agenda above things, then you shouldn't have that right either. I get that and in a weak year, I can see certain guys squeaking in so that you can celebrate something, but the thing is, there are/were better candidates on the ballot who are being denied for reasons beyond baseball. Hopefully one of them won't be denied next year. Like him or not, Curt Schilling should be a HOFer and I'd anticipate he'd get the call next year. The interesting thing will be the PED guys like Bonds and Clemens. They're not gaining enough to make me think they'll make it by the end of their 10th year. We know Pete Rose won't make it, at least in his lifetime. I suspect it'll be the same way for Bonds and Clemens, too.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 23, 2020 12:37:03 GMT -5
How does Derek Jeter miss a single vote? How does Larry f'ing Walker get voted into the HoF? When Harold Baines, Jim Rice, Larry Walker, Craig Biggio, and Jack Morris all get into the hall you might as well just open it up to everyday regulars. At this rate, as long as Benintendi starts for the next 13 years he should be a lock. How does Mike Mussina get in and not Curt Schilling? Oh, I know, because it has nothing to do with on-the-field and everything to do with off it. It's a complete joke now. Career fWAR Baines: 38.4 Rice: 50.8 Walker: 68.7 Biggio: 65.8 Morris: 55.8 Walker and Biggo don't deserve to be on your list at all. Rice and Morris are both pretty weak selections, and then Baines is in a whole other category of awful. A few more just for funzos: Dwight Evens: 65.1 Tim Raines 66.4 Kenny Lofton 62.4 Reggie Jackson 72.7 Tony Gwyen: 65.0 Mike Trout: 73.4 In 2011 Larry Walker got 20.3% of the vote. In 2014 Larry Walker got 10.2% of the vote (he lost over 50% of his votes). In 2020 Larry Walker got 76.6% of the 75% required in his last and final year on the ballot. What made Larry Walker go from 10% in 2014 to 76.6% in 2020? What changed that made him that much more of a HoFer? Even then, he barely squeaked in. You'd have to go look at the ballots, but some of these years had a crazy logjam of worth candidates, to the point that people were complaining about the ten-player limit. For instance I bet some people gave Harold Baines their tenth vote over Walker just because Baines was running out of time.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 23, 2020 13:27:04 GMT -5
How does Derek Jeter miss a single vote? How does Larry f'ing Walker get voted into the HoF? Well so I said this to Manfred above, but to reiterate the point: Walker had considerably better offensive and defensive numbers than Jeter, albeit in a shorter career. I get the argument that Jeter is a more obvious HoF candidate than Walker despite that - longevity counts for something! But you are treating it as completely obvious that Jeter should have been unanimously elected and just as obvious that Walker shouldn't have been elected at all, and I just don't understand how those are consistent views. Can you explain it?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 23, 2020 13:49:51 GMT -5
How does Derek Jeter miss a single vote? How does Larry f'ing Walker get voted into the HoF? Well so I said this to Manfred above, but to reiterate the point: Walker had considerably better offensive and defensive numbers than Jeter, albeit in a shorter career. I get the argument that Jeter is a more obvious HoF candidate than Walker despite that - longevity counts for something! But you are treating it as completely obvious that Jeter should have been unanimously elected and just as obvious that Walker shouldn't have been elected at all, and I just don't understand how those are consistent views. Can you explain it? I agree with your larger point, that Walker was better offensively, although he did receive a huge boost from Colorado and the injuries, which he got playing on turf a lot with Montreal which Curt Schilling pointed out, and I can buy that he was a better RF than Jeter was a SS. However, the fact that Jeter was a SS does matter. Jeter was playing a key defensive position (mediocre to be kind) while Walker wasn't so he should have much better numbers than Jeter to get in. Jeter's offensive numbers for a SS were extremely strong, and of course that doesn't factor in post-season performances. So what I'm trying to say is that Jeter is obvious for a good reason. He was among the elite SS in the game, and the fact that he was for a very prolonged time is significant. So that's where I'm disagreeing a little bit with you, but now for the part I totally agree with you on and disagree with redsoxfan2 is that Larry Walker is definitely deserving of the HOF. I don't put Walker in the same category as Rice or Baines by a long shot. Walker is a very legit HOF selection, albeit not as slam dunk obvious as Jeter, but still very strong where I think it shouldn't have taken as long as it did, but there's the stigma of Colorado, him not being very well known, and not having significant post-season moments beyond "he was the toughest out in the World Series that the Cardinals got swept in 2004", which doesn't resonate the way Jeters' "moments" do. And of course there's the peak versus career totals thing or rate of production versus accumulated production. I think there's room for both. There are some who would feel that a guy like Yaz was a borderline HOFer who just hung on long enough to pad his totals (like a Biggio). I would offer that he didn't flame out too soon (the way Rice kind of did) and that he was still highly productive even in his later seasons and that there was value in that as well. Conversely Pedro didn't get 100% of the vote because his peak credentials were more overwhelming than the cumulative totals or specifically, his win total - he didn't win anywhere near 300 games. Basically he was the modern day Koufax without the ballpark and pitching era advantages.
|
|
|