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.
Hall of Fame 2022 - David Ortiz Elected
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 24, 2021 12:19:31 GMT -5
Agree to disagree. Ortiz being on that list wasn't great but no one knew anything about what he tested positive for etc...Clemens and Bonds is different where they had court cases brought to light with damning evidence but the strange thing is neither guy really needed the stuff to make the hall. Schilling is a hall of famer but like Ty Cobb is a massive POS. Thats still not enough to keep him out though. Let the man have his day. If people boo during his entire speech though that might be popcorn worthy. No he wasn't. Ty Cobb wasn't a massive POS. He was a victim of a hit job by Al Stump who fabricated a lot of stuff. Cobb was the son of an abolitionist and favored integration. I'm tired of seeing something that is incorrect continued to be spouted when it has been debunked. A lot of the myths regarding Cobb have been debunked. I'm not saying he was a saint, but he was not as portrayed in Stump's book or the movie based off the book. I agree with Clemens and Bonds being HOF worthy even if they never took PEDs, but that doesn't mean that this year, their last year of eligibility to get into the HOF via the writers that they're going to make the jump from 61% to 75%. And while I would hold my nose and vote for Schilling he will not get the additional 4% from the writers. Had he not been the POS, I have no doubt he'd get in this year. Now it's not going to happen. A lot of writers have decided not to vote for him. Doesn't mean they're right. But I'm not arguing who SHOULD go in - I'm arguing who I think WILL go in THIS year. Like I said, Bonds and Clemens will probably get in via the Veterans Committee at some point. I don't think Schilling will get into the HOF now because not only did he burn bridges with the writers who vote for him this year, but I'm sure he has burnt bridges with other players, some who will be on the panel advocating for other players on the Veterans' committee. I'm fine with the argument on either side of the Schilling question. I was for voting him in until the January 6th stuff; at this point it just feels a little too passive to let it slide with people who are actively trying to tear apart the fabric of society. As just sort of a matter of self-respect I have no interest in letting a guy like that maintain good standing in society. But this is an exception to my general principle of trying to avoid judging the character of public figures.
Speaking of which... I am with you in being a little tired of the Ty Cobb argument. That guy was around like a century ago! How the heck am I supposed to even have an opinion about his character, let alone set it as some sort of anti-standard for all future baseball players ("if Ty Cobb is in the HOF then every asshole has to be"). Maybe I wouldn't have wanted Cobb to get in back in the 1930s - I have no idea! Or maybe it was all just a hit job, like you say.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 24, 2021 13:10:51 GMT -5
No he wasn't. Ty Cobb wasn't a massive POS. He was a victim of a hit job by Al Stump who fabricated a lot of stuff. Cobb was the son of an abolitionist and favored integration. I'm tired of seeing something that is incorrect continued to be spouted when it has been debunked. A lot of the myths regarding Cobb have been debunked. I'm not saying he was a saint, but he was not as portrayed in Stump's book or the movie based off the book. I agree with Clemens and Bonds being HOF worthy even if they never took PEDs, but that doesn't mean that this year, their last year of eligibility to get into the HOF via the writers that they're going to make the jump from 61% to 75%. And while I would hold my nose and vote for Schilling he will not get the additional 4% from the writers. Had he not been the POS, I have no doubt he'd get in this year. Now it's not going to happen. A lot of writers have decided not to vote for him. Doesn't mean they're right. But I'm not arguing who SHOULD go in - I'm arguing who I think WILL go in THIS year. Like I said, Bonds and Clemens will probably get in via the Veterans Committee at some point. I don't think Schilling will get into the HOF now because not only did he burn bridges with the writers who vote for him this year, but I'm sure he has burnt bridges with other players, some who will be on the panel advocating for other players on the Veterans' committee. I'm fine with the argument on either side of the Schilling question. I was for voting him in until the January 6th stuff; at this point it just feels a little too passive to let it slide with people who are actively trying to tear apart the fabric of society. As just sort of a matter of self-respect I have no interest in letting a guy like that maintain good standing in society. But this is an exception to my general principle of trying to avoid judging the character of public figures.
Speaking of which... I am with you in being a little tired of the Ty Cobb argument. That guy was around like a century ago! How the heck am I supposed to even have an opinion about his character, let alone set it as some sort of anti-standard for all future baseball players ("if Ty Cobb is in the HOF then every asshole has to be"). Maybe I wouldn't have wanted Cobb to get in back in the 1930s - I have no idea! Or maybe it was all just a hit job, like you say.
I'd recommend the book, "Ty Cobb, a terrible beauty" by Charles Leehrsen. It debunks alot of assumed falsehoods about Ty Cobb and is certainly a book to be trusted a helluva lot more than Al Stump's book. I share your views regarding Jan 6th and Schilling supporting it. If he had been one of those nutjobs trying to break into the Capitol building trying to block democracy, hang Mike Pence, etc. I'd withhold my imaginary vote for him, but despite his disgusting approval it wouldn't stop me for voting for him, but I certainly understand the opposite view where you'd withhold your vote for even being in agreement with those insurrectionists. What Omar Vizquel did would stop me from voting for him - if he were worthy in the first place. Like I said, I wish the character clause wasn't there but it is and even if you remove that, then you run into the character clause as far as on the field type of issues (PEDs, gambling, illegal pitches like the spitball, etc). It's so damn tough to know where to draw the lines on both the off field and on field issues. It's just a bunch of yucch.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Nov 24, 2021 13:31:45 GMT -5
Agree to disagree. Ortiz being on that list wasn't great but no one knew anything about what he tested positive for etc...Clemens and Bonds is different where they had court cases brought to light with damning evidence but the strange thing is neither guy really needed the stuff to make the hall. Schilling is a hall of famer but like Ty Cobb is a massive POS. Thats still not enough to keep him out though. Let the man have his day. If people boo during his entire speech though that might be popcorn worthy. No he wasn't. Ty Cobb wasn't a massive POS. He was a victim of a hit job by Al Stump who fabricated a lot of stuff. Cobb was the son of an abolitionist and favored integration. I'm tired of seeing something that is incorrect continued to be spouted when it has been debunked. A lot of the myths regarding Cobb have been debunked. I'm not saying he was a saint, but he was not as portrayed in Stump's book or the movie based off the book. I agree with Clemens and Bonds being HOF worthy even if they never took PEDs, but that doesn't mean that this year, their last year of eligibility to get into the HOF via the writers that they're going to make the jump from 61% to 75%. And while I would hold my nose and vote for Schilling he will not get the additional 4% from the writers. Had he not been the POS, I have no doubt he'd get in this year. Now it's not going to happen. A lot of writers have decided not to vote for him. Doesn't mean they're right. But I'm not arguing who SHOULD go in - I'm arguing who I think WILL go in THIS year. Like I said, Bonds and Clemens will probably get in via the Veterans Committee at some point. I don't think Schilling will get into the HOF now because not only did he burn bridges with the writers who vote for him this year, but I'm sure he has burnt bridges with other players, some who will be on the panel advocating for other players on the Veterans' committee. Responding to the bolded part, I'd actually put Schilling's chances at a little better than 50-50 this year. Guys who came close to 75 percent in prior elections tend to take a jump forward in their last year of eligibility. In addition, I think a small number of voters may look at Schilling, Bond and Clemens and say, "Screw it. We kept this idiot out for nine years. I'll hold my nose and vote for him this year." With Schilling (71 percent last year), it just might be enough to nudge him over the finish line. It won't be enough for Bonds or Clemens. On Cobb, I think the Ken Burns series from the early '90s also helped push an exaggerated account of his depravity. The Burns series was highly acclaimed and probably cemented the view a lot of people already had about Cobb. I have the Leehrsen book and have to get around to reading it.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 24, 2021 15:03:29 GMT -5
No he wasn't. Ty Cobb wasn't a massive POS. He was a victim of a hit job by Al Stump who fabricated a lot of stuff. Cobb was the son of an abolitionist and favored integration. I'm tired of seeing something that is incorrect continued to be spouted when it has been debunked. A lot of the myths regarding Cobb have been debunked. I'm not saying he was a saint, but he was not as portrayed in Stump's book or the movie based off the book. I agree with Clemens and Bonds being HOF worthy even if they never took PEDs, but that doesn't mean that this year, their last year of eligibility to get into the HOF via the writers that they're going to make the jump from 61% to 75%. And while I would hold my nose and vote for Schilling he will not get the additional 4% from the writers. Had he not been the POS, I have no doubt he'd get in this year. Now it's not going to happen. A lot of writers have decided not to vote for him. Doesn't mean they're right. But I'm not arguing who SHOULD go in - I'm arguing who I think WILL go in THIS year. Like I said, Bonds and Clemens will probably get in via the Veterans Committee at some point. I don't think Schilling will get into the HOF now because not only did he burn bridges with the writers who vote for him this year, but I'm sure he has burnt bridges with other players, some who will be on the panel advocating for other players on the Veterans' committee. Responding to the bolded part, I'd actually put Schilling's chances at a little better than 50-50 this year. Guys who came close to 75 percent in prior elections tend to take a jump forward in their last year of eligibility. In addition, I think a small number of voters may look at Schilling, Bond and Clemens and say, "Screw it. We kept this idiot out for nine years. I'll hold my nose and vote for him this year." With Schilling (71 percent last year), it just might be enough to nudge him over the finish line. It won't be enough for Bonds or Clemens. On Cobb, I think the Ken Burns series from the early '90s also helped push an exaggerated account of his depravity. The Burns series was highly acclaimed and probably cemented the view a lot of people already had about Cobb. I have the Leehrsen book and have to get around to reading it. If the January 6th stuff was the last straw for me, then I suspect it will be for at least a handful of voters. Apparently some voters wrote in to try to rescind their Schilling vote after that stuff happened. I'd bet pretty good money that he gets less than 71% this time around.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 24, 2021 15:20:29 GMT -5
Responding to the bolded part, I'd actually put Schilling's chances at a little better than 50-50 this year. Guys who came close to 75 percent in prior elections tend to take a jump forward in their last year of eligibility. In addition, I think a small number of voters may look at Schilling, Bond and Clemens and say, "Screw it. We kept this idiot out for nine years. I'll hold my nose and vote for him this year." With Schilling (71 percent last year), it just might be enough to nudge him over the finish line. It won't be enough for Bonds or Clemens. On Cobb, I think the Ken Burns series from the early '90s also helped push an exaggerated account of his depravity. The Burns series was highly acclaimed and probably cemented the view a lot of people already had about Cobb. I have the Leehrsen book and have to get around to reading it. If the January 6th stuff was the last straw for me, then I suspect it will be for at least a handful of voters. Apparently some voters wrote in to try to rescind their Schilling vote after that stuff happened. I'd bet pretty good money that he gets less than 71% this time around. I thought I heard something like that, too. Normally a guy getting 71% after year 9 would be a slam dunk to reach 75% for year 10. I think Jim Rice was somewhere in that area. But I truly think Schilling, whether you think the writers should or shouldn't withhold their votes, will withhold their votes. I wouldn't be suprised if he wound up behind Bonds and Clemens in the balloting and Bonds and Clemens hardly ever see their vote totals move much - so I suspect they all miss. David Ortiz is the one that I think has the best crack at making the HOF, but some writers will hold the 2003 PEDs testing against him even if they shouldn't, some will stubbornly hold him being a DH against him, while a number of them will do this, "I can't vote him in on the first ballot because that's reserved for Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, and others of the inner circle of the HOF" and will wait until 2023 to vote for Ortiz. I think Ortiz will be close. Like he might skate over at 76% and make the HOF, or I could be way off, and he only gets about 55 - 65%. I'd be surprised if he got less than 50%. His post-season history is stunning and he's the guy that I'm sure a lot of voters think of "The guy who made the Red Sox, the team that hadn't won in 86 years, a 3 time champion and changed the vibes of that franchise" and I think that'll carry a lot of weight. And the 541 HRs don't hurt or the fact that the guy never faded and was high profile and kind of a friendly giant. Those things bode well for Big Papi.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 24, 2021 15:30:22 GMT -5
If the January 6th stuff was the last straw for me, then I suspect it will be for at least a handful of voters. Apparently some voters wrote in to try to rescind their Schilling vote after that stuff happened. I'd bet pretty good money that he gets less than 71% this time around. I thought I heard something like that, too. Normally a guy getting 71% after year 9 would be a slam dunk to reach 75% for year 10. I think Jim Rice was somewhere in that area. But I truly think Schilling, whether you think the writers should or shouldn't withhold their votes, will withhold their votes. I wouldn't be suprised if he wound up behind Bonds and Clemens in the balloting and Bonds and Clemens hardly ever see their vote totals move much - so I suspect they all miss. David Ortiz is the one that I think has the best crack at making the HOF, but some writers will hold the 2003 PEDs testing against him even if they shouldn't, some will stubbornly hold him being a DH against him, while a number of them will do this, "I can't vote him in on the first ballot because that's reserved for Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, and others of the inner circle of the HOF" and will wait until 2023 to vote for Ortiz. I think Ortiz will be close. Like he might skate over at 76% and make the HOF, or I could be way off, and he only gets about 55 - 65%. I'd be surprised if he got less than 50%. His post-season history is stunning and he's the guy that I'm sure a lot of voters think of "The guy who made the Red Sox, the team that hadn't won in 86 years, a 3 time champion and changed the vibes of that franchise" and I think that'll carry a lot of weight. And the 541 HRs don't hurt or the fact that the guy never faded and was high profile and kind of a friendly giant. Those things bode well for Big Papi. There's greater heterogeneity of thought (and a lot more intelligence) in sports journalism than there used to be, I think, which is good overall, but sort of paralyzing for a process that demands near-consensus, like HOF voting with it's 75% threshold. You only need a quarter of voters to withhold their vote for Schilling on character grounds, or Bonds/Clemens on PED grounds, or to reject player X based on traditional stats, or reject player Y based on advanced stats, or pull a trolly Shaugnessy type move, and then wind up with a situation where most voters submit 5+ names for induction but no single player gets 75% for several years in a row anyways. (And then meanwhile the Veterans' Committe might Leroy Jenkins the whole process at any moment and just throw Harold Baines in there cuz he's their buddy.)
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 25, 2021 16:34:42 GMT -5
Interesting dilemma here, Bonds, Clemens, ARoid and Ortiz all on the same ballot. It'll be interesting to see if there are gray areas or black and white for PED voting. If I cared about PEDs (I do not, really) I would consider ARod the worst offender, as he did 'em when you weren't supposed to and got suspended for it. Clemens and Bonds did it when everyone was being tacitly encouraged to, and Manfred has all but exonerated Ortiz altogether. But who knows how the people who do care about steroids will see it. Wait, no. Changed my mind on this. If I cared about PEDs (I still do not) I would think that Rodriguez had been punished and therefore the balance of justice was restored with regard to his malfeasance, whereas Bonds and Clemens were never punished and the only way to do so now would be to keep them out of the Hall of Fame. So I would vote for Rodriguez before Bonds and Clemens.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Nov 26, 2021 22:43:58 GMT -5
If I cared about PEDs (I do not, really) I would consider ARod the worst offender, as he did 'em when you weren't supposed to and got suspended for it. Clemens and Bonds did it when everyone was being tacitly encouraged to, and Manfred has all but exonerated Ortiz altogether. But who knows how the people who do care about steroids will see it. Wait, no. Changed my mind on this. If I cared about PEDs (I still do not) I would think that Rodriguez had been punished and therefore the balance of justice was restored with regard to his malfeasance, whereas Bonds and Clemens were never punished and the only way to do so now would be to keep them out of the Hall of Fame. So I would vote for Rodriguez before Bonds and Clemens. Do you all remember Clemens picking up Piazza’s broke bat which landed near him on the pitchers mound and throwing it at Piazza as he was running to first? When the interviewer ask Clemens why he did it. He said he thought it was the ball. What a bad liar, and why would he be throwing the ball at a player running to first base? If character matters then he should never get in the HOF. A-Wrong’s (A-Rod) banishment proves he was guilty! It does not absolve him of his crime. It is further reason not to let him in the HOF!
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 27, 2021 21:31:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 27, 2021 22:21:27 GMT -5
....
Ryan Howard is the worst player on this ballot. I would entertain an argument that his two-year peak (2005-2006) makes him a better Hall of Fame candidate than AJ Pierzynski, but Pierzynski had more 2.0+ bWAR seasons and MANY more 1.0+ bWAR seasons.
EDIT: Like I can see absolutely no reason why someone could vote for Howard and not Justin Morneau, who has the exact same qualifications as Howard but then was a good player for more than two years and is still WAY south of a Hall of Famer.
|
|
|
Post by baseball3 on Nov 27, 2021 22:26:56 GMT -5
Yeah that ballot makes zero sense. Jimmy Rollins? Ryan Howard? Bobby Abreau? Is this HOF voter a fan of Phillies or something?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 27, 2021 22:28:53 GMT -5
Bobby Abreu has a pretty good Hall of Fame case. I have no problem with a Phillies writer (or anyone, I suppose) giving Jimmy Rollins a vote, a legitimately great player who was something short of a Hall of Famer if you remove sentimentality. Ryan Howard is a worse Hall of Fame candidate than Mitch Moreland.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Nov 27, 2021 22:44:36 GMT -5
While I completely agree Ryan Howard is not anywhere near a hall of tamer, he still had a much more successful career than Mitch Moreland (~20 WAR vs. 7) and I think you could also argue his peak makes him a better candidate than Morneau.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 27, 2021 23:18:34 GMT -5
The only way Howard's peak is stronger than Morneau's is if you're defining peak as a single season. Morneau's fifth-best season was better than Howard's third-best. bWAR | Howard | Morneau | 5.0+ | 1 | 0 | 4.0+ | 1 | 3 | 3.0+ | 3 | 5 | 2.0+ | 4 | 6 | 1.0+ | 7 | 10 |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 28, 2021 7:34:54 GMT -5
Howard is the kind of guy the non-sabermetric voters love. Lots of home runs and RBIs, on a winning team, big personality, easy to ignore his awful defense/baserunning and mediocre OBP.
Even a cursory look at this ballot makes clear that he had no real systemic use of statistics to generate his ballot. Which is fine, he’s not the only one who essentially just picks the guys he has the fondest memories of, and I don’t want to give one ballot more scrutiny than it deserves just because it’s first.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 28, 2021 9:10:58 GMT -5
Is this HOF voter a fan of Phillies or something? Yes
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Nov 28, 2021 9:13:35 GMT -5
The only way Howard's peak is stronger than Morneau's is if you're defining peak as a single season. Morneau's fifth-best season was better than Howard's third-best. bWAR | Howard | Morneau | 5.0+ | 1 | 0 | 4.0+ | 1 | 3 | 3.0+ | 3 | 5 | 2.0+ | 4 | 6 | 1.0+ | 7 | 10 |
This is probably not worth debating since I don’t actually disagree with you, but the argument I was seeing was if you were to consider the 3 year peak, Howard’s WAR total for his 3 best years is about 3 wins higher (looking at fWAR).
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 28, 2021 12:13:01 GMT -5
Howard is the kind of guy the non-sabermetric voters love. Lots of home runs and RBIs, on a winning team, big personality, easy to ignore his awful defense/baserunning and mediocre OBP. Even a cursory look at this ballot makes clear that he had no real systemic use of statistics to generate his ballot. Which is fine, he’s not the only one who essentially just picks the guys he has the fondest memories of, and I don’t want to give one ballot more scrutiny than it deserves just because it’s first. I was gonna say this guy looked like his formula was "best players, plus all the Phillies, minus guys with any sort of moral cloud over their head," but then he also voted for Vizquel, who was not one of the best players, not a Phillie, and has a rather enormous moral cloud over his head. So really he's just insane.
ADD: Haha, I just read the article the guy wrote ("Jimmy Rollins, Ryan Howard passed Hall of Fame eye test," LOL). Makes me wish firejoemorgan were still around.
While you nerds are debating WAR peaks, the Howard vote is actually based on his running out a ground ball one time: Also, it turns out McCaffery wasn't bothered by Schilling's racism, incitement of violence, hostile rhetoric, or support for insurrection; it was actually just that Schilling insulted the sportswriters:
This seems like a measured take:
McCaffery is wise enough to know that David Ortiz definitely did steroids, Manfred's public semi-exoneration be damned:
This is fun:
Vizquel never did anything morally questionable, like say surly things to the media or manipulate baseball equipment, so he gets in no problem. But I like that he gets in as the top defender of his generation (he was not) but Andruw Jones, the actual best defensive outfielder of his generation, gets in for his bat (career 111 wRC+).
"Naturally, my ballot is internally inconsistent! Why would you even ask that? The point is: the system works."
Can't wait for Shaughnessy's contribution...
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 28, 2021 13:57:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 28, 2021 15:20:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 28, 2021 16:01:37 GMT -5
Ummm... am I the only one who spends half their time here waiting for the page to finish staggering as all the twitter embeds load on every page of every discussion thread? Maybe it's just my computer, but I wonder if we could sometimes just link to the tweets rather than embed every single one of them? But if it's just me then carry on.
(But re: that last tweet... Yes on Clemens and Sosa but No on Bonds and Rodriguez is an... interesting choice.)
|
|
|
Post by baseball3 on Nov 28, 2021 16:05:58 GMT -5
The HOF voting is turning to be a bigger joke than the incoming CBA lockout.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 28, 2021 16:34:01 GMT -5
I’m not particularly interested in what individual BBWAA members think (read: I don’t see the appeal of posting individual MVP ballots). Wake me up when all the ballots are in.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 28, 2021 16:41:53 GMT -5
I’m not particularly interested in what individual BBWAA members think (read: I don’t see the appeal of posting individual MVP ballots). Wake me up when all the ballots are in. At this point I'm more interested right now in who gets elected next Sunday. Does Dick Allen and/or Gil Hodges and/or others get in? I like Kaat and Oliva too. Also the other ballot. Does Buck O'Neil get in? John Donaldson? How do the historians vote? There will be about 250 voters showing their individual ballots. I'm more interested in the cumulative and less interested than the individual ballots.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Nov 28, 2021 16:45:19 GMT -5
I’m a non-sabermetrics guy and can say… Howard is indefensible. The two takeaways from his career are a brief huge stretch (good!) that led to a catastrophic contract. It is hard to be remembered as an albatross by a little over 30 AND be a HOFer.
I’d vote for Mo Vaughn ahead of Howard.
|
|
|