2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

[jen]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Ain't my fault. Besides, as many of you seem to feel the same way, the vote-in process is a joke.

It's heavily based on intangibles, but I'm not sure it should be any different. Otherwise you could just use fancy statistics and not even have an election. Do you qualify or not? Where's the fun in that? Negro League players would never get voted in... and there's several examples of players who had shortened careers (by Hall of Fame standards) that got voted in that may not qualify statistically. But maybe you can argue they don't deserve to be there.

Do you let players in based on who is already in the Hall? Or based on where they were in relation to their peers during their careers?

What would be interesting is if someone (with a lot of time on their hands) could come up with a single formula complex enough to account for when and where each guy played, and apply it to all Hall of Famers, and see who would qualify under the conditions, and who wouldn't. I doubt enough statistics for the early guys exist for that, though.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Alomar is an easy one. Great hitter, great D, tops at his position for years.

Larkin - Solid, steady player for 20 years in relative obscurity.

This is what I don't like about baseball HOF voting.

I agree with both these statements, and I also won't be surprised if Rover turns out to be correct and both get in.

But I don't agree that the solid, steady player who was fortunate, greedy or just plain obstinate enough to hang on and on, piling up a few more statistics, deserves to be in the HOF.

It's always been my problem with Blyleven (that and his incessant whining about not being in).

My own personal opinion is you look at a player and ask a couple of questions. First, over the course of his career was he one of the top 5 or so players at his position? Second, was there a stretch during his career where you can say, for a period of 5-7 years, that player was one of the best 2 or 3 players at his position, and one of the top 5-10 players in baseball.

If you can answer yes to those questions, then the player belongs in the HOF.

Alomar you can answer yes to those questions. Larkin is a close call. Blyleven, no. I probably watched more baseball during the decade of the '70's than any other decade and most of the time I don't even think Bert was the best pitcher on his team, let alone in baseball.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Do you let players in based on who is already in the Hall?

The reduction ad absurdum of that is that eventually everyone winds up in the Hall. Every mistake means that everybody above that player is now entitled by that rule, and every entry debases the currency further, making further erosion more likely.

First ballot only. That would clear things up a lot. Pretty soon there will need to be a Hall Within the Hall.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

SJ,

You just called down The Wrath Of Nerd-dom on yourself! Be prepared to find 1,000 Poindexters camped outside of your house protesting your Blyleven comments as soon as their moms can give them a ride.

I like your criteria for the most part. Its interesting how people decide who belongs in or not. What I will say though is that peforming at a high level, even if not an MVP level, for 20 years does merit some points in your favor. I'm not talking about a Harold Baines type of career, but a guy like Dawson is who I have in mind. Several big years over a stretch of time, but even later on in his career he was still hitting, and primarily playing in the NL where he wasn't getting by as a DH.

PS - Agree completely on Blyleven. I caught his career from the late 70's on and he was never a top 10 pitcher in the league that I can remember. I wouldn't call him a great player IMHO.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

First ballot only. That would clear things up a lot.

Absolutely.

This is another pet peeve I have about baseball HOF voting. Again, not to pick on Bert, but Blyleven got what, maybe 15-20% during his first couple of years that he was eligible, when our recollections of him were most clear. Now he's picking up 60+%? What, did he become a better pitcher broadcasting games?

 

[Rover]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Absolutely.

This is another pet peeve I have about baseball HOF voting. Again, not to pick on Bert, but Blyleven got what, maybe 15-20% during his first couple of years that he was eligible, when our recollections of him were most clear. Now he's picking up 60+%? What, did he become a better pitcher broadcasting games?

I think its because he became the patron saint of statsgeeks. I don't know why they chose him, but maybe one of them can enlighten us.

TBA - what IS up with you guys and Blyleven anyway? Its not like any of you are old enough to have seen him pitch.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Its not like any of you are old enough to have seen him pitch.

God, if only that were true.

Blyleven is a fun story and there's a couple media guys who have made a cottage industry out of him; that's why he's gotten more and more traction. Twins HOF is honor enough. Yeah, I'd love to see Jerry Koosman in Cooperstown, but Mets HOF is right for him. Perspective, people.

 

[jen]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

First ballot only. That would clear things up a lot.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like that theory. Apparently each writer can cast up to 10 votes - I seriously doubt you'd have a year with more than 10 first-ballot type guys retiring at the same time.

<a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer">First ballot inductees</a>

I'd call Lou Gehrig and Roberto Clemente first ballots as well. Even some of the guys on that list could have valid arguments against them, but all future inductees should be of the same class as most of those guys.

Interesting to note that NO ONE has ever received 100% of the votes. Highest percentage ever, according to <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Hall_of_Fame_Voting_Percentages">br.com</a> is Tom Seaver with 98.84%. There is seriously someone who thought Hank Aaron shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame?

One very notable exception is Cy Young - not a first ballot guy! I suppose judging him in 1936 is different than judging him now. Maybe they thought there'd be tons of guys that would win 500+. There had to be some kind of technicality that didn't get him in right away (limit on votes or something).

 

[The Paragon of Virtue]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Before this turns into a nerdfest...

statsgeeks.

Nerd-dom...Poindexters...as soon as their moms can give them a ride.

On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

 

[The Paragon of Virtue]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

I'd call Lou Gehrig and Roberto Clemente first ballots as well.

The only reason Lou Gehrig wasn't first ballot was that you didn't have to be retired the first year they did a vote.

Interesting to note that NO ONE has ever received 100% of the votes.

No one has in their first year of eligibility. Lou Gehrig did when they waived the five-year waiting period and voted him into the Hall in a special election.

 

[jen]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

No one has in their first year of eligibility. Lou Gehrig did when they waived the five-year waiting period and voted him into the Hall in a special election.

yep, sorry - the site I saw did say that, but I didn't - in their first year. They didn't waive anything for Gehrig (you just had to be retired, and he was), but they had a special election just for him. He did, as you said, get some votes in 1936 when he was still playing, so it wasn't technically his first ballot.

 

[jmh]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

No known cheaters in the Hall who's entire candidacy is based on what they did after they started juicing.

This is Mark McGwire circa his rookie season in 1987:

I think we can all agree that this is before he started juicing. In 1987, as a 23-year-old rookie, McGwire hit .289/.370/.618 and led the AL with 49 homers. Already, at that point, he had tremendous power and good strike zone judgment. (The ability to take a walk is what separates Mark McGwire from Dave Kingman.) Judge him how you want, that's your business, but the idea that McGwire wasn't any good until he started taking whatever it was that he was taking is ludicrous.

Blyleven, no. I probably watched more baseball during the decade of the '70's than any other decade and most of the time I don't even think Bert was the best pitcher on his team, let alone in baseball.

So then should Tom Glavine not get in because he wasn't as good as Greg Maddux? Should Don Drysdale not have gotten in because he wasn't as good as Sandy Koufax?

On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Most people realize that if they're the only ones laughing at their own jokes, then they're probably not that funny. But not Rover!

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Blyleven, no. I probably watched more baseball during the decade of the '70's than any other decade and most of the time I don't even think Bert was the best pitcher on his team, let alone in baseball.

Questions

1) Where are you from, and where did you live in the 70s.
2) By what means did you educate yourself on baseball during the 70s?
3) How did you follow baseball in the 70s.
4) Who did you think was better than Blyleven on his own team?
5) Who did you think was better than Blyleven during the 70s.

Your assertions about Bert not being one of the top 5 pitchers in the 70s is absurd as are the sentiments that he wasn't the best pitcher on his own team most of the time.

 

[SPIN CONTROL]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Questions

1) Where are you from, and where did you live in the 70s.
2) By what means did you educate yourself on baseball during the 70s?
3) How did you follow baseball in the 70s.
4) Who did you think was better than Blyleven on his own team?
5) Who did you think was better than Blyleven during the 70s.

I am guessing that wherever he lived it was still a better place to watch baseball than where you were in the 70's, namely the gleam in your Daddy's eye.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Questions

1) Where are you from, and where did you live in the 70s.
2) By what means did you educate yourself on baseball during the 70s?
3) How did you follow baseball in the 70s.
4) Who did you think was better than Blyleven on his own team?
5) Who did you think was better than Blyleven during the 70s.

Your assertions about Bert not being one of the top 5 pitchers in the 70s is absurd as are the sentiments that he wasn't the best pitcher on his own team most of the time.

1) I grew up and lived in North Dakota in the '70's.
2) I started following baseball in the 1960's, and attended my first professional game in Chicago in 1967 to see my (and everyone else's) idol, Mickey Mantle play. Like most kids in those days, in addition to playing through various levels of youth baseball, we educated ourselves on professional baseball by listening to games on the radio, following the boxscores, endlessly studying the backs of Topps baseball cards, and watching NBC's game of the week.
3) See #2 above.
4) On the early Twins teams, I always thought Jim Kaat, Jim Perry and Dave Goltz were every bit as good as Bert. Some years, Bert had the better statistics, other years one of the others might. Once he went to the Pirates, I would have taken either Jim Bibby or John "the Candyman" Candelaria over Bert any day. I think Bruce Kison pitched every bit as good as Bert for those Pirate teams as well, but I'll admit I really don't recall how their stats matched up. I will admit I did not follow baseball as much in the 1980's because I had already moved on to college and work, and I know Bert had a couple more good seasons, including with the Indians and as the #2 man for the Twins.
5) Pitchers I would take over Bert who pitched primarily in the '70's include the obvious choices of Seaver, Carlton, Hunter, Fingers, Palmer and Ferguson Jenkins. I would also include guys like Nolan Ryan, Phil Niekro and Gaylord Perry, to name a few others. I am sure if I put my mind to it I could come up with more.

 

[jmh]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

5) Pitchers I would take over Bert who pitched primarily in the '70's include the obvious choices of Seaver, Carlton, Hunter, Fingers, Palmer and Ferguson Jenkins. I would also include guys like Nolan Ryan, Phil Niekro and Gaylord Perry, to name a few others. I am sure if I put my mind to it I could come up with more.

Should Fingers be part of the same conversation? You can't really compare starters to relievers directly.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Should Fingers be part of the same conversation? You can't really compare starters to relievers directly.

Fair enough. Vida Blue, Tommy John, Don Sutton, Mike Cuellar, Dave McNally.

When I think of '70's baseball, I think of the great Orioles pitching, those great A's teams, the big Red Machine and the return of the Yankees. When I think of great '70's pitchers, Bert Blyleven does not come to mind.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Fair enough. Vida Blue, Tommy John, Don Sutton, Mike Cuellar, Dave McNally.

When I think of '70's baseball, I think of the great Orioles pitching, those great A's teams, the big Red Machine and the return of the Yankees. When I think of great '70's pitchers, Bert Blyleven does not come to mind.

Yeah, for just the 70's (I will give Blyleven credit for pitching throughout the 80's) you have to have some sort of crush on Blyleven to think he's one of the top 5 pitchers of the decade. Seaver, Carlton, Ryan, Palmer, Blue, Hunter, Sutton, John, Jenkins, etc, etc.

But you just don't understand stats....

jmh,

I'm used to you writing stupid stuff, but once again you've misread, most likely intentionally, what I wrote. McGwire wasn't going to be under HOF consideration the way his career was going until he started putting up post-juice #'s. Being a big A's fan myself, I watched his '87 season and it was phenomenal for a rookie (giving the A's back to back ROY's with Canseco the year before, their SS might have won the year after too). The problem is he was struggling to hit .200 after their World Series years....until magically he found his bat again. Look, of all the cheaters out there, the McGwire one disappointed me the most. I wanted to believe in the guy, but it was all BS. Of course, you're the same guy who was going to vote against your preferred candidate for President just to spite me, a random person on an internet message board so I'm not sure why I'm bothering.

Paragon, if the shoe, or pocket protector in this case, fits - wear it.

 

[Hammer]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Also, on McGwire, look closely at everything except for the homers as well. When you stack him up with the rest of the 500 homer club, his other totals (mainly hits, and doubles) pale in comparison to the others, and in some cases it's not even close. I'll look at this later, but the guy averaged 16 doubles a season in his career. That's putrid for a clean-up hitter. Ted Williams, Willie McCovey, Reggie Jackson, Mike Schmidt, hell, even Harmon Killebrew did better. Mark McGwire was Dave Kingman with, uhhhh, issues.

See for yourself

 

[jmh]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

jmh,

I'm used to you writing stupid stuff,

Irony, thy name is Rover.

but once again you've misread, most likely intentionally, what I wrote. McGwire wasn't going to be under HOF consideration the way his career was going until he started putting up post-juice #'s. Being a big A's fan myself, I watched his '87 season and it was phenomenal for a rookie (giving the A's back to back ROY's with Canseco the year before, their SS might have won the year after too). The problem is he was struggling to hit .200 after their World Series years....until magically he found his bat again. Look, of all the cheaters out there, the McGwire one disappointed me the most. I wanted to believe in the guy, but it was all BS.

McGwire had one year (1991) where he "struggled to hit .200". His bat didn't go anywhere unless you don't understand that a player can be a tremendously good hitter, despite a batting average in the .230s, if he has good plate discipline and good power. McGwire was still a great hitter in 1990, still a great hitter in 1992, still a great hitter in 1994. He had one crummy year but it's silly to believe that it was all over for him because of that. (Mike Schmidt had a crappy year in 1978 and the Phillies fans who booed him and assumed that he was falling off a cliff were idiots.) If McGwire had played every year from 1992 through 2001 at the same level he played in 1990 (which is also, I think most people would agree, before he started using whatever it was he was using), he'd still probably be a good enough hitter to get into the Hall. So, again, unless you believe that McGwire was never going to recover from his down year in 1991 (which seems like an unreasonable expectation for a highly talented player in his late 20s, as the Schmidt example illustrates), it doesn't make sense to say that he was only good enough because he was using.