Baseball Hall of Fame

[mcmav37]

My favorite baseball player of all time, Ryne Sandberg, has finally been inducted into Baseball's Hall of Fame. Go Ryno.

Wade Boggs was also inducted today.

www.baseballhalloffame.org

:D

[emw]

That's awesome about Ryne - I was hoping he'd make it in! One of the best, for sure.

[msugarpants]

AMEN! boggs got me interested in baseball

[dsharits]

Congrats to Wade Boggs. He definitely deserved it. I remember when he hit his 3000th base hit with a two-run HR, not too far from where I live.

Daniel

[MacNut]

Im glad Boggs is in, but I'm still wishing for Don Matingly.

[Counterfit]

Good to see that Wade is wearing a Sox hat :D

And is Mattingly eligible yet?



What do itinerant cranberry harvesters do near Boston?

They Wade Bogs and Mo Vaughn (Move On) :D

[wdlove]

Good for Wade Boggs. Just a little more honor for the Red Sox. :cool:

[MacNut]

Don't forget that Wade Boggs got his World Series ring as a Yankee, And yes Don Mattingly is eligible for the Hall of Fame, 5 years after retirement, he retired after the 95 season.

[Counterfit]

Don't forget that Wade Boggs got his World Series ring as a Yankee Well, he apparently enjoyed playing in Boston more than New York :p And yes Don Mattingly is eligible for the Hall of Fame, 5 years after retirement, he retired after the 95 season. It's about darn time he got in then!

[aloofman]

I don't know why it took so long for Sandberg to get in. He was the best second baseman in the game for ten years. Duh.

Honestly, I don't think Mattingly deserves to get in. He was great, but he wasn't great for very long. There was a time in the mid-'80s when he was the best player in the game, but he couldn't put together enough great/good seasons to achieve legendary status. As a Dodger fan, I go through this same thing over Gil Hodges and Steve Garvey. My heart tells me they should be in, but my head says that neither of them really reached that pinnacle.

[MacNut]

I understand that Mattingly will probably never make the Hall of Fame but just as a fan favorite and one of the most popular Yankees of all time he should get in by default. If Kurby Puckett can make it in with his numbers so should Mattingly.

I am biased tho as Mattingly is my favorite sports figure of all time and the reason I am a Yankee and baseball fan. I guess thats why i'm not a Hall of Fame voter. :o

[JosiahPB]

It's K-i-rby Puckett, look at his performance in the 91' world series, plus he was the fastest player in major league history to 2,000 hits.

[MacDawg]

Baseball's Hall is the toughest to get in...
Mattingly won't make it. Puckett probably shouldn't have on the basis of one WS performance. Good players, great players, but not Hall of Famers in my opinion.

A list of those great players NOT in will sober you.

Granted, there are a number of players who ARE in that shouldn't be... but that is not a reason to dilute it even more.

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[dsyntax]

Well, he apparently enjoyed playing in Boston more than New York :p

I was listening to boggs on the radio and he said players no longer choose their hats for the hall. Cooperstown decided to put the boston hat on him, he had no choice, and seemed very happy that he didn't have to decide.

[MacDawg]

I was listening to boggs on the radio and he said players no longer choose their hats for the hall. Cooperstown decided to put the boston hat on him, he had no choice, and seemed very happy that he didn't have to decide.

I will always remember him as a Red Sox
Wonder what hat they will put on Roger Clemens?

I hope he goes in as a Red Sox as well.

Assuming they don't keep him out like Mattingly ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[aloofman]

I will always remember him as a Red Sox
Wonder what hat they will put on Roger Clemens?

I hope he goes in as a Red Sox as well.

Assuming they don't keep him out like Mattingly ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg

Clemens is a lock. It's been argued that he's among the top five right-handed pitchers of all time and I think that's true. His best individual seasons were in Boston, so I'm guessing that's the hat he gets unless he makes some big stink over it prior to induction. With Clemens, that kind of surliness is always a possibility.

[Counterfit]

I will always remember him as a Red Sox
Wonder what hat they will put on Roger Clemens?

I hope he goes in as a Red Sox as well.

Assuming they don't keep him out like Mattingly ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg Clemens not making the HoF? HA! But I think he'll go in as a Yankee :(

[MacDawg]

C'mon guys... didn't you see the ;) wink, wink!!

Of course Clemens is going in.... unless of course we find out he bet on baseball! :o

Nah, he's in... go ahead and induct him.

Yankees/Sox... could be a toss up
Wish they would do something that accommodated both
I still think he should be a Red Sox

BTW, got my picture made with the Red Sox WS trophy :cool:

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[jxyama]

mattingly has no chance... nor should he even come close.

puckett probably didn't deserve to be a first ballot HoF, but he's certainly HoF worthy...

man, people didn't pick up on the clemens' joke by macdawg? :D

clemens was a HoFer 5 years ago.
and he'll probably go in as a sox...

i wonder about randy johnson: mariners or diamondbacks? (i'm thinking arizona...)

rafael palmeiro? i think he'll eventually make it... as a ranger or an oriole?

bonds will go in as a giant...
maddux will go in as a brave...
sosa will go in as a cub...
biggio will go in as an astro...

any others who will retire in the few years?

off topic, but i'm hoping ichiro will play enough seasons in MLB so that he can make it with just the MLB numbers... give him 6 more years... ~2500 hits, 4 or so batting titles, 8 or so gold gloves, 1 or 2 MVPs, RoY, a .400 and 270 hit season probably ought to do it. ;)

[MacDawg]

i wonder about randy johnson: mariners or diamondbacks? (i'm thinking arizona...)

rafael palmeiro? i think he'll eventually make it... as a ranger or an oriole?

bonds will go in as a giant...
maddux will go in as a brave...
sosa will go in as a cub...
biggio will go in as an astro...


Johnson as a Diamondback - I agree
Palmeiro - toss up for Ranger or Oriole
Maddux - as a Brave, definitely
Sosa - could be borderline in spite of numbers
Biggio - borderline in my opinion

But Bonds...
Not as a Pirate for sure...

But for me... keep him out :mad:

I know, I know... but I just can't get past it.
Its too flagrant, too arrogant, too whatever.

I wish he would retire without breaking 714 or 755
Its the only thing left that he could do to show any class as far as I'm concerned.

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[MacNut]

I hope bonds if found of using roids so he wont be able to pass Ruth and I don't want him to be in the HOF, as for Puckett being in and Mattingly not, they have identical numbers so how can you let one in and not the other.

[MacDawg]

I hope bonds if found of using roids so he wont be able to pass Ruth and I don't want him to be in the HOF, as for Puckett being in and Mattingly not, they have identical numbers so how can you let one in and not the other.

I'm not doubting you, but post them here for comparison...
just for the sake of the discussion.

I'd say keep Puckett out, but he's already in...

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[MacNut]

Mattingly
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats_historical/mlb_individual_stats_player.jsp?playerID=118443
*
Puckett
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats_historical/mlb_individual_stats_player.jsp?playerID=120790

This is the easiest way I could do it.

[MacDawg]

http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/Mattingly.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/Puckett.jpg

I would agree that they are fairly comparable.

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[jxyama]

MacDawg,

that's really cool. i also checked the defensive stats and both puckett and mattingly were gold glovers... given puckett played CF, a more important position, he gets a slight edge, but probably not enough to make one a HoFer while not the other... postseason heroics also helped, but probably not enough as well...

i think the big factor is the "what if?" factor. you can clearly see that puckett's numbers were at least steady, if not improving, when he abruptly retired due to glucoma. such can't be said for mattingly. mattingly played his full career and was great for the first half of his career but then the numbers steadily declined...

[aloofman]

Is anyone else really surprised that Puckett has so many more triples and stolen bases than Mattingly? Who woulda thunk it?

:eek:

[MacDawg]

Is anyone else really surprised that Puckett has so many more triples and stolen bases than Mattingly? Who woulda thunk it?

:eek:

The element of surprise...
Actually, KP was fairly quick for a man of his build if I remember correctly.

Can't be too slow and play center field.

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[MacNut]

So can anyone explain why Gossage still cant get the number of votes needed.

[IJ Reilly]

So can anyone explain why Gossage still cant get the number of votes needed.

Maybe he could use a little goose?

[xsedrinam]

Maybe he could use a little goose?
You beat me to the pitch.

[Unspeaked]

So can anyone explain why Gossage still cant get the number of votes needed.

Maybe because relievers are way overrated?

[topgunn]

Maybe because relievers are way overrated?
If nobody is voting for him because relievers are overrated, wouldn't that imply that ther aren't?

Sorta like the famous quote from another HOF'er, "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

[MacNut]

Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn are in.

[aloofman]

Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn are in.

I'm happy with only those two going in. I feel like no more than one or two should be inducted in a given year.

[silentex]

And, on top of this, they're two of the finest players that have ever been in the game. I'm just waiting for Clemens . . . Of course, Lord knows when he'll retire. Maybe this year :confused:

[MacNut]

What has Ripken done besides the streak. He really isn't that great a player, nowhere close to Gehrig.

I am never going to be happy until Mattingly gets in.

Top 5 votes:
Votes Pct.
Cal Ripken Jr. 537 98.5
Tony Gwynn 532 97.6
Rich Gossage 388 71.2
Jim Rice 346 63.5
Andre Dawson 309 56.7

[iRachel]

And Goose still doesn't make it. (missed by 21 votes).

[aloofman]

What has Ripken done besides the streak. He really isn't that great a player, nowhere close to Gehrig.


Ripken is at or near the top of almost every category among shortstops, which is the most demanding defensive position. It's easy to say now that his numbers aren't that great because we live in the Jeter-Rodriguez-Nomar-Tejada era and we've come to expect power at the shortstop position. In the '80s and early '90s, he was the best all-around shortstop at his position. (Although Ozzie Smith was pretty damn close except for the power difference.) Ripken is one of those guys -- like Eddie Murray -- who was very, very good for a really long time without ever being a superstar. Ripken would be in the Hall even without the streak.

Gehrig's greatness has never been disputed. Except for the streaks, they really aren't comparable at all. Completely different eras, different teams, different positions.

[MacNut]

And Goose still doesn't make it. (missed by 21 votes).He missed by 4 percent. He got 71 needs 75.

[topgunn]

And, on top of this, they're two of the finest players that have ever been in the game. I'm just waiting for Clemens . . . Of course, Lord knows when he'll retire. Maybe this year :confused:
Roger is another player who has the steroid cloud surrounding him. It isn't brought up as much by the media but he has been accused of using more that most anyone else. And look at the guy, he is a beast and he has been around for more than 20 years. I am sure he will get in (barring a positive test) but I don't think he will get 95+% of the vote.

[furcalchick]

i seemed to notice that ripken gets most of the attention of the two, mostly because he was the first at his postion to prove power works over there, and of course, the public's fasination of the homer. gwynn in comparsion had only 135 homers, but he was the greatest hitter of this generation, and possibly in the top ten of greatest hitters, but he gets ignored due to the lack of power. a lifetime batting average of .338 isn't nothing to shake a stick at, and over 3000 hits is impressive. due to our homer fascination, i doubt we'll see much of this anytime soon.

and regarding the shortstop postion. i think arod-jeter-tejada are the exceptions to shortstops being high average and high speed and lower power guys. i'm worried that overall that we will put home run power above all other hitting attributes. trying to hit for homers all the time leads to lots of fly outs and strikeouts, good rally killers. i'm good for a single with two runners on scoring position, and besides, chicks dig the rbi single;)

[aloofman]

i seemed to notice that ripken gets most of the attention of the two, mostly because he was the first at his postion to prove power works over there, and of course, the public's fasination of the homer. gwynn in comparsion had only 135 homers, but he was the greatest hitter of this generation, and possibly in the top ten of greatest hitters, but he gets ignored due to the lack of power. a lifetime batting average of .338 isn't nothing to shake a stick at, and over 3000 hits is impressive. due to our homer fascination, i doubt we'll see much of this anytime soon.

I think Ripken has just been more famous all along because of the streak and Gwynn played in the smaller media market of San Diego. Tony has gotten equal attention here though because the Padres are division rivals and we've seen him many times. Gwynn is also originally from Los Angeles, although he sometimes talks with kind of a southern drawl, which I've never had explained to me.

It's true that Gwynn got less attention because he hit fewer homers, but he's also a less valuable player because of it. Ted Williams had a similar BA and far fewer hits because he walked a lot, but he had over 500 homers and created a lot more runs for his team than Gwynn.

That power deficit is also the reason he isn't among the top ten all time hitters either. Not that Tony isn't a HOFer because he clearly is, one of the easiest Hall elections in my lifetime. Probably 20 players from before WWII were better all-around hitters than Gwynn, including Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Hornsby, Speaker, Gehrig, Eddie Collins, Foxx, and Greenberg. Postwar, Mantle, Williams, DiMaggio, Aaron, Mays, Bonds, Schmidt, Frank Robinson, and McCovey, were all better than Gwynn, despite lower batting averages. These are just players I can think of off the top of my head. They're all in the HOF too, so Tony's in the right place.

[Counterfit]

I'm simply amazed that:
Ripken didn't get 100% (who the **** wouldn't vote for him?)
Jim Rice is still not in.

[MacNut]

Goose Gossage was voted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame on Tuesday.

Gossage appeared on 86 percent of the ballots.

Jim Rice had 72.2 percent of the vote, just short of the 75 percent needed for enshrinement.

[MacNut]

Rich "Goose" Gossage, who may be better known for his first tour with the Yankees (1978-83), was elected on Tuesday in his ninth year on the ballot. He'll join his former Padres manager, Dick Williams, on the stage behind the Clark Sports Center this coming summer.

Williams, who won the World Series twice as manager of the A's and will go in wearing an Oakland cap, teamed with Gossage in 1994, as the Padres won the first National League pennant in franchise history.

Jim Rice, the former star of 16 seasons, all with the Red Sox, barely missed by 16 votes as he fell 2.8 percent (72.2) below the necessary 75 percent to gain admission to the hallowed red-brick Hall on Main Street in Cooperstown. He'll undoubtedly go in next year, when Rickey Henderson will be an obvious first-time favorite. Rice then will be on the writers' ballot for his 15th and final year.

Gossage, who fell short by 21 votes in 2007, was this time named on 85.8 percent or 466 of the 543 ballots cast.

Andre Dawson, who hobbled on bad knees through many of his 21 seasons with the Expos, Cubs, Red Sox and Marlins, received almost a 10-percent uptick to 65.9 percent and may be right on the bubble in 2009. Voters from the Baseball Writers' Association of America also are taking another look at Bert Blyleven, a pitcher whose career ended after 22 seasons, just 13 victories shy of 300. Blyleven finished fourth behind Gossage, Rice and Dawson with a healthy 61.9 percent of the vote.

In the wake of last month's Mitchell Report, Mark McGwire, the first star player tainted by the steroids era to face the electorate, finished at 23.6 percent, almost exactly the same place as last year, when he also received 128 votes despite hitting 70 homers in 1998 to win his famous record home run race against Sammy Sosa and finishing with 583 in his career. In 2007, McGwire also received an underwhelming 23.5 percent.

Of the 11 first-timers on the ballot, only one -- Tim Raines -- received the requisite 5 percent to remain on the ballot. Raines earned 132 or 24.3 percent. Dave Concepcion, the shortstop on Cincinnati's great "Big Red Machine" teams of the 1970s, received 88 votes or 16.2 percent on his 15th and final chance among the writers.

Williams was one of five managers and executives elected last month by a separate, newly formed Veterans Committee.

World Series-winning managers Williams and Billy Southworth were elected along with Commissioner Bowie Kuhn and owners Walter O'Malley and Barney Dreyfuss.

All will also be inducted on July 27, although Williams is the only living member of the quintet.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080108&content_id=2341502&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[Unspeaked]

This all shows what a weak class we had this year; worst in recent memory.

I still would have picked Rice over Gossage...

[MacNut]

This all shows what a weak class we had this year; worst in recent memory.

I still would have picked Rice over Gossage...I still would like to see Mattingly get in. How does he not have more votes then McGwire.:confused:

[IJ Reilly]

Gossage is a good choice. I think we forget how much harder relief pitchers worked in his era. He'd pitch two or three innings routinely, but was still dominant.

[Unspeaked]

I still would like to see Mattingly get in. How does he not have more votes then McGwire.:confused:

Agreed. Rice and Mattingly were the two most feared hitters of their era in the AL.


Gossage is a good choice. I think we forget how much harder relief pitchers worked in his era. He'd pitch two or three innings routinely, but was still dominant.

He was certainly an over-powering pitcher, but I just don't see anything on his resume that screams "Hall of Famer" to me.

Jim Rice comparisons aside, how can Gossage be voted in over Blyleven? I think it's a case of the market he played in winning over the voters.

[MacNut]

If Goose played like todays relievers he would be one of the greatest ever. The way they used relievers back then was a lot different then how they are used now.

[IJ Reilly]

He was certainly an over-powering pitcher, but I just don't see anything on his resume that screams "Hall of Famer" to me.

If Goose played like todays relievers he would be one of the greatest ever. The way they used relievers back then was a lot different then how they are used now.

Yup, that's it. Gossage was one of the first of his breed -- a real relief specialist. Still this was before closers started working only the ninth inning of games in which their team is leading.

[aloofman]

I still would like to see Mattingly get in. How does he not have more votes then McGwire.:confused:

As great as Mattingly was, he just wasn't great for very long. He was good for several more years before having to retire way too soon. There are quite a few non-HOF players like him who were great for a little while or were very good but not for long enough. Gil Hodges is another player who was very good, but apparently not good enough for long enough. Going by the numbers though, Rice has a much better case for the Hall than Mattingly, putting up very good offense for about a decade. I've always really liked Mattingly. You can't NOT like him.


Jim Rice comparisons aside, how can Gossage be voted in over Blyleven? I think it's a case of the market he played in winning over the voters.

That's a good point. Starters are so much more valuable than relievers, but people are quibbling over Gossage more than Blyleven. One can make the argument that Blyleven really wasn't much better than, say, Tommy John or Jim Kaat. John and Kaat are in that same group of pitchers who played forever and racked up pretty good numbers, but didn't have many great years, didn't get many Cy Young votes, and no one remembers as dominant during any stretch of their careers. On the other hand, Blyleven played for some weak teams on which he was often the unappreciated ace, so he's probably a bit better than his numbers.

I remember a fascinating chapter in the Bill James book, "What Ever Happened to the Hall of Fame", in which he debated whether Don Drysdale belongs in the Hall or not. He came up with convincing arguments either way. One of the "against" arguments was that his career numbers are almost exactly like those of Milt Pappas, who no one ever really thought of as being HOF material.

The arguments never end! :D

[MacNut]

I know Mattingly probably will never make the hall but compare him to some of the players that are using steroids. I would say he was a better role model and suffered through the pain of his injuries better then they do now. Imagine if he used steroids how good his numbers would have been then I bet he would of been in the HOF already. The fact that Mark McGwire got more votes is a disgrace.

I say lets judge a player by their actions on and off the field and put those players that actually loved the game in the hall.

If it wasn't for Mattingly I might not follow baseball today. I would rather see the true talented players in wether the numbers agree or not.

[fotografica]

Here's how the hall describes enshrinement:
Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements.
http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/museum/mission.jsp
"Exceptional careers" and "significant achievements" can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Obviously, titanic numbers qualify. But there's definitely room for interpretation.

In regard to Rice...The problem is, 1987 and 1988 were unremarkable, 1989 was atrocious. Without those three seasons, he actually looks a little bit better. He'd still have 351 home runs, a .303 career batting average, he'd still have that "feared hitter" label, and people could talk about how if he decided to play until he was 40, he'd have over 500 home runs and 3200 hits. Seems like if he had a few more seasons,he'd be in already. I believe next year is his last year of eligibility..

[MacNut]

Wasn't Rice also horrible to the writers so they won't vote him in now. Many think that if he didn't make it in this year he won't make it.

[zioxide]

Jim Rice had 72.2 percent of the vote, just short of the 75 percent needed for enshrinement.

****

[Unspeaked]

That's a good point. Starters are so much more valuable than relievers, but people are quibbling over Gossage more than Blyleven. One can make the argument that Blyleven really wasn't much better than, say, Tommy John or Jim Kaat. John and Kaat are in that same group of pitchers who played forever and racked up pretty good numbers, but didn't have many great years, didn't get many Cy Young votes, and no one remembers as dominant during any stretch of their careers. On the other hand, Blyleven played for some weak teams on which he was often the unappreciated ace, so he's probably a bit better than his numbers.

I think an argument can be made for Tommy John, but the longevity thing was more of an issue with him because he had some great years in the middle of his career (late 70s), but not much before and after.

Blyleven, on the other hand, was really consistent. Aside from the problem of playing for some awful teams which you bring up, he was always a low-ERA, high-K kind of guy. The guyg got Cy Young votes as late as '89, which is pretty impressive since he was 38 at the time. And you can't use the longevity argument to keep a Mattingly out and use the exact opposite view on longevity with Blyleven!


I know Mattingly probably will never make the hall but compare him to some of the players that are using steroids. I would say he was a better role model and suffered through the pain of his injuries better then they do now. Imagine if he used steroids how good his numbers would have been then I bet he would of been in the HOF already. The fact that Mark McGwire got more votes is a disgrace.

I think Mattingly's short career should be treated like Koufax. I'm a Red Sox fan and I still can acknowledge how amazing his mid 80s streak was. There hasn't been a triple crown threat like him until Alex Rodriguez, and now maybe Albert Pujols. He was having 30 HR, 100 RBI .330 AVG seasons when it really meant something.


In regard to Rice...The problem is, 1987 and 1988 were unremarkable, 1989 was atrocious. Without those three seasons, he actually looks a little bit better. He'd still have 351 home runs, a .303 career batting average, he'd still have that "feared hitter" label, and people could talk about how if he decided to play until he was 40, he'd have over 500 home runs and 3200 hits. Seems like if he had a few more seasons,he'd be in already. I believe next year is his last year of eligibility..

Rice was a monster, though. He shouldn't be punished for leaving the game when his vision started to go. Would it have been better if he kicked around for a few more years to pad his numbers DHing in shame? He had 11 seasons as one of the best 2 or 3 hitters in the AL, period, and a few of those as the single best hitter in the game.

If he isn't voted in next year, I'm 100% sure the veteran's committee will vote him in eventually. But it would be nice if he did it without their help...

[fotografica]

dup post

[fotografica]

Rice was a monster, though. He shouldn't be punished for leaving the game when his vision started to go. Would it have been better if he kicked around for a few more years to pad his numbers DHing in shame? He had 11 seasons as one of the best 2 or 3 hitters in the AL, period, and a few of those as the single best hitter in the game.

If he isn't voted in next year, I'm 100% sure the veteran's committee will vote him in eventually. But it would be nice if he did it without their help...

You mean like Tony Perez?He was paraded around like a mascot by the Big Red Machine for his last years in Cinci.It's a shame that Rice's last year was absolutely abysmal. No doubt the veteran's committe will vote him in,but this is the way to go in...
And I don't agree that it was his atittude toward the media/writers that is keeping him out. He played in Boston during a tough time..I remember sitting in Fenway in the late 70's..Some of the things that the fans yelled at him when he it into one of his signature 6-4-3 DP's were horrible...

[aloofman]

And you can't use the longevity argument to keep a Mattingly out and use the exact opposite view on longevity with Blyleven!


I don't think I'm being inconsistent on this one. I was saying that Mattingly didn't have enough great seasons to get elected to the HOF. If a player has a short career but enough dominating seasons, he can get elected a la Koufax. If he has a lot of very, very good seasons, he can get elected a la Eddie Murray. My point was that Blyleven didn't fall into either category. One could argue that if Puckett is in, then Mattingly should be too, since their career numbers were very similar.

And besides, I didn't say that I wouldn't vote for Mattingly or Blyleven. I was saying why I thought he hadn't been elected yet. To be honest, I think there are too many HOFers already and that the standards should be higher.

[Unspeaked]

And besides, I didn't say that I wouldn't vote for Mattingly or Blyleven. I was saying why I thought he hadn't been elected yet. To be honest, I think there are too many HOFers already and that the standards should be higher.

I understand your argument; when I said "you" I meant "one," not you specifically - sorry about that!

:)

[aloofman]

I understand your argument; when I said "you" I meant "one," not you specifically - sorry about that!

:)

No prob, I just didn't want everyone to think I was anti-Donnie Baseball, since I'm definitely not. :cool:

[MacNut]

Ricky Henderson and Jim Rice going to the hall in 09.Rickey Henderson, widely considered the greatest leadoff hitter in the history of baseball, was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame Monday on his first ballot with 94.8 percent of the votes cast by the Baseball Writers' Association of America.
Henderson, the all-time steals leader, will be joined in Cooperstown by Jim Rice, who was in his final year of eligibility. Rice (76.4 percent), who fell 16 votes short in 2008, cleared the 75 percent threshhold required for election to the HOF by earning 412 votes, seven over the 405 (of 539) needed.

The two are the first left fielders elected to the Hall of Fame in 20 years. Right-fielder Andre Dawson and pitcher Burt Blyleven, both outside shots for election, fell short again.

Henderson's name appeared on 511 of the 539 ballots cast, falling a little short of the percentages for the last two first-ballot electees -- Tony Gwynn (97.6 percent) and Cal Ripken (98.5 percent), who holds the record for the highest percentage for a position player. Both were elected in 2007. Right-hander Tom Seaver received the highest-ever percentage (98.8 percent) when elected in 1992.http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090112&content_id=3740171&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[Abstract]

Some of those players eligible for 2008 were absolute ****. I don't even believe they were average players, or at least for most of their careers.

I see Todd Stottlemyer on the list. He was a pitcher for the Blue Jays who had a really average career, except 1 or 2 seasons.

[MacNut]

Some of those players eligible for 2008 were absolute ****. I don't even believe they were average players, or at least for most of their careers.

I see Todd Stottlemyer on the list. He was a pitcher for the Blue Jays who had a really average career, except 1 or 2 seasons.Do they have to have a certain number of names on the list if they are good or not. What classifies being on the ballot. I guess all you need is to be retired for 5 years or is there more to it?

[YMark]

I guess all you need is to be retired for 5 years or is there more to it?

This is to become eligible. There is a selection committee that chooses the names placed on the ballot.

[MacNut]

This is to become eligible. There is a selection committee that chooses the names placed on the ballot.What are the qualifications that they look at, I'm sure some on the ballot have no business being there and others that are not on that should be.

[MacNut]

Andre Dawson is the only player elected to the 2010 class.Andre Dawson was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame Wednesday in his ninth year on the ballot.

In a shock, he was the sole inductee this year, with 77.9 percent of the vote. Bert Blyleven received 74.2 percent of the vote, and Roberto Alomar, whom many had anticipated would be a shoo-in, was third with 73.7 percent.

Edgar Martinez, Barry Larkin and Fred McGriff also were new to the ballot this year, and Martinez was a test of how Hall voters assess players who were predominantly designated hitters.

Holdovers include Mark McGwire, Jack Morris and Lee Smith.

[Unspeaked]

Andre Dawson is the only player elected to the 2010 class.

I still think Blyleven should be in.

And Fred McGriff had some great numbers over his career. He's a perfect example of how arbitrary HOF stats are - he hit 493 home runs. If he's hit 500, he's be a first ballot hall of famer. Because he hit 7 less (seven!) he didn't get voted in. Stupid.

[MacNut]

Personally I don't think Dawson has HOF numbers. Is their only criteria that he was there 22 years?

[aloofman]

Alomar should have been a no-brainer. A great fielding second baseman and only a couple good seasons from 3,000 hits. I also would have chosen Blyleven, Raines, and Trammel before The Hawk. Pretty puzzling.

[Unspeaked]

Personally I don't think Dawson has HOF numbers. Is their only criteria that he was there 22 years?

I think the two things he had going for him were:

1. Speed. He was fast in his early days, and racked up over 300 SBs in his career.

2. Fielding. He was a great center fielder when he was younger.

If you remove these two factors, he wasn't much different than the million Kent Hrbek type players that get passed on.

Also, a 49 home run, 137 RBI season his first year in big market Chicago probably didn't hurt. Those were amazing numbers for the late 80s.

[ftaok]

And Fred McGriff had some great numbers over his career. He's a perfect example of how arbitrary HOF stats are - he hit 493 home runs. If he's hit 500, he's be a first ballot hall of famer. Because he hit 7 less (seven!) he didn't get voted in. Stupid.McGriff is a tough one. On the one hand, he was never a dominant player ... just a good/great, steady player. Looking at the numbers, he's close, but the steroid era has really devalued the HR. 493 HRs back in the 80's would be a no-brainer unless the guy is a Kingman-type. But now with everyone and their supplier hitting 500 HR's, McGriff falls through the cracks. But in the end, I think McGriff is not an HOFer (although I do think he'll get in).

Alomar should have been a no-brainer. A great fielding second baseman and only a couple good seasons from 3,000 hits. I also would have chosen Blyleven, Raines, and Trammel before The Hawk. Pretty puzzling.Personally, I'm stunned by Alomar missing it. Perhaps it was how his career ended that turned off some voters. He just fell off a cliff after coming to the Mets. I'm sure he's in next year.

I didn't really see Blyleven, so I can't say one way or the other. But personally, I don't think Raines or Trammel are HOFers. Personally, I don't think Dawson is one either.

Personally I don't think Dawson has HOF numbers. Is their only criteria that he was there 22 years?I agree with you, but Dawson was much more than a 22 year player. He was a 400+ HR guy with tremendous speed ... at least until his knees blew up. He was an incredible fielder with a cannon arm. He had that monster year in 1987 with the Cubs. He had a great nickname. He was a nice guy.

To me, the criteria for HOF is simple. I ask myself, is "so-and-so" a true HOFer? If I have to think about it for more than 5 minutes, then he's not. MVP and CyYoung Awards helf. As do World Series titles and All Star appearances. Being dominant for a decent stretch (around 5 consective years) is key. Defensive prowess at key positions are important.

With that said, there are many players in the HOF right now that I believe shouldn't be.

Anyways, there would be many years of no inductees if I were in charge ;)

Also, a 49 home run, 137 RBI season his first year in big market Chicago probably didn't hurt. Those were amazing numbers for the late 80s.His 1987 season was awesome, but you have to remember that 1987 was a "juicy-ball" season. McGwire also had 49 HR's and there were lots of guys that year with 35+ HRs.

[Unspeaked]

To me, the criteria for HOF is simple. I ask myself, is "so-and-so" a true HOFer? If I have to think about it for more than 5 minutes, then he's not. MVP and CyYoung Awards helf. As do World Series titles and All Star appearances. Being dominant for a decent stretch (around 5 consective years) is key. Defensive prowess at key positions are important.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. Usually when I refer to someone as deserving of the HOF in this thread, I mean it more based on who's already in there than what I personally think. If I was starting the HOF from scratch, Fred McGriff, Andre Dawson and Jim Rice wouldn't even be in the running. Forget Blyleven, too, someone who I've often times said I think should be in. He should only be in the Hall as it currently stands, a tribute to above averageness, not a true Hall of Fame for the best of the best.

And yes, defense is all too often completely overlooked.

[MacNut]

The problem with the HOF is they elect people because they feel they need to induct someone every year. If they don't feel like anyone is qualified don't elect anyone.

[Unspeaked]

The problem with the HOF is they elect people because they feel they need to induct someone every year. If they don't feel like anyone is qualified don't elect anyone.

What's the last year that no one was elected?

[MacNut]

What's the last year that no one was elected?1960 according to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Baseball_Hall_of_Fame

[Unspeaked]

1960 according to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Baseball_Hall_of_Fame

Looking at that, I think you see a pretty steep decline in quality starting around 1990 - there's not many names I'd argue elected before then, but plenty after.

[ftaok]

What's the last year that no one was elected?

1960 according to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Baseball_Hall_of_Fame

As far as the voting process goes, 1996 saw no one elected through the regular process. Two players via the Veteran's Committee and two managers via whatever method they use for managers.

[sysiphus]

So, do you think Edgar will/should get in one day? He was undeniably the best DH in baseball for 10-12 years, with a career OBP of .418, AVG of .312, 9 seasons in the top ten in the league for OPS+...quoting an ESPN article, "Since 1901, among hitters with 7,000 plate appearances, Edgar has the 26th best lifetime OPS+. The players just above and below him are guys like Frank Robinson, Honus Wagner, Alex Rodriguez, Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell and Willie McCovey."

Here's the source article, which I think makes a good case for 'Gar. (Bias alert--lifelong M's fan)
Link (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof10/news/story?id=4755544)

Also, the pro-Mattingly crowd would be logical backers of Edgar--both were the best in their field, but not for long enough to reach some of the typical plateau numbers.

Thoughts?

[ftaok]

So, do you think Edgar will/should get in one day?

Thoughts?

Good question. Personally, I'm an NL guy, but I do accept that the DH is a part of the game. Personally, I think he's one of those borderline guys and if I go with my criteria, he doesn't get in. He's got the numbers, but his lack of defense hurts him. Plus, he only received MVP votes in 5 of his 18 seasons. That tells me that he wasn't a consistently dominant player.

A guy with similar numbers, but played his entire career as an OF is Moises Alou. I wouldn't consider Alou a candidate for the Hall.

Even if he played 3B his whole career, I don't think he's HOF material.

Now, do I think he'll make the HOF ... no, I don't think he will. I think Frank Thomas will be the first full-time DH to make it, so I think the voters will compare Martinez's numbers against Thomas', and there really is no comparison.

[aloofman]

So, do you think Edgar will/should get in one day? He was undeniably the best DH in baseball for 10-12 years, with a career OBP of .418, AVG of .312, 9 seasons in the top ten in the league for OPS+...quoting an ESPN article, "Since 1901, among hitters with 7,000 plate appearances, Edgar has the 26th best lifetime OPS+. The players just above and below him are guys like Frank Robinson, Honus Wagner, Alex Rodriguez, Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell and Willie McCovey."

I think the only way it would happen is if other position players with similar numbers but poor defense get in before him. One thing that tends to happen is that some good players get in to the HOF and then they become part of the comparison for other players who were merely good and not great. There are many players from 100 years ago who were not great at all, but got in. (Joe Tinker is the poster boy for this, an average player at best who got in because of a famous poem.) But it means that people can say, "If Tinker is a HOFer and player X is better than Tinker, then X is a HOFer too." It doesn't always work, but it happens.

I always liked Edgar Martinez. He was a fine hitter, and in some seasons of his career you could argue that he was the most complete hitter in baseball. But he racked up his numbers in a juiced era, didn't play enough years to amass high career totals, and provided no value in the field. My feeling is that a DH has to be a historically great hitter for a number of years to convince me that his lack of fielding can be overlooked. On that score I think Edgar falls a bit short. But like I said, I can imagine him getting in if enough other mediocre HOFers pull the threshold down lower.

By the way, I'm not saying that McCovey, Stargell, or Schmidt are among those who have pulled the threshold lower. But Rodriguez and Schmidt are/were both multiple Gold Glovers. Rodriguez has also played in a juiced era. Frank Robinson hit almost 600 HRs when it really meant something, playing in a pitchers' era. And Honus Wagner was an all-time great hitter who excelled in the deadball era. He's one of the original HOFers, including Babe Ruth and Cy Young. You'd have a hard time convincing me that Wagner isn't the greatest shortstop of all time, no matter what OPS+ says.




Also, the pro-Mattingly crowd would be logical backers of Edgar--both were the best in their field, but not for long enough to reach some of the typical plateau numbers.



I think Mattingly has a better case than Edgar. For several years, Mattingly was a truly dominant hitter, the one guy that opposing teams' fans didn't want to see come to the plate, and yet they didn't dare miss seeing him. Unlike Edgar, he was a stellar fielder. He and Keith Hernandez were far and away the best first basemen in their respective leagues in the 1980s. That counts for a lot.

I always really liked Mattingly (and maybe I better, because he may be the next Dodger manager, as weird as that sounds). I wish his back had let him play longer and at a higher level. But it didn't, so we'll never know if he might have done it.

[sysiphus]

I think the only way it would happen is if other position players with similar numbers but poor defense get in before him. One thing that tends to happen is that some good players get in to the HOF and then they become part of the comparison for other players who were merely good and not great. There are many players from 100 years ago who were not great at all, but got in. (Joe Tinker is the poster boy for this, an average player at best who got in because of a famous poem.) But it means that people can say, "If Tinker is a HOFer and player X is better than Tinker, then X is a HOFer too." It doesn't always work, but it happens.

I always liked Edgar Martinez. He was a fine hitter, and in some seasons of his career you could argue that he was the most complete hitter in baseball. But he racked up his numbers in a juiced era, didn't play enough years to amass high career totals, and provided no value in the field. My feeling is that a DH has to be a historically great hitter for a number of years to convince me that his lack of fielding can be overlooked. On that score I think Edgar falls a bit short. But like I said, I can imagine him getting in if enough other mediocre HOFers pull the threshold down lower.

By the way, I'm not saying that McCovey, Stargell, or Schmidt are among those who have pulled the threshold lower. But Rodriguez and Schmidt are/were both multiple Gold Glovers. Rodriguez has also played in a juiced era. Frank Robinson hit almost 600 HRs when it really meant something, playing in a pitchers' era. And Honus Wagner was an all-time great hitter who excelled in the deadball era. He's one of the original HOFers, including Babe Ruth and Cy Young. You'd have a hard time convincing me that Wagner isn't the greatest shortstop of all time, no matter what OPS+ says.






I think Mattingly has a better case than Edgar. For several years, Mattingly was a truly dominant hitter, the one guy that opposing teams' fans didn't want to see come to the plate, and yet they didn't dare miss seeing him. Unlike Edgar, he was a stellar fielder. He and Keith Hernandez were far and away the best first basemen in their respective leagues in the 1980s. That counts for a lot.

I always really liked Mattingly (and maybe I better, because he may be the next Dodger manager, as weird as that sounds). I wish his back had let him play longer and at a higher level. But it didn't, so we'll never know if he might have done it.

Thanks for the thoughtful response :)
I have a hard time with the idea that Edgar's hitting isn't worthy on its own merits--see the following stats. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martied01.shtml) The man didn't always hit home runs, but he was a hitting machine.

[Unspeaked]

Thanks for the thoughtful response :)
I have a hard time with the idea that Edgar's hitting isn't worthy on its own merits--see the following stats. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martied01.shtml) The man didn't always hit home runs, but he was a hitting machine.

I thought he was a good player back in the day, but I think the odds of him getting in are slim to none.

300 HR and 1250 RBI just don't cut it, even with a .300+ BA.

This isn't the Hall-of-Seven-Great-Years-In-The-Late-90s-And-Early-00s it's the Hall of Fame.

[sysiphus]

I thought he was a good player back in the day, but I think the odds of him getting in are slim to none.

300 HR and 1250 RBI just don't cut it, even with a .300+ BA.

This isn't the Hall-of-Seven-Great-Years-In-The-Late-90s-And-Early-00s it's the Hall of Fame.

If all you're looking at is RBI, HR, and BA, then yes, you'd be right--but you'd also be using a horribly incomplete picture of his performance. Take, for example, BA--you can have an empty .250BA and thus be a below league-average hitter despite having a decent BA--if your slugging and on-base numbers suck, then getting a hit once every four tries isn't much use. Conversely, RBIs isn't the be-all either--short of home runs, it requires circumstances out of control of the batter to put up good numbers. The single biggest number in Edgar's favor is his career .418 on-base percentage. (22nd all time) Think about that for a second. The guy simply didn't make outs. Also, a .993 career OPS is remarkable. He is one of only eight players with 300 homers, 500 doubles and career AVG/OBP/SLG .300/.400/.500 line. (312/418/515). Eight. So while Edgar wasn't the penultimate home run guy, he was one of the most complete hitters in the game, ever--period. Take a look at the subsection of the article I linked titled "His statistics aren't good enough" if you don't believe me.

[ftaok]

If all you're looking at is RBI, HR, and BA, then yes, you'd be right--but you'd also be using a horribly incomplete picture of his performance. Take, for example, BA--you can have an empty .250BA and thus be a below league-average hitter despite having a decent BA--if your slugging and on-base numbers suck, then getting a hit once every four tries isn't much use. Conversely, RBIs isn't the be-all either--short of home runs, it requires circumstances out of control of the batter to put up good numbers. The single biggest number in Edgar's favor is his career .418 on-base percentage. (22nd all time) Think about that for a second. The guy simply didn't make outs. Also, a .993 career OPS is remarkable. He is one of only eight players with 300 homers, 500 doubles and career AVG/OBP/SLG .300/.400/.500 line. (312/418/515). Eight. So while Edgar wasn't the penultimate home run guy, he was one of the most complete hitters in the game, ever--period. Take a look at the subsection of the article I linked titled "His statistics aren't good enough" if you don't believe me.
Edgar was a very good player ... but he wasn't dominant for a long stretch. He had two or three great years, along with a bunch of very good years. That's not a HOFer .. to me.

The issue with Martinez is that he's gonna be compared with two of his contemporaries when it comes to HOF voting. Frank Thomas and Jim Thome. Both of which played the field more often than DHing. As good as Edgar's slash line is, Thomas' is better (301/419/555). Both Thomas and Thome are 500 HR guys which means a lot, especially since neither of these guys are linked to steroids.

BTW, Martinez's OPS is .933, which is still very good, it's just not .993

And I understand that HRs and RBIs aren't everything, they are extremely important to voters. Edgar just doesn't have enough of either. Plus his lack of MVP awards and lack of WS titles hurt. In his favor, he has 2 batting titles and an RBI title, but that's still not enough to overcome his lack of defense.

In the end, of the 3 big DH's in this era, I think Thomas is a 1st ballot HOFer, Thome makes it on his second chance. I really don't think Edgar makes it, unless it's a Veteran's Committee thing.

[sysiphus]

Edgar was a very good player ... but he wasn't dominant for a long stretch. He had two or three great years, along with a bunch of very good years. That's not a HOFer .. to me.

The issue with Martinez is that he's gonna be compared with two of his contemporaries when it comes to HOF voting. Frank Thomas and Jim Thome. Both of which played the field more often than DHing. As good as Edgar's slash line is, Thomas' is better (301/419/555). Both Thomas and Thome are 500 HR guys which means a lot, especially since neither of these guys are linked to steroids.

BTW, Martinez's OPS is .933, which is still very good, it's just not .993

And I understand that HRs and RBIs aren't everything, they are extremely important to voters. Edgar just doesn't have enough of either. Plus his lack of MVP awards and lack of WS titles hurt. In his favor, he has 2 batting titles and an RBI title, but that's still not enough to overcome his lack of defense.

In the end, of the 3 big DH's in this era, I think Thomas is a 1st ballot HOFer, Thome makes it on his second chance. I really don't think Edgar makes it, unless it's a Veteran's Committee thing.

No argument that Edgar had a couple special standout years--but it's selling him short to suggest that the majority of his career wasn't brilliant. You don't get career OPS/OBP like his unless you tear the cover off the ball year after year.

Yes, Thome and Thomas had the HR numbers, and played the field more, which will win them more votes. I'm willing to concede that the HR numbers should help, but the fielding, not so much. The problem is that you should need to be a really -good- fielder for it to be in your benefit--otherwise, why does it really matter? Edgar didn't DH because he was a horrid defender--he DH'd because they had better defenders at the corners. At the end of the day, a player's overall contribution to the team is offense and defense--and unless you put up stellar plus defense, your overall contribution to the team might as well be provided mostly/all in your bat. League-average defense is easy to find. Not sure I'd argue that Thome or Thomas were standout defenders (could be wrong, never followed them closely in their prime...working off of memory here...and I presume you realize that fielding percentage alone won't give a useful picture of defensive value.*)

My bad on writing Gar's OPS--multitasking/dyslexia. Oops. Still a good number, but my mistake.

I don't doubt that Edgar's lack of MVP/Series titles will hurt his voting odds...not sure it really should (a player's individual talent can be out of this world, and Hall-deserving, regardless of if his team is good enough to go all the way...see Ichiro in 2004, for example...or Giambi in '01). Using awards that aren't stats-based to determine other awards seems like a poor argument to me...but it's the reality.

Once again, on the defense, unless you're a superb defender, who cares? It's the overall contribution that counts--and Edgar is right there with the other two on that front. If you don't even want to explore this, one can always fall back on the argument DH is a legitimate position, like it or not, and if you're the best at your position, that should be enough.

Assuming all three guys were clean, I'd say that Thomas and Edgar should be a lock--their slash lines are almost enough on their own, without looking any farther. Thome is a bit less certain, but likely gets in, too.

At the end of the day, I have no doubt that Edgar should get in...but I'm in agreement that whether or not he will is in question. Regardless, they did name the DH award after him for a reason ;)

*Fielding is a combination of range and ability to make plays. Jeter is an excellent example of a questionable top-level defender--yes, he's incredibly good at making plays on the balls he gets to...but his range is lousy compared to many other SS. On the other end of the scale, it's an absolute travesty that Franklin Gutierrez didn't get a Gold Glove this year--and this is a totally Mariners-bias-independent argument. See the following articles proving the point:
Beyond the Boxscore (http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/11/10/1124993/gold-gloves-vs-uzr-the-laziest)
Posanski (http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/11/10/this-years-gold-glove-ripoff/)
Neyer on ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/1314/more-gold-gloves-more-head-scratching)
Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/11/12/the-count-the-ultimate-gold-glove-snub/)

(I could easily go on and on, but you get the idea)*

[ftaok]

No argument that Edgar had a couple special standout years--but it's selling him short to suggest that the majority of his career wasn't brilliant. You don't get career OPS/OBP like his unless you tear the cover off the ball year after year.

Sysiphus,

I understand your position on Edgar. I admit, he was a great player, but that's besides the point. (BTW, I am up on all of the latest SABR stats) And I do understand that Edgar wasn't a butcher at 3B ... but he was still a DH for 75% of his career because the M's had better options at 3B/1B. For a while, both Thome and Thomas were considered above average fielders (albeit, they were much more valuable with their bats).

There are two points that I want to make. Whether I think that Edgar should make the HOF, and whether I think he will make the HOF.

1. For me, I feel the HOF should be reserved for truly special players. These players consist of the milestone guys (500HR, 3000Hits, 300Wins, etc) OR guys that dominated for a good stretch (Pedro, Koufax, etc). To me, if you don't have the milestones (which Edgar doesn't), then you need to have dominated by racking up other credentials. To me, these credentials are stuff like WS Titles (where the player has positive contribution); Playoff heroics; MVP or Cy Young Awards; Stat Category Leaders (aka Black Ink); Gold Gloves (yeah I know ..); All-Star appearances; Single-Season records; etc.

For the record, Thomas and Thome get in because they are milestone guys, although I'm on the fence on Thome. Edgar didn't dominate enough or for a long enough duration. Two Batting Titles and one RBI title isn't enough when you consider his lack of MVP awards and WS titles.

This is my opinion based on what I think the HOF should be. There are lots of guys in the HOF that I don't think should be. Heck, look at this year's class ... no way I put Dawson in the HOF ... and Jim Rice shouldn't be either. Not enough dominance with either guys. Rickey is definately an HOFer.

2. My other point is whether Edgar will get in, based on today's standards. My thinking is that the writers are not willing to let too many DHs into the HOF. Edgar's problem is that there are two DH's that are gonna be eligible in the next 5 years or so. Both of these guys are milestone guys, and in Thomas' case, he dominated as well. No way the writers are gonna put 3 DH's into the HOF this quickly. These guys are old school and couldn't tell you the difference between UZR and USSR. Just look at the guys they're putting in ... Dawson??? Rice??? Hell, David Segui even got 1 vote this year.

The way I look at it, Edgar's only crime here is that he has to be considered with his peers ... and it's not good when his peers are Thomas and Thome. Honestly, this whole argument about DH's in the HOF would have been moot many years ago had Harold Baines gotten to 3,000 hits. They would have had to elect him into the HOF and the taint of DH wouldn't be dripping off of Edgar.

Anyways, this has been quite a good discussion. I realize that I won't change your mind on Edgar. Nor do I think I'm presenting the end-all be-all on the topic. Who knows, perhaps one day, the NL will adopt the DH and eventually DH's start making the Hall and Edgar will go in as a Veteran's selection.

[str1f3]

I still think Blyleven should be in.

And Fred McGriff had some great numbers over his career. He's a perfect example of how arbitrary HOF stats are - he hit 493 home runs. If he's hit 500, he's be a first ballot hall of famer. Because he hit 7 less (seven!) he didn't get voted in. Stupid.

I don't think either should be in. To me, if you can't say a person is without a doubt an HOFer, he shouldn't be there. Andre Dawson was a no-brainer as well as Alomar who I consider the best second baseman of his generation and one of the top 5 players (non-pitchers) in his prime.

[sysiphus]

Sysiphus,

I understand your position on Edgar. I admit, he was a great player, but that's besides the point. (BTW, I am up on all of the latest SABR stats) And I do understand that Edgar wasn't a butcher at 3B ... but he was still a DH for 75% of his career because the M's had better options at 3B/1B. For a while, both Thome and Thomas were considered above average fielders (albeit, they were much more valuable with their bats).

There are two points that I want to make. Whether I think that Edgar should make the HOF, and whether I think he will make the HOF.

1. For me, I feel the HOF should be reserved for truly special players. These players consist of the milestone guys (500HR, 3000Hits, 300Wins, etc) OR guys that dominated for a good stretch (Pedro, Koufax, etc). To me, if you don't have the milestones (which Edgar doesn't), then you need to have dominated by racking up other credentials. To me, these credentials are stuff like WS Titles (where the player has positive contribution); Playoff heroics; MVP or Cy Young Awards; Stat Category Leaders (aka Black Ink); Gold Gloves (yeah I know ..); All-Star appearances; Single-Season records; etc.

For the record, Thomas and Thome get in because they are milestone guys, although I'm on the fence on Thome. Edgar didn't dominate enough or for a long enough duration. Two Batting Titles and one RBI title isn't enough when you consider his lack of MVP awards and WS titles.

This is my opinion based on what I think the HOF should be. There are lots of guys in the HOF that I don't think should be. Heck, look at this year's class ... no way I put Dawson in the HOF ... and Jim Rice shouldn't be either. Not enough dominance with either guys. Rickey is definately an HOFer.

2. My other point is whether Edgar will get in, based on today's standards. My thinking is that the writers are not willing to let too many DHs into the HOF. Edgar's problem is that there are two DH's that are gonna be eligible in the next 5 years or so. Both of these guys are milestone guys, and in Thomas' case, he dominated as well. No way the writers are gonna put 3 DH's into the HOF this quickly. These guys are old school and couldn't tell you the difference between UZR and USSR. Just look at the guys they're putting in ... Dawson??? Rice??? Hell, David Segui even got 1 vote this year.

The way I look at it, Edgar's only crime here is that he has to be considered with his peers ... and it's not good when his peers are Thomas and Thome. Honestly, this whole argument about DH's in the HOF would have been moot many years ago had Harold Baines gotten to 3,000 hits. They would have had to elect him into the HOF and the taint of DH wouldn't be dripping off of Edgar.

Anyways, this has been quite a good discussion. I realize that I won't change your mind on Edgar. Nor do I think I'm presenting the end-all be-all on the topic. Who knows, perhaps one day, the NL will adopt the DH and eventually DH's start making the Hall and Edgar will go in as a Veteran's selection.

Thanks for another good reply :) I don't really expect I'll win you over on Edgar, either--but regardless, yes, a fun discussion. Ultimately, I'm inclined to agree with you that the Hall should be reserved for the dominators and the milestones--and while I'm sure some of our disagreement on Edgar is simply due to where the line should be drawn, I'm also happy to admit that I've got a definite Edgar-bias.

We do entirely agree on the likes of Rice and Dawson, though...they don't belong. One final point, though I hate to use it, is that with the bar lowered to their level, it's pretty hard not to induct Edgar. Case in point: Edgar reached base 145 times more than Dawson did, but made 2,400 fewer outs. To paraphrase Keith Law, there's no reasonable way to argue for a guy like Dawson and not vote for 'Gar unless you either a) think Dawson is the be-all best-ever outfielder (hardly!), or b) don't understand/are ignoring the statistics. And yet, the Seattle Times beat writer did just that on his ballot :rolleyes:

I hate the idea of lowering the bar to Dawson's level, and hope that it won't stay that low--but seing him get voted in on the same ballot that Edgar doesn't break 40% makes me sick.

[str1f3]

Thanks for another good reply :) I don't really expect I'll win you over on Edgar, either--but regardless, yes, a fun discussion. Ultimately, I'm inclined to agree with you that the Hall should be reserved for the dominators and the milestones--and while I'm sure some of our disagreement on Edgar is simply due to where the line should be drawn, I'm also happy to admit that I've got a definite Edgar-bias.

We do entirely agree on the likes of Rice and Dawson, though...they don't belong. One final point, though I hate to use it, is that with the bar lowered to their level, it's pretty hard not to induct Edgar. Case in point: Edgar reached base 145 times more than Dawson did, but made 2,400 fewer outs. To paraphrase Keith Law, there's no reasonable way to argue for a guy like Dawson and not vote for 'Gar unless you either a) think Dawson is the be-all best-ever outfielder (hardly!), or b) don't understand/are ignoring the statistics. And yet, the Seattle Times beat writer did just that on his ballot :rolleyes:

I hate the idea of lowering the bar to Dawson's level, and hope that it won't stay that low--but seing him get voted in on the same ballot that Edgar doesn't break 40% makes me sick.

Comparing Edgar to Dawson is pointless. Dawson hit .290 with power in the days when it actually meant something. Edgar was a monster but it was in the steroid era. I don't think he was involved and he is a no-doubt HOFer but everyone had great stats. Besides Tony Gwynn (best hitter since Rod Carew) and Griffey (in his prime) he was the best hitter of the 90s.

[sysiphus]

Comparing Edgar to Dawson is pointless. Dawson hit .290 with power in the days when it actually meant something. Edgar was a monster but it was in the steroid era. I don't think he was involved and he is a no-doubt HOFer but everyone had great stats. Besides Tony Gwynn (best hitter since Rod Carew) and Griffey (in his prime) he was the best hitter of the 90s.

I'm not trying to typecast Dawson as the same sort of player as Edgar. However, when one player collected less hits while collecting over a season's worth more of outs (meaning if he played for 162 games and made an out every at bat), it does speak to their quality, especially when both players were heavily defined by their bats.

My take is that Dawson (and Rice) don't belong, and that Edgar is a borderline candidate who should make it. Your mileage may vary :)

[Unspeaked]

I'm not trying to typecast Dawson as the same sort of player as Edgar. However, when one player collected less hits while collecting over a season's worth more of outs (meaning if he played for 162 games and made an out every at bat), it does speak to their quality, especially when both players were heavily defined by their bats.

My take is that Dawson (and Rice) don't belong, and that Edgar is a borderline candidate who should make it. Your mileage may vary :)

The big difference between the points you're making for Martinez and the points ftaok's is making against him is that your points are generally things that Hall of Fame voters don't look at or care about while his are points that have a precedent in voting.

What it really boils down to is:

1. Longevity. Edgar doesn't have it.

2. Rings and/or Awards. Edgar doesn't have them.

He's not a Hall of Famer.

Would you put him in ahead of Albert Belle? He's got similar/better numbers than Martinez in nearly every offensive category, and did it in fewer seasons. Personally, I think neither belong.

Martinez is, in my mind, the perfect example of a player who belongs in their respective team's Hall of Fame (and he is in Seattle's already) but not the Baseball Hall of Fame. He's the exact type of player these "local" Hall of Fames are designed for.

[sysiphus]

The big difference between the points you're making for Martinez and the points ftaok's is making against him is that your points are generally things that Hall of Fame voters don't look at or care about while his are points that have a precedent in voting.

What it really boils down to is:

1. Longevity. Edgar doesn't have it.

2. Rings and/or Awards. Edgar doesn't have them.

He's not a Hall of Famer.

Would you put him in ahead of Albert Belle? He's got similar/better numbers than Martinez in nearly every offensive category, and did it in fewer seasons. Personally, I think neither belong.

Martinez is, in my mind, the perfect example of a player who belongs in their respective team's Hall of Fame (and he is in Seattle's already) but not the Baseball Hall of Fame. He's the exact type of player these "local" Hall of Fames are designed for.

Trust me, I see your point about the differences in the arguments he's making and I'm making--I'm not sure Edgar -will- make it in. When it's all said and done, the cursory stats that many voters use don't make the case for Edgar, and you're right, he didn't win many rings+awards. I still maintain that the rings and opinion-based awards shouldn't really matter (I freely admit that they do play in to the decision). A good player can't help it if the rest of his team isn't good enough to get to/win the World Series. Heck, look at Edgar's numbers in the 1995 ALDS--he was an absolute beast who destroyed NYY, plain and simple. Remove either him or Randy Johnson and there's no way the team even makes it to that playoff, let alone wins that matchup. Similarly, stats like Gold Gloves are total bunk--look up Franklin Gutierrez from this year if you don't believe me--they probably messed up at least two of the three outfield awards, if not all three in the AL this year. And that's before you even hit the really pathetic choices...

Anyways, I have to run, but will continue this later. Long and the short of it is, I'm not sure Edgar will make it, based on the evaluation techniques used by voters today. More to come later :)

[Unspeaked]

Yeah, I think rings shouldn't come into play either since a lot of that isn't up to the player - they're at the mercy of being on a good team. I just think rings and awards are a Plan B category voters look at for players on the edge (and I think Martinez is one of those players).

I really think the discussion on him begins and ends with longevity. If he had played another 4 or 5 years, I think he's a no brainer. But he just isn't HOF worthy with his current stats. A lot of this is due to the fact the guy didn't get a break in the majors until his late 20s. If he had been in the majors at 21 or 22, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Another name that came to mind while thinking about Edgar Martinez was Bernie Williams. He played around the same time, in the same league and was with one team his entire career. His offensive numbers are similar to Edgar's, but a little worse. The difference is rings and while I don't think Williams should be in the Hall, either, I would vote for him before I'd vote for Edgar.

Still curious what more you have to say, though... half the fun of baseball is debates like this!

[aloofman]

Another name that came to mind while thinking about Edgar Martinez was Bernie Williams. He played around the same time, in the same league and was with one team his entire career. His offensive numbers are similar to Edgar's, but a little worse. The difference is rings and while I don't think Williams should be in the Hall, either, I would vote for him before I'd vote for Edgar.

Still curious what more you have to say, though... half the fun of baseball is debates like this!

I agree that Bernie is borderline and probably doesn't deserve to be in, although his gaudy career postseason stats, New York star power, and the World Series wins mean he will probably get in.

A few years ago someone made the interesting suggestion that Jim Edmonds was a better HOF candidate than Williams, which made me laugh for a moment. But after reading the pro-Edmonds argument, I found myself thinking he was more a of a borderline candidate than I had assumed. These debates are great. I still am not convinced that Edmonds was worthy, but of course many HOFers are a matter of opinion and none has ever been unanimous.

Think about that for a second: isn't it amazing that no one has ever been elected unanimously to the HOF? Are voters conspiring to make sure no one is ever unanimous? Because it's impossible to argue that Rickey Henderson isn't worthy, and yet a few voters didn't think so. Mickey Mantle wasn't unanimous. Neither was Willie Mays or Hank Aaron. Joe DiMaggio was elected on his third try, if you can believe that. I know that a lot of times it's a "know it when you see it" kind of thing. You've seen a guy play great for long enough to know that, yes, he's an all-time great. (Pujols, the Big Unit, and Pedro Martinez come to mind.) But it's kind of mind-boggling to think that back in the day, some of the players we believe were obviously worthy were considered iffy at the time. The year before DiMaggio was elected, he finished behind in the voting to Bill Dickey and Bill Terry. WHAT?!

I've long believed that there are too many HOFers, but it makes you wonder if some of the voters even watch the games anymore. Roberto Alomar not a Hall of Famer? Come on.

[ftaok]

Anyways, I have to run, but will continue this later. Long and the short of it is, I'm not sure Edgar will make it, based on the evaluation techniques used by voters today. More to come later :)

I love these HOF discussions and I respect everyone's position, well, except for the guy who voted for David Segui. Anyways, I was reading last night and came across a great term for people who think like me ... Small Hall. My position is that the HOF should be reserved for the true greats of the game. The kind of guys that everyone can agree on being first ballot guys. Ruth, Mays, Mantle, Seaver, etc.

Other folks fall into Medium Hall (Reggie, Sandberg, Ripken) or Big Hall (Rizzuto, Tony Perez, McCovey). I think the current HOF philosophy is probably somewhere between Medium and Big, but it's inconsistent (partially due to voter bias, old school stats, and voter laziness).

I think we can all agree that Edgar isn't Small Hall material. He probably falls somewhere between Medium and Big ... which is why we're having this discussion.

Another name that came to mind while thinking about Edgar Martinez was Bernie Williams. He played around the same time, in the same league and was with one team his entire career. His offensive numbers are similar to Edgar's, but a little worse. The difference is rings and while I don't think Williams should be in the Hall, either, I would vote for him before I'd vote for Edgar.
Off the top of my head (without looking at stats), I'd say that Bernie won't make the HOF. I reserve the right to flip/flop after checking the stats. He certainly isn't a Small Hall guy.

Think about that for a second: isn't it amazing that no one has ever been elected unanimously to the HOF? Are voters conspiring to make sure no one is ever unanimous? Because it's impossible to argue that Rickey Henderson isn't worthy, and yet a few voters didn't think so. Mickey Mantle wasn't unanimous. Neither was Willie Mays or Hank Aaron. Joe DiMaggio was elected on his third try, if you can believe that. I know that a lot of times it's a "know it when you see it" kind of thing. You've seen a guy play great for long enough to know that, yes, he's an all-time great. (Pujols, the Big Unit, and Pedro Martinez come to mind.) But it's kind of mind-boggling to think that back in the day, some of the players we believe were obviously worthy were considered iffy at the time. The year before DiMaggio was elected, he finished behind in the voting to Bill Dickey and Bill Terry. WHAT?!

I've long believed that there are too many HOFers, but it makes you wonder if some of the voters even watch the games anymore. Roberto Alomar not a Hall of Famer? Come on.I think the reason that guys don't get 100% votes is that some voters are just plain biased. Some guys think that the Hall begins and ends at Babe Ruth and won't vote a guy in until the second ballot. Then others get pissy and won't vote for other guys.

In the end, if you get 95%+ like Rickey, then you are an all-time great.

Personally, on Alomar, back in 2002 (or whenever it was) when the Mets got him, Alomar was on track to becoming a 1st ballot guy. No question. Then, his production just fell off a cliff and he was out of baseball.

Those last couple of years probably weighed on voters' minds. Personally, I'm surprised that he didn't get in, but is it that big of a deal to go in Year 2? Like you said, Dimaggio had to wait for Year 3.

[Unspeaked]

Ok, so what active players do you consider locks for the Hall of Fame? Guys who if their careers ended today, they'd be in?

I'm thinking:

LOCKS

Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
Mariano Rivera
Trever Hoffman
Albert Pujols
Ichiro Suzuki
Derek Jeter
Manny Ramirez
Ken Griffey, Jr.
Alex Rodriguez

DEBATABLE

John Smoltz
Billy Wagner
Todd Helton
Vladimir Guerrero
Chipper Jones
Ivan Rodriguez
Gary Sheffield
Jim Thome
Carlos Delgado
Scott Rolen
Omar Vizquel


Opinions...?

[MacNut]

Ok, so what active players do you consider locks for the Hall of Fame? Guys who if their careers ended today, they'd be in?

I'm thinking:

LOCKS

Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
Mariano Rivera
Trever Hoffman
Albert Pujols
Ichiro Suzuki
Derek Jeter
Manny Ramirez
Ken Griffey, Jr.
Alex Rodriguez

DEBATABLE

John Smoltz
Billy Wagner
Todd Helton
Vladimir Guerrero
Chipper Jones
Ivan Rodriguez
Gary Sheffield
Jim Thome
Carlos Delgado
Scott Rolen
Omar Vizquel


Opinions...?What about Mike Mussina, even Andy Pettitte for that matter.

[Unspeaked]

What about Mike Mussina.

He's not active, is he?

(Plus, I think he's borderline at best, anyway...)

[MacNut]

He's not active, is he?

(Plus, I think he's borderline at best, anyway...)He retired last year, his win total is 270 ish I believe.

[Unspeaked]

He retired last year, his win total is 270 ish I believe.

His last season was 2008 - if he makes it, it's for that last season (20-9, 3.37 ERA).

Other than that, the guy never had a 20 win season, didn't read 300 career wins and never won a Cy Young or World Series title. A really great pitcher of his generation, and probably as close as you can get to HOF worthy without being in, but I still wouldn't vote for him.

[Peace]

I don't understand the hall of fame. Are players inducted whenever they feel like doing it? Or is it a once a year thing.

I noticed Andre Dawson was just inducted (http://community.baseballhall.org/Page.aspx?pid=329).

[MacNut]

I don't understand the hall of fame. Are players inducted whenever they feel like doing it? Or is it a once a year thing.

I noticed Andre Dawson was just inducted (http://community.baseballhall.org/Page.aspx?pid=329).A player has to have played for 10 years and to be retired for 5 years after playing. The writers have to vote them in with 75% or higher votes. After 14 years your name comes off the ballot.Players are currently inducted into the Hall of Fame through election by either the Baseball Writers Association of America (or BBWAA), or the Veterans Committee,[9] which is now composed of living Hall of Famers; additional special committees, some including recipients of the two major awards, are also regularly formed to make selections. Five years after retirement, any player with 10 years of major league experience who passes a screening committee (which removes from consideration players of clearly lesser qualification) is eligible to be elected by BBWAA members with 10 years' membership or more. From a final ballot typically including 25–40 candidates, each writer may vote for up to 10 players; until the late 1950s, voters were advised to cast votes for the maximum 10 candidates. Any player named on 75% or more of all ballots cast is elected. A player who is named on fewer than 5% of ballots is dropped from future elections. In some instances, the screening committee had restored their names to later ballots, but in the mid-1990s, dropped players were made permanently ineligible for Hall of Fame consideration, even by the Veterans Committee. A 2001 change in the election procedures restored the eligibility of these dropped players; while their names will not appear on future BBWAA ballots, they may be considered by the Veterans Committee.

[Peace]

A player has to have played for 10 years and to be retired for 5 years after playing. The writers have to vote them in with 75% or higher votes. After 14 years your name comes off the ballot.

I understand the requirements.

I don't understand WHEN they do it.:)

well thanks for editing faster than me!! LOL.

So Randy Johnson won't be eligible for 5 more years?

[MacNut]

I understand the requirements.

I don't understand WHEN they do it.:)The ballots are cast in the fall and the vote is announced in January. Induction end of July.

[sysiphus]

Yeah, I think rings shouldn't come into play either since a lot of that isn't up to the player - they're at the mercy of being on a good team. I just think rings and awards are a Plan B category voters look at for players on the edge (and I think Martinez is one of those players).

I really think the discussion on him begins and ends with longevity. If he had played another 4 or 5 years, I think he's a no brainer. But he just isn't HOF worthy with his current stats. A lot of this is due to the fact the guy didn't get a break in the majors until his late 20s. If he had been in the majors at 21 or 22, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Another name that came to mind while thinking about Edgar Martinez was Bernie Williams. He played around the same time, in the same league and was with one team his entire career. His offensive numbers are similar to Edgar's, but a little worse. The difference is rings and while I don't think Williams should be in the Hall, either, I would vote for him before I'd vote for Edgar.

Still curious what more you have to say, though... half the fun of baseball is debates like this!

I'm a bit curious--first you said that rings shouldn't come in to play, then compared Edgar and Bernie, and stated that Bernie's offensive stats are worse than Edgar's but he has more rings...and that you'd vote in Bernie before Edgar...so I assume that you either a) do think rings should count, or just b) think Bernie was one hell of a fielder.

Yeah, if Edgar had gotten out of the minors in his early 20s, I doubt there'd be any argument. Longevity should be the only sticking point for him. Really, though, his slash line shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was one of the best, most complete hitters in the game during his tenure. There's a reason so few players can get a 300/400/500 or better slash line--and if I remember correctly, all but two of them who are Hall-eligible are in.

Even if you just look at batting average, he had a lifetime .312 and seven seasons of .320 or higher (and mind you, his batting average wasn't propped up by infield singles like Ichiro [who should be a hall lock, but on different merits])...since WWII, only eight righties have had six or more .320 seasons--Albert Pujols and Hank Aaron (eight each); Roberto Clemente, Molitor, Edgar, Manny Ramirez and Derek Jeter (seven); and Vlad Guerrero (six). Then look at OPS+...Edgar Martinez reached 150 or better eight times. Only 24 players have done it that many times, and the other 23 are inner-circle Hall of Famers (Aaron, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle and Mike Schmidt) or will be (Pujols, Ramierez) The only exception is Dick Allen. (taken from ESPN).

My feeling is that his performance while he was playing was eminently hall-worthy...his only possible problem is not playing long enough for milestone numbers in some of the more popular categories. With that said, there's certainly precedent for electing somebody who was brilliant over a shorter career.

[sysiphus]

His last season was 2008 - if he makes it, it's for that last season (20-9, 3.37 ERA).

Other than that, the guy never had a 20 win season, didn't read 300 career wins and never won a Cy Young or World Series title. A really great pitcher of his generation, and probably as close as you can get to HOF worthy without being in, but I still wouldn't vote for him.

Yup, don't think he should make it. He was quite good, but not quite there--if he gets in, it's because he made his name in Yankee pinstripes, not because of his numbers. Kind of the opposite effect of Edgar Martinez, who most people never saw except in playoffs and All-Star games...put 'Gar on the Yankees of the 90s and I bet most people wouldn't be debating his eligibility.

[sysiphus]

Ok, so what active players do you consider locks for the Hall of Fame? Guys who if their careers ended today, they'd be in?

I'm thinking:

LOCKS

Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
Mariano Rivera
Trever Hoffman
Albert Pujols
Ichiro Suzuki
Derek Jeter
Manny Ramirez
Ken Griffey, Jr.
Alex Rodriguez

DEBATABLE

John Smoltz
Billy Wagner
Todd Helton
Vladimir Guerrero
Chipper Jones
Ivan Rodriguez
Gary Sheffield
Jim Thome
Carlos Delgado
Scott Rolen
Omar Vizquel


Opinions...?

I generally like your list, but would strike A-Roid and Manny from your list. Both lied about PEDs, both got caught, and neither has begun to show remorse. Pettite is the only exposed PED guy of any note whose handled it appropriately...and even he should make voters do a double-take, if he's worthy. Your mileage may vary.
I re-watched game 5 of the 95 ALDS the other night, and it struck me just how much A-Rod ballooned out after he started doing PEDs...he wasn't much bigger than me when he first showed up in the big leagues.

[aloofman]

Ok, so what active players do you consider locks for the Hall of Fame? Guys who if their careers ended today, they'd be in?

I'm thinking:

Opinions...?

I'm generally OK with all of those locks. As sysiphus pointed out, the PED issue might hold Rodriguez and Manny back, although by the time either of them is eligible, we might know of so many steroid users that we won't even care. (For example, Mark McGwire (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4816607) admitted it today.) I think Ichiro will be the first Japanese player to get in.

Of those debatables, I can think of three that will get in. Chipper Jones has put up career numbers that are right up there with most of the third basemen in the HOF. In fact, 3B is the least-represented position in the Hall. Jones is clearly the best third baseman to come along since Mike Schmidt, had a very good glove, hit for power and average from both sides of the plate. I'm not sure what more you could want. I wasn't thinking about him as a potential candidate in, say, 2005, but I think he's pretty much a lock now.

Ivan Rodriguez was the best catcher since Johnny Bench. Even if you discount his offense because of the steroid era, he was the best at fielding his position for at least a decade. Only a handful of catchers in history can say that. He's in.

I think Vizquel has a decent chance of getting in for great defense, a la Mazeroski or Ozzie Smith.

[str1f3]

I'm generally OK with all of those locks. As sysiphus pointed out, the PED issue might hold Rodriguez and Manny back, although by the time either of them is eligible, we might know of so many steroid users that we won't even care. (For example, Mark McGwire (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4816607) admitted it today.) I think Ichiro will be the first Japanese player to get in.

Of those debatables, I can think of three that will get in. Chipper Jones has put up career numbers that are right up there with most of the third basemen in the HOF. In fact, 3B is the least-represented position in the Hall. Jones is clearly the best third baseman to come along since Mike Schmidt, had a very good glove, hit for power and average from both sides of the plate. I'm not sure what more you could want. I wasn't thinking about him as a potential candidate in, say, 2005, but I think he's pretty much a lock now.

Ivan Rodriguez was the best catcher since Johnny Bench. Even if you discount his offense because of the steroid era, he was the best at fielding his position for at least a decade. Only a handful of catchers in history can say that. He's in.

I think Vizquel has a decent chance of getting in for great defense, a la Mazeroski or Ozzie Smith.

McGwire can never be allowed as the rest of these other players who were on the juice. If they get in it validates their stats and what they did to get there. Baseball is a tradition that is based on stats. While people can try to weigh how long the person was on it against their career stats, McGwire was on it for basically his whole career.

[sysiphus]

McGwire can never be allowed as the rest of these other players who were on the juice. If they get in it validates their stats and what they did to get there. Baseball is a tradition that is based on stats. While people can try to weigh how long the person was on it against their career stats, McGwire was on it for basically his whole career.

Agreed. Even with massive amounts of talent (A-Rod and Manny definitely have it), they (and their stats) lose all credibility across the board as soon as they get caught. One of my favorite players, Mike Cameron, got caught, too--almost made me glad that he was never a massive numbers guy, because I didn't like him for his bat...but even with him, if he were hall-worthy (almost certainly not), I'd preclude him because of the PEDs.

All of this is part of why I find Ichiro so massively appealing--he doesn't succeed because of massive muscle/power...rather, he's meticulous about stretching (imagine how much more durable Ken Griffey Jr would have been if he'd done the same), and plays a totally unique small-ball game that would be almost nonsensical to argue is boosted by PEDs.

[Unspeaked]

I'm a bit curious--first you said that rings shouldn't come in to play, then compared Edgar and Bernie, and stated that Bernie's offensive stats are worse than Edgar's but he has more rings...and that you'd vote in Bernie before Edgar...so I assume that you either a) do think rings should count, or just b) think Bernie was one hell of a fielder.

Let me clarify.

Personally, I don't think rings should play a part in voting at all.

I think that for the HOF committee, they play a secondary role for people who are borderline on their stats alone. Some guys who wouldn't get in based on their career stats are given the benefit of the doubt because of rings (usually Yankees fall into this category, but some people tried to unsuccessfully make this argument for Dave Concepcion and others).

In my comment, I said I'd vote for Bernie over Edgar if I had to choose one, and my reason would be rings - but only as a tie-breaker. I think I made it pretty clear that I would prefer to vote for neither if I could.


imagine how much more durable Ken Griffey Jr would have been if he'd done the same

Griffey at least ties Ted Williams (who lost his prime years to the war) for baseball's massive "What If?"

What if he had been healthy his entire career? In the late 90s, everyone thought Griffey was going to blow away every record imaginable. Even with totally lost years in the 00s, he's got one of the most impressive baseball resumes of all time. Imagine those 5+ years that slipped through the cracks.

(And The Kid has never been involved in the PED discussion, even to this day!)

[sysiphus]

Let me clarify.

Personally, I don't think rings should play a part in voting at all.

I think that for the HOF committee, they play a secondary role for people who are borderline on their stats alone. Some guys who wouldn't get in based on their career stats are given the benefit of the doubt because of rings (usually Yankees fall into this category, but some people tried to unsuccessfully make this argument for Dave Concepcion and others).

In my comment, I said I'd vote for Bernie over Edgar if I had to choose one, and my reason would be rings - but only as a tie-breaker. I think I made it pretty clear that I would prefer to vote for neither if I could.




Griffey at least ties Ted Williams (who lost his prime years to the war) for baseball's massive "What If?"

What if he had been healthy his entire career? In the late 90s, everyone thought Griffey was going to blow away every record imaginable. Even with totally lost years in the 00s, he's got one of the most impressive baseball resumes of all time. Imagine those 5+ years that slipped through the cracks.

(And The Kid has never been involved in the PED discussion, even to this day!)

Fair enough, I see what you're getting at with rings, Edgar, and Bernie.

No kidding about Griffey and the What Ifs. It was so fun watching him play here in Seattle in the 90s! A small selfish part of me is glad that almost all his glory years came in Seattle, though...so there's no doubt he's going to go into the Hall wearing a Seattle cap.

I was never a huge Griffey fan after he left, though. Team loyalty is rare in this era, especially with superstars. Sure, it was fun to get him back last year (even though it doesn't make sense by the numbers...), but he's not Mr. Mariner the way Edgar is. ( After he left for Cinci, he lost my (and many other Seattlites') pick as favorite Mariner...Edgar never had the ego that the Kid did, he did a lot more for the community, and he was a lifelong Mariner. Still, regardless of the order, it's hard to think that most people around here wouldn't list Ichiro, Griffey, and Edgar as favorite Mariners. But I digress...)