Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 195

Thread: 2014 HoF ballot

  1. #41
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    939
    Like
    42
    Liked 68 Times in 48 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nicksaviking View Post
    Why, because Glavine was a Brave? It's an honor to be inducted on the first ballot, why does everyone have to get in that way? Why wouldn't the ballot be one and done for every player then? I'd vote Glavine in first ballot, but I don't think not doing so is nearly as grevious as you suggest.
    It has nothing to do with Glavine, but thanks for assuming my baseball integrity is so shallow as to only be worried about my team (especially a guy who isn't exactly still on the best terms with the organization after things he said when leaving to the Braves' biggest rival).

    It has everything to do with a guy is either a hall of famer or he's not. The early ballots were making up for nearly a century of baseball having passed already, so there were many guys who didn't get in on first ballot because of that. As it stands currently, that should never be an issue. A guy is in or he's not. Not that tough. Slighting a guy for one year for some sort of "elite" principal is old guard useless.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  2. #42
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    939
    Like
    42
    Liked 68 Times in 48 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Crikket View Post
    I think we will need to show increasing tolerance this year and perhaps for many years to come, simply because of the size of the ballot starting this year. A quick look at the ballot and I've got at least 15 players that I could support. But if I can only vote for 10, then there WILL be worthy players I have to leave off my ballot this year. Based on your philosophy, I could never vote for them in the future when there may be room on my 10-spot ballot? I don't agree with that at all.
    You're misunderstanding my statement. My issue has nothing to do with those who vote 10 and still have more they'd like to vote in. I'm in the same boat. My issue is those who do not have a full 10 voted in and yet leave off some first-year guys because "they can't get in on the first year". That's what I have strong issues with. If you have 15 you want tovote in and only 10 spots, you vote for 10 this year, and if they all did get in, you'd vote for the other 5 next year.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  3. #43
    Senior Member All-Star Jim Crikket's Avatar
    Posts
    1,094
    Like
    15
    Liked 122 Times in 61 Posts
    Blog Entries
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by biggentleben View Post
    You're misunderstanding my statement. My issue has nothing to do with those who vote 10 and still have more they'd like to vote in. I'm in the same boat. My issue is those who do not have a full 10 voted in and yet leave off some first-year guys because "they can't get in on the first year". That's what I have strong issues with. If you have 15 you want tovote in and only 10 spots, you vote for 10 this year, and if they all did get in, you'd vote for the other 5 next year.
    Thanks for clarifying. I agree that withholding a vote for an obviously worthy player in his first year of eligibility just because it's his first year is simply wrongheaded thinking to me, as well. If that was your sole point with regard to "he's in or he isn't," then OK.

    There are others, for me anyway, for whom five years after retirement may not be enough time to provide the context to judge a player. Maybe it's a player who spent most of his best years with a small market team or just really bad teams that kept him from getting my attention the way he would have otherwise. Players that, over time and upon further reflection, measure up better than I thought they did immediately upon showing up on the ballot.

    If we aren't going to allow for voters to change their minds about a guy, we shouldn't have the 15 year eligibility. If you don't go in within the first few years, that's it.
    I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at Knuckleballsblog.com while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for MetroSportsReport.com.

    ~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~

  4. #44
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,606
    Like
    68
    Liked 379 Times in 233 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by biggentleben View Post
    It has nothing to do with Glavine, but thanks for assuming my baseball integrity is so shallow as to only be worried about my team (especially a guy who isn't exactly still on the best terms with the organization after things he said when leaving to the Braves' biggest rival).

    It has everything to do with a guy is either a hall of famer or he's not. The early ballots were making up for nearly a century of baseball having passed already, so there were many guys who didn't get in on first ballot because of that. As it stands currently, that should never be an issue. A guy is in or he's not. Not that tough. Slighting a guy for one year for some sort of "elite" principal is old guard useless.
    But why is it useless? Doesn't it help set Willie Mays, Ted Williams and Nolan Ryan in their own elite class? For those that think the HOF is too inclusive doesn't it help celebrate the very elite from the guys who's merits will always be debated?

  5. #45
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    939
    Like
    42
    Liked 68 Times in 48 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nicksaviking View Post
    But why is it useless? Doesn't it help set Willie Mays, Ted Williams and Nolan Ryan in their own elite class? For those that think the HOF is too inclusive doesn't it help celebrate the very elite from the guys who's merits will always be debated?
    And the true elitists would put Nolan Ryan nowhere near Mays and Williams.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  6. #46
    Mike Mussina isn't getting nearly the respect that he deserves. Compare his overall numbers with Tom Glavine. The numbers besides wins are very comparable and in a few instances Mussina was better. Please note that both pitchers would be on my ballot.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    199
    Like
    0
    Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrylos View Post
    But WAR does indeed have a strong positional component that really favors Catchers, so it is taken into account. I have no issues with the Hall having commemorations of moments (like every no-hitter and perfect game and triple play) and lists of the 10 best on each position or whatever and commemorations of great games (like Morris' game 7). And it does. Maybe it should extend it more. But it does not need to induct all those mediocre to very good players to do this.
    It does have a positional adjustment, but it's also a counting stat. Because of the physical demands of catching, catchers don't play as many games in a season as other position players, even if they stay healthy, and they generally don't play as many seasons. That's not taken into account in the positional adjustment, and I don't think that should be a hinderance to getting the best catchers into the Hall.

  8. #48
    Biggio
    Maddux
    Morris
    Piazza
    Raines
    eventually I would vote for Glavine, Thomas and Walker but not yet.
    Because this got a little run I will explain. Maddux, Biggio and Piazza have to be on my ballot and Raines and Morris get my vote every time they are on the ballot regardless of what I think their chances are. No way Thomas or Glavine go off the ballot and I doubt that Walker ever gets in but I might vote for him just to keep him on and see where it leads. I won't ever vot for the PED crowd so that tarnishes a lot of players. Really IMHO there are only 7 that should go in.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer gil4's Avatar
    Posts
    581
    Like
    146
    Liked 144 Times in 80 Posts
    I'm not sure how well WAR compares across generations. For example, I don't think Ruth was THAT much better than Williams (183.8 vs. 123.2). I think that with the larger talent pool and improved training methods, the difference between the best and replacement level has been shrinking over time. I know there are more teams, but the increased population, the integration or the game, and internationalization have more than offset it.

    Another (bigger) problem is career WAR is basically as counting stat. Looking at who would be in vs who would be out should give you some pause. If Jeter retires now, he's out. Berra' out. Koufax is out - he's in line behind Jimmy Key, Jamie Moyer, and Kenny Rogers. If your methodology says Koufax should be waiting in line behind Kenny Rogers to get into the Hall, you need a new methodology.

  10. #50
    Owner MVP Seth Stohs's Avatar
    Posts
    6,511
    Twitter
    @sethtweets
    Like
    68
    Liked 379 Times in 200 Posts
    Blog Entries
    515
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    Because this got a little run I will explain. Maddux, Biggio and Piazza have to be on my ballot and Raines and Morris get my vote every time they are on the ballot regardless of what I think their chances are. No way Thomas or Glavine go off the ballot and I doubt that Walker ever gets in but I might vote for him just to keep him on and see where it leads. I won't ever vot for the PED crowd so that tarnishes a lot of players. Really IMHO there are only 7 that should go in.
    So, how do you know who is and isn't part of the PED crowd? I mean, by voting for him, you're assuming Biggio didn't, but do you know? How do you know Maddux didn't? OR Morris?

  11. This user likes Seth Stohs's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    biggentleben (11-28-2013)

  12. #51
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,606
    Like
    68
    Liked 379 Times in 233 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Seth Stohs View Post
    So, how do you know who is and isn't part of the PED crowd? I mean, by voting for him, you're assuming Biggio didn't, but do you know? How do you know Maddux didn't? OR Morris?
    I don't have any problem with voters basing their decisions on assumptions. I don't think Thomas, Biggio or Maddox were cheats, but if voters did that's just fine. After all, they could have blown the whistle on those that were but failed to do so. I'm not advocating excluding everyone from this period, but I wouldn't fault someone who did. Even the clean guys are culpable considering they let this happen and we're too cowardly to speak out.

  13. #52
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    939
    Like
    42
    Liked 68 Times in 48 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nicksaviking View Post
    I don't have any problem with voters basing their decisions on assumptions. I don't think Thomas, Biggio or Maddox were cheats, but if voters did that's just fine. After all, they could have blown the whistle on those that were but failed to do so. I'm not advocating excluding everyone from this period, but I wouldn't fault someone who did. Even the clean guys are culpable considering they let this happen and we're too cowardly to speak out.
    Then the writers should also exclude themselves from voting. They had more access than anyone but the players themselves to the activities of the clubhouse, and many writers have come out discussing the covering up that ALL writers did at that time because their readers didn't care about steroids originally because of the big numbers and then even when they turned against steroids, it was only on the players who had poor personality reputations that people wanted to hear about, not that a guy hit 30 home runs for 10 years with steroids, but the guy who hit 70 one season or hit 50+ five seasons and denied usage.

    The writers are as much to blame for the steroid era as the CBA, yet they now believe they hold some moral authority to keep out a guy like Jeff Bagwell or Mike Piazza because they MIGHT have used. Greenies are punishable (like steroids, they were always illegal, but they had no punishment associated with them), yet you don't hear anyone coming down on the careers of Hank, Willie, and the Mick because of their widely known use of greenies during their careers. It's a BS power trip the writers are pulling right now.

    You cannot assume one way or another, and if you didn't report it when you knew, you cannot base a vote on that. You have to simply vote based on the finality of the numbers and "fame" of the player in his own era. In an era where many hitters finished over 500 home runs, perhaps that's not the magic number. Perhaps it's sustained OPS+ and defensive reputation instead of the absurd counting numbers. Perhaps it's measuring something like WPA rather than counting numbers that became inflated in the era, but no matter what the method, because writers were too cowardly to report on who was using in the heyday of steroids, they have lost the ability to be revisionist and keep out anyone based on PED usage. You need to go by the player put in front of you, and PEDs, like greenies, need not be part of that evaluation.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  14. This user likes biggentleben's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    AM. (01-03-2014)

  15. #53
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    939
    Like
    42
    Liked 68 Times in 48 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Pius Jefferson View Post
    Mike Mussina isn't getting nearly the respect that he deserves. Compare his overall numbers with Tom Glavine. The numbers besides wins are very comparable and in a few instances Mussina was better. Please note that both pitchers would be on my ballot.
    Entirely agreed, though he'll have a few things working against him. First, Yankee bias/overload in that many people actively vote against those who have their majority career with the Yankees. He was also often the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher in the Yankee rotation while he was on the team, so he ends up being overlooked as he wasn't the "ace" of his own staff.

    The major downfall for Mussina is the upcoming classes. Maddux/Glavine in this class, but then Randy Johnson, Pedro, and Smoltz next year as well. After that, there's maybe one pitcher a year that will get some consideration, so he might have more luck then. The tough part is the overall classes each season:

    2015 - Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Gary Sheffield, John Smoltz (and everyday Eddie!)
    2016 - Ken Griffey, Jr., Trevor Hoffman, Billy Wagner
    2017 - Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Vlad Guerrero, Jorge Posada, Tim Wakefield
    2018 - Chipper Jones, Jim Thome, Scott Rolen, Omar Vizquel
    2019 - Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte, Todd Helton
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  16. #54
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,606
    Like
    68
    Liked 379 Times in 233 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by biggentleben;
    because writers were too cowardly to report on who was using in the heyday of steroids, they have lost the ability to be revisionist and keep out anyone based on PED usage. You need to go by the player put in front of you, and PEDs, like greenies, need not be part of that evaluation.
    sportswriters may not be ethical, but to claim their silence negates the harm the steroid stain caused our game is wrong. They cheated, they knew they were cheating and they knew if they got caught their entry into the HOF would be compromised. They don't get a pass now. I don't like the non active sportswriters having votes, but I prefer it to fans who would vote based more on sentimentality and hero worship.

  17. #55
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    199
    Like
    0
    Liked 10 Times in 7 Posts
    Bagwell
    Biggio
    Bonds
    Clemens
    Maddux
    Piazza
    Thomas
    Mussina
    Schilling
    Glavine

  18. #56
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    939
    Like
    42
    Liked 68 Times in 48 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nicksaviking View Post
    sportswriters may not be ethical, but to claim their silence negates the harm the steroid stain caused our game is wrong. They cheated, they knew they were cheating and they knew if they got caught their entry into the HOF would be compromised. They don't get a pass now. I don't like the non active sportswriters having votes, but I prefer it to fans who would vote based more on sentimentality and hero worship.
    Of course I don't want fan vote. We've seen what all star games look like, but it is highly hypocritical of the high majority of current HOF voters who were front and center and did nothing during that era. Unless someone was suspended, however, I do not feel you can use PED use against them. Assuming without MLB-backed testing is no different than if Willie Mays had been kept out because someone assumed he was using greenies or Nolan Ryan because someone assumed he was using cocaine. Both were drugs of major problem during their era and they were rumored to be inside circles that did it, so would it make sense to deny them entry? That's why I have issue with denying on assumption, especially with all-timers like Bonds and Clemens.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  19. #57
    Senior Member All-Star Willihammer's Avatar
    Posts
    2,782
    Like
    665
    Liked 384 Times in 214 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Pius Jefferson View Post
    Mike Mussina isn't getting nearly the respect that he deserves. Compare his overall numbers with Tom Glavine. The numbers besides wins are very comparable and in a few instances Mussina was better. Please note that both pitchers would be on my ballot.
    I'm a little surprised because the Moose was a notorious Twinskiller.

    Conveniently he started 33 games against us and went,

    W-L: 22-6
    IP: 230.1
    ERA: 3.09
    SO: 186
    BB: 53
    WHIP: 1.168
    HR allowed: 16
    OPS against: .656

  20. #58
    Senior Member All-Star Willihammer's Avatar
    Posts
    2,782
    Like
    665
    Liked 384 Times in 214 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10
    Some other stats I think are interesting.


    * = 1st year available is 1988, so Morris gets shorted by some of these because he was already 33 by then.

    Also, Clemens threw approximately 750 IP from 1984-1987, but he seems none the worse for wear.

  21. #59
    I think the steroid era has overshadowed players who are worthy like Fred Mcgriff (493 homeruns). Hitting 500 homeruns used to be a BIG deal. Jack Morris won more games in the 1980's then any other pitcher. When it comes to steriods I look at each case differently.

    Craig Biggio
    Tom Glavine
    Greg Maddux
    Fred Mcgriff
    Jack Morris
    Tim Raines
    Lee Smith
    Frank Thomas
    Alan Trammell
    All you need to know about North Dakota:

    Economy is among best in nation because of Oil Boom.
    You can play Blackjack for real money in bars here.
    NDSU Bison good at football.
    University of North Dakota good at Hockey.
    Roger Maris and Phil Jackson (NBA coach) are from here.

  22. #60
    Owner MVP Seth Stohs's Avatar
    Posts
    6,511
    Twitter
    @sethtweets
    Like
    68
    Liked 379 Times in 200 Posts
    Blog Entries
    515
    but should it be a different case for everyone? In my mind, it really should be all of nothing. We can't assume the skinny types didn't do it because most of the guys that have failed tests are not the huge, power hitter types. I can't distinguish who did, or who didn't. You can't say "He's a good guy. He wouldn't." (Pettitte) You can't say he's a big power hitter or power pitcher so he must have.

    That's a big part of why I would just vote for guys with numbers.

  23. These 2 users like Seth Stohs's post and want to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    biggentleben (11-30-2013), Willihammer (12-01-2013)

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.