2014 HoF ballot

[Seth Stohs]

Also, why doesn't Jeff Kent get more HOF buzz? He's only the best offensive 2B in MLB history who played an adequate 2B. he and Biggio, Joe Morgan, Roberto Alomar... those are the top guys, and Kent fits in with them.

 

Then again, Lou Whitaker didn't stay on the ballot for more than one year (maybe 2?) and he was tremendous, so what do I know?

[Thrylos]

Also, why doesn't Jeff Kent get more HOF buzz? He's only the best offensive 2B in MLB history who played an adequate 2B. he and Biggio, Joe Morgan, Roberto Alomar... those are the top guys, and Kent fits in with them.

 

Rogers Hornsby, Charlie Gehringer, Nap Lajoie, Eddie Collins, Frankie Frisch, Joe Morgan, Ryne Sandberg, Jackie Robinson, Bobby Doerr and the Twins' very own Rod Carew might disagree

[kab21]

Also, why doesn't Jeff Kent get more HOF buzz? He's only the best offensive 2B in MLB history who played an adequate 2B. he and Biggio, Joe Morgan, Roberto Alomar... those are the top guys, and Kent fits in with them.

 

Then again, Lou Whitaker didn't stay on the ballot for more than one year (maybe 2?) and he was tremendous, so what do I know?

 

He is a fringy candidate and a complete jerk. As much as people want to make the ballot strictly about WAR there is a lot more to the HOF than just a simple one size fits all stat.

 

My ballot although I could swap a half dozen candidates in at the bottom.

 

Maddux - 2 no doubters

Thomas

 

Clemens - a no doubt top 5 pitcher in his era

Bonds - same argument as Clemens

 

Glavine

Bagwell

Biggio

Piazza

Raines

Trammell - a completely forgotten about player that gets overshadowed on such an impressive list.

 

I feel to generous voting for 10 but there are 2 no doubters along with 2 steroid users that were great players regardless. Additionally guys like Bagwell, biggio and Piazza should have already been voted in but are clogging the ballot. this first ballot election is special is a weak argument. If you want to have a special elite then have a 90% and higher club.

[2wins87]

Based on the 20 posters who actually submitted a ballot so far, we would elect:

 

Maddux (100%)

Glavine (90%)

Biggio (85%)

Piazza (80%)

Thomas (80%)

 

Morris (years), Mattingly and Palmeiro (votes) are off the ballot. Kent, McGriff, McGwire, and Sosa are precariously close to falling off at 5%.

 

Obviously 20 votes isn't a lot and we have different views from the members of the BWAA, but I think this is still instructive. I think Maddux and Biggio get in easily this year, Glavine probably does too, though it'll be close given it's his first ballot. Thomas has an outside shot, but again, it's his first ballot. I'd be surprised if Piazza actually made it in, I think he continues to get the PED suspicion treatment along with Bagwell. I would be shocked if Bonds or Clemens overcame their involvement with PEDs and were elected, which is borne out by this thread.

[snepp]

Here are my 10, listed in rough order of personal conviction.

 

• Barry Bonds

• Greg Maddux

• Roger Clemens

• Jeff Bagwell

• Curt Schilling

• Mike Mussina

• Alan Trammell

• Tom Glavine

• Craig Biggio

• Tim Raines

 

 

Guys I really wanted to vote for, but didn't have room.

 

• Frank Thomas

• Mike Piazza

• Edgar Martinez

• Larry Walker

[Bark's Lounge]

I appreciate the different view points people have on the HOF elections. Some think it should be cut & dry - your either a HOFer or not - on the 1st ballot, some like to vote in the cinches and ruminate a couple of years before they vote in the second tire of definite HOFers, and some will stonewall the players they think cheated.

 

I like the way it works now and I believe it to be effective. The modern voting process leaves a vast area open to personal interpretation and I strongly feel that is important and effective on voting in the worthwhile players. Some players may be wrongly excluded, but no system is perfect, but to me, that is the price that is paid.

 

Bonds and Clemens are two examples of players who I believe would have made it to the HOF without PED's, but after the fact, they always came off as arrogant ***holes, and individuals who were so desperate to have their legacy protected, that they isolated a countrywide fan base with their deception and self-obsession. They both faced legal ramifications, but both came out of it fairly decently.

 

Maybe the OJ Simpson trial is a poor comparison, but Simpson was found innocent of murder in his state trail for murder, but he was found guilty in his civil suit trial.

 

The HOF voting is Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens civil suit trial, and if they eventually lose it, that is justice served.

[DocBauer]

Very interesting thread. And sooooo debate ale I almost want to just stay out of it. Lol

 

This class is overwhelming filled with all-star talent. And without being a cop-out, I truly believe you could make a serious argument for every player on this list as being worthy. (And I will explain further. Please be patient)

 

The problem with selecting a member for any HOF is what criteria you use! Let's be honest, there really isn't any! People are affected by emotion as well as perception. It's not all about numbers.

 

Just for a moment, indulge me and let me make some comparisons. Let's use the NFL for example. Gayle Sayers may have been the most electric and talented talent of his generation. But as we all know, his career was cut tragically short. Yet he is in the HOF and I will not debate his worthiness. And yet, using our own Vikings as an example, Paul Krause was a multiple all-pro and all-NFL player, the all time interception leader, and had to wait more than 20 years to be inducted. Mick Tingelhoff played on FOUR Super Bowl teams, never missed a start in his entire career, retired with the longest active streak in the history of the NFL at that time, and was elected to something like 6 pro bowls, as well as being elected all league 2-3 times. (Not taking the time to look ever fact) He is still waiting. Jim Marshall, years, consecutive games played, sacks, pro bowls, etc, still waiting. Perception?

 

it has been said for years the Koufax made the HOF not for his career, but for his dominance over a period of time. And let's be entirely honest here, no matter how much we all loved Kirby Puckett and his smile, and his gold gloves and his bat, his career was cut tragically short. Do his actual numbers scream HOF? He might be the Gayle Sayers of his sport.

 

Someone smarter and more in touch than me, might have been Costas, spoke about perception and dominance. In other words, someone who was dominant for their era of playing. A player that made you cringe to face. Someone who produced, and was considered at the top of the game for his time. Jim Rice as example?

 

I'm 48. I watched all of these players in their prime. They were all excellent. And while I am not some stubborn or soap-box sportswriter, I do have trouble with roid candidates. And that is what makes lists like this all the harder. Do you simply, arbitrarily dismiss? What do you weigh to be fair?

 

10 votes? OK. In no particular order.

 

Maddux. Easy. Come on now.

 

Raines. The second best lead off hitter of his generation.

 

Clemons. Even if PED's gave him a few extra years of dominance, can anyone dispute his career to that point?

 

Bonds. The poster child for not only PED's, but for also being a perpetual jerk. But again, let's be honest, he was probably a HOFer even before he discovered the cream. Just don't tell me he's the all time HR king. We all know that title still belongs to Mr. Aaron.

 

Thomas. He was called the Big Hurt for a reason and his production more than backs it up.

 

Morris. This is like Blyleven. Are you kidding me? When you think of dominant SP's of his era who else do you think of? 250 wins and 3 championships as the leader for 3 different staffs. You don't think this guy was dominant or made a difference? Oh, a 3.90 ERA in the steroid era. So you can penalize the hitters but not pitchers who had to pitch, with obvious success, against them?

 

Biggio. Again, are you kidding me? Multiple all-star appearances, multiple gold gloves and silver slugger awards while playing 3 different positions over 19 years. Should really be automatic.

 

Glavine. Do you have to ask why?

 

Piazza. Probably the best hitting catcher in all of baseball. 'Nuff said.

 

And now I'm stuck. Lee Smith, Alan Trammel, Fred McGriff, Edgar Martinez?

[Pius Jefferson]

I've never fully understood the he was a Hall of Famer without steroids argument. It sounds like an excuse, and I can personally can't separate Bonds or Clemens from Sosa or Palmeiro.

 

What we would do is different than what the voters will do.

 

My guess is Maddux, Biggio, and Glavine are chosen by the writers and Joe Torre by the Veterans committee.

[DocBauer]

Not the least bit happy with Clemons and his usage, denials and overall attitude. But my goodness could the man pitch. And it couldn't have been usage his whole career could it?

[Shane Wahl]

Greg Maddux

Frank Thomas

Larry Walker

Tim Raines

Jeff Bagwell

Tom Glavine

Mike Piazza

Craig Biggio

[North Dakota Twins Fan]

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.

 

I understand where you are coming from. HOF voter Jayson Stark has a similar view as you. I don't think either one of us are wrong It's just a different opinion. In my mind I do think we should consider each case differently. I would not vote for players who took PED's and reward with a HOF plaque.

This is what I mean by consider cases differently. Some players were caught and suspended(Rafael Palmero), some players have admitted using PED's but were never caught (Mark McGuire). Also I can argue some players would get in regardless if they took PED's or not (Bonds and Clemens). I think each voter has to weigh each case against the "character clause" that is on the ballot and decide how to vote.

[Smcginnity]

You're a senior BBWAA writer, you get 10 votes. How does your ballot look?

 

The candidates:

 

• Jeff Bagwell

• Craig Biggio

• Barry Bonds

• Roger Clemens

• Tom Glavine

• Jeff Kent

• Greg Maddux

• Edgar Martinez

• Don Mattingly

• Fred McGriff

• Mark McGwire

• Jack Morris

• Mike Mussina

• Rafael Palmeiro

• Mike Piazza

• Tim Raines

• Curt Schilling

• Lee Smith

• Sammy Sosa

• Frank Thomas

• Alan Trammell

• Larry Walker

 

http://www.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/greg-maddux-tom-glavine-headline-stacked-baseball-hall-of-fame-ballot?content_id=64183074&partnerId=as_mlb_20131126_14982564&vkey=news_mlb&ymd=20131124

 

Craig Biggio

Frank Thomas

Mark McGwire

Greg Maddux

Barry Bonds

Tom Glavine

Roger Clemens

 

Until VERY recently, I was completely against the steroid era guys getting in. But, now I'm more of the mindset that everyone with influential numbers should get in. I reviewed Jack Morris's numbers and I just don't see how he deserves it (based on numbers). But, I realize he was a stud in big games. I think the above are the most deserving based on numbers. I am NOT a fan of Bagwell and I am probably unique in that aspect. I think striking out a ton is not a sexy stat, hence why I don't like him. I think Biggio and Maddux FOR SURE should be in and then from there...it's up to the voters and their opinions on steroids and other peripherals.

[thetank]

Maddux, Biggio and Thomas. Glavine in the future.

[snepp]

I am NOT a fan of Bagwell and I am probably unique in that aspect. I think striking out a ton is not a sexy stat, hence why I don't like him.

 

Here's something to consider.

 

Bagwell's career strikeout rate was 16.5%.

 

The league strikeout rate during his years in the league was 16.3%.

 

For a power hitter that took a ton of pitches and drew a lot of walks, that's actually a pretty low strikeout rate. If anything his strikeout rate could be used as positive in his favor, rather than against him.

[GCTF]

Bagwell

Biggio

Bonds

Clemens

Glavine

Mussina

Piazza

Maddux

Thomas

Walker

 

Anybody up to adding up the Twins Daily ballots?

[Hawkeye12]

Maddux

Thomas

Glavine

Bonds

Clemens

Bagwell

Biggio

Morris

Raines

Piazza

 

Really want to vote for Mattingly and Trammell knowing Bonds and Clemens are wasted votes in reality, but for this exercise I'll stick with my ten.

[drivlikejehu]

I'm surprised Glavine is close to unanimous. I certainly wouldn't have him on my ballot this year and probably not ever. He didn't have a particularly impressive peak and basically is a lock purely due to longevity and playing for good teams (and thus getting 300 wins). And really his whole career was a byproduct of umpires giving him strikes on pitches 6-8 inches outside at the knees.

[biggentleben]

I'm surprised Glavine is close to unanimous. I certainly wouldn't have him on my ballot this year and probably not ever. He didn't have a particularly impressive peak and basically is a lock purely due to longevity and playing for good teams (and thus getting 300 wins). And really his whole career was a byproduct of umpires giving him strikes on pitches 6-8 inches outside at the knees.

 

6-8 inches? really? wow...

 

A lot of HOF pitchers are in because of longevity and accruing statistics.

[biggentleben]

I'll concede that a Hall of Fame with a Jack Morris 10 inning world series game 7 shutout display and a Mark McGwire-Sammy Sosa HR chase display could be a heck of a lot more interesting than one with say, Rafael Palmeiro... hitting a HR in another hopeless TX playoff loss.

 

edit: Out of curiosity, has anyone actually visited the Hall? I have not.

 

I have not, but I do know through pictures that there is a display of the 1998 HR chase and a Morris/Smoltz game 7 display. Those are really unrelated to the player being in the Hall.

[drivlikejehu]

6-8 inches? really? wow...

 

A lot of HOF pitchers are in because of longevity and accruing statistics.

 

Did you not see him pitch? Glavine typically got an unbelievably wide strike zone; umpires at the time were calling outside pitches in general while not calling the top of the strike zone (MLB has made efforts in recent years to remedy this, with pitch tracking being a key component).

 

But no one took advantage of it like Glavine, who quickly would find the furthest and lowest spot the ump would call, and then proceeded to throw 90%+ of his pitches to that exact spot. If he missed slightly he still got the benefit of the doubt. He was the epitome of Mazzone's 'never give in' philosophy, walking over 3 batters per 9 innings despite having perfect command of his pitches.

 

Of course the Hall has members who only made it due to longevity. But all Glavine has is wins - his ERA, strikeouts, shutouts, etc. are not noteworthy. He pitched a full season's worth of playoffs, producing at the same level but going 14-16 against better competition.

[biggentleben]

Did you not see him pitch? Glavine typically got an unbelievably wide strike zone; umpires at the time were calling outside pitches in general while not calling the top of the strike zone (MLB has made efforts in recent years to remedy this, with pitch tracking being a key component).

 

But no one took advantage of it like Glavine, who quickly would find the furthest and lowest spot the ump would call, and then proceeded to throw 90%+ of his pitches to that exact spot. If he missed slightly he still got the benefit of the doubt. He was the epitome of Mazzone's 'never give in' philosophy, walking over 3 batters per 9 innings despite having perfect command of his pitches.

 

Of course the Hall has members who only made it due to longevity. But all Glavine has is wins - his ERA, strikeouts, shutouts, etc. are not noteworthy. He pitched a full season's worth of playoffs, producing at the same level but going 14-16 against better competition.

 

I'm a lifelong Braves fan. I watched nearly every game he pitched. He did get some extra space, but nothing extra than any other control pitcher could get. It's a matter of having incredible control to hit those spots over and over to make the umpire start calling them. Obviously, he did okay when umpires weren't giving him that corner, which tells you plenty. When he walked a guy, it was often because he wanted to. From 1991-2002 (his age 25-36 seasons with Atlanta), he was second in wins to Maddux, started more games than anyone else, had the 5th most shutouts, 2nd most innings pitched, 6th best ERA, and 6th best ERA+ in an era with the peak of Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, and Greg Maddux also involved in those statistics.

[biggentleben]

Here's the voting so far:

 

IN

Greg Maddux, 100

Craig Biggio, 88.89

Tom Glavine, 88.89

Frank Thomas, 81.48

 

OUT, BUT STILL ON BALLOT

Mike Piazza, 74.07

Barry Bonds, 62.96

Roger Clemens, 62.96

Jeff Bagwell, 59.26

Tim Raines, 48.15

Jack Morris, 29.63

Curt Schilling, 29.63

Mike Mussina, 25.93

Larry Walker, 14.81

Edgar Martinez, 11.11

Mark McGwire, 11.11

Alan Trammell, 11.11

Jeff Kent, 7.41

Lee Smith, 7.41

 

OUT, OFF BALLOT

Fred McGriff, 3.70

Sammy Sosa, 3.70

Don Mattingly, 0

Rafael Palmeiro, 0

[lecroy24fan]

Maddux

Biggio

Thomas

Bagwell

Walker

Glavine

McGriff

Mattingly

Raines

Smith

[Willihammer]

From 1991-2002 (his age 25-36 seasons with Atlanta), he was second in wins to Maddux, started more games than anyone else, had the 5th most shutouts, 2nd most innings pitched, 6th best ERA, and 6th best ERA+ in an era with the peak of Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, and Greg Maddux also involved in those statistics.

 

But should the ~5th best pitcher of his era get into the Hall? How many HoF pitchers are active at any given time? Should that change? Were the 1990s-2000s just a golden era for starting pitching? Does the bar move, or is it fixed?

 

I consulted BB-Ref for some perspective. There've been 69 pitchers voted into the Hall, spanning the seasons 1871-1988. The average career length is 16.9 years. Therefore for any given 12-year stretch (like 1991-2002), you can expect to touch the careers of 7 different HoF pitchers.

 

And according to these figures, Glavine looks to be about the 5th best pitcher from this 12 year stretch. Which, if you believe in a moving bar (and maybe even if you don't), makes him a HoFer.

[gil4]

I have started to vote a couple times - I'll try to finish it this time:

 

Greg Maddux

Craig Biggio

Tom Glavine

Frank Thomas

Barry Bonds

Roger Clemens

Jeff Bagwell

Tim Raines

Alan Trammell

[drivlikejehu]

And according to these figures, Glavine looks to be about the 5th best pitcher from this 12 year stretch. Which, if you believe in a moving bar (and maybe even if you don't), makes him a HoFer.

 

Was he the 5th best pitcher, though? Looking at 1991-2002:

 

Maddux, Johnson, Clemens and Martinez are clearly superior.

 

The next tier would include Schilling, Brown, Mussina, Glavine, and Smoltz, with maybe Cone probably a half step down from that group.

 

Schilling had a far stronger peak and far more dominant post-season performance.

 

Smoltz had a stronger peak and went 15-4 in the postseason with a 2.67 ERA. In 1000 fewer innings he finished with 400 more strikeouts than Glavine. He had basically the same number of complete games in 200 fewer starts.

 

So I think a very strong case can be made that Glavine was the 3rd best pitcher on his own team and maybe roughly tied for #7 with Mussina.

[Bark's Lounge]

No matter anybody's feelings on Tom Glavine - he is definitely a HOFer. Whether he gets voted in next month or 2015 or 2016 - there is nothing anyone can do to stop it... it is a certainty.

 

Circumstances and luck play a great deal into a lot of ballplayer careers. I am sure there are a handful of players with a boat load of talent who ended up with the wrong team, at the wrong time and/or were injured who would have made it to the HOF, but did not. I cannot see the justification in holding good fortune against a baseball player.

 

Greg Maddux is in a league of his own, but I still view Glavine as a stronger candidate for the HOF than John Smoltz and I believe John Smoltz should be in the HOF.

 

Counting stats are still important to most of the BBWAA and I also have a strong affinity for them. Metrics are changing the game, and I think it is a good thing, but not at the cost of destroying baseball tradition and the eye test.

 

Sabremetrics and Old Time Baseball Tradition need to saddle up together, fornicate, and birth a new idealism that exudes the best of both of those worlds.

 

To most in these neck of the woods, Kirby Puckett is a sacred, untouchable baseball deity. Let's say Puckett was up for election in 2014 for the first time, I do not believe he would be elected to the HOF... eventually he would, but not on the first go around.

 

To me that's F***ed up - just like Glavine not being elected on the 1st ballot would be.

[Willihammer]

I messed up. 7 active HoF pitchers in a 12 year span would be a really dry stretch of HoF talent.

 

The correct average is seventeen HoF pitchers will be active in any given 12 year stretch. And at any given moment, there are, on average, 9 pitchers in some phase of their career who will wind up in the HoF. A lot more than I initially calculated.

[Willihammer]

For position players, the Hall is less exclusive. 236 players elected whose careers span 1871-2004. Average career length of 16.6 years. Over two HoF position players break into the MLB each year. There are, on average 30 active HoF position players at any given moment.

 

So each year about 3 HoFers retire (incl. pitchers). Meaning if the Hall is to maintain its current level of exclusivity, they should be electing just 3 players every year.

 

Or to be precise, something like 10 players every 3 years.

[drivlikejehu]

I messed up. 7 active HoF pitchers in a 12 year span would be a really dry stretch of HoF talent.

 

The correct average is seventeen HoF pitchers will be active in any given 12 year stretch. And at any given moment, there are, on average, 9 pitchers in some phase of their career who will wind up in the HoF. A lot more than I initially calculated.

 

You can try to configure the timelines in all kinds of ways. Regardless, there is no basis to argue that the previous rate of admissions is correct - it's just a matter of opinion. I think too many players are in (despite some worthy ones being left out). And either way, a quota system makes zero sense for picking HoF players.