Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Main Forums > Off Topic
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics


View Poll Results: Who should be inducted into the HOF?
Jack Morris 18 25.71%
Jeff Bagwell 34 48.57%
Lee Smith 15 21.43%
Tim Raines 40 57.14%
Alan Trammell 17 24.29%
Edgar Martinez 20 28.57%
Fred McGriff 7 10.00%
Larry Walker 8 11.43%
Mark McGwire 18 25.71%
Don Mattingly 7 10.00%
Dale Murphy 17 24.29%
Rafael Palmeiro 8 11.43%
Bernie Williams 2 2.86%
Barry Bonds 45 64.29%
Roger Clemens 44 62.86%
Mike Piazza 48 68.57%
Curt Schilling 28 40.00%
Kenny Lofton 6 8.57%
Craig Biggio 42 60.00%
Sammy Sosa 9 12.86%
David Wells 0 0%
Steve Finley 0 0%
Julio Franco 1 1.43%
Reggie Sanders 0 0%
Shawn Green 0 0%
Jeff Cirillo 1 1.43%
Woody Williams 0 0%
Rondell White 0 0%
Ryan Klesko 0 0%
Aaron Sele 0 0%
Roberto Hernandez 0 0%
Royce Clayton 0 0%
Jeff Conine 0 0%
Mike Stanton 0 0%
Sandy Alomar 2 2.86%
Jose Mesa 1 1.43%
Todd Walker 0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 70. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-04-2012, 11:31 AM   #51
molson
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew View Post
If it's truly the Hall of "Fame", someone like Jose Mesa will be remembered way longer than a vanilla guy like Biggio.

There is a written criteria, and you can read fame in as being part of it, but not the whole thing

"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

The first and last clause provide a lot of flexibility, but I think they can certainly be read to give consideration to guy who helped his team win big games and World Series', as opposed to just finishing 5th place instead of 7th place.

molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 12:10 PM   #52
lungs
College Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Prairie du Sac, WI
Quote:
Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper View Post
or people who only homer-vote for Jeff Cirillo.

I voted for 9 other guys. Not just Cirillo.
lungs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 12:28 PM   #53
Chief Rum
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
I only put in Royce Clayton.
__________________
.
.

On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest--I will not equivocate--I will not excuse--I will not retreat a single inch-- AND I WILL BE HEARD!!!
Chief Rum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 10:22 AM   #54
Logan
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NYC
According To Exit Polls, Nobody Will Make The Baseball Hall Of Fame
Logan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 10:28 AM   #55
sterlingice
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
Biggio is kindof a joke for not getting in. Piazza should also be in but I suspect the steroid cloud has tainted him, tho he was never really accused. Bagwell with surprisingly high numbers. Maybe he and Biggio make it in next year together: that would be pretty cool.

SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out!

Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!"
Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!"


sterlingice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:48 AM   #56
Atocep
Pro Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tacoma

The most entertaining part of this is Murray Chass' ballot. Jack Morris and only Jack Morris.

He also said that this is his last year voting unless Morris doesn't get in. If that's the case he'll vote for Jack Morris and only Jack Morris again next year and be done with HoF voting.
Atocep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 08:30 AM   #57
Blackadar
Retired
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atocep View Post
The most entertaining part of this is Murray Chass' ballot. Jack Morris and only Jack Morris.

He also said that this is his last year voting unless Morris doesn't get in. If that's the case he'll vote for Jack Morris and only Jack Morris again next year and be done with HoF voting.

Voters like this are why the voting is a joke.
Blackadar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 09:27 AM   #58
Subby
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Shut up, rowech.
Another great case for Schilling over Morris:

Curt Schilling is a Hall of Famer
By Dan Szymborski
Baseball Think Factory


In the past 15 years, a starting pitcher being elected into the Hall of Fame has become an increasingly rare sight. With the steroid cloud hanging over Roger Clemens, the pitcher most likely to be inducted into the Hall of Fame this summer appears to be Jack Morris.

The candidacy of Morris, who has dangled on the precipice of induction in recent years, comes with a strong case: durable pitcher for a long time, ace of his pitching staff, good win-loss record, postseason legend, thought highly of by contemporaries. Only problem is, that's not actually the case for Jack Morris, but for another prominent pitcher on this year's ballot, Curt Schilling.

Running down the Jack Morris case, Curt Schilling's better at being the mythical Jack Morris than the actual Jack Morris ever was. And if any non-Clemens pitcher should get in this year, it's Schilling. Check out this point-by-point breakdown.

Jack Morris, staff ace

Yes, Jack Morris started a lot of Opening Day games (14) over the course of his career. During his run with the Tigers, there just wasn't a whole lot of star power in the rotation, so it's unsurprising that Morris would receive a lot of the Opening Day starts. Pitchers like Dan Petry, Walt Terrell, and a Frank Tanana in the junkballing stage of his career all had their moments, but Morris was generally the most dependable member of the rotation.

But it sounds more impressive than it is. Think about the aces in baseball right now and most people will come up with a similar list of names, including some combination of Justin Verlander, Clayton Kershaw, Felix Hernandez and so on. I'd be willing to bet that almost nobody, when narrowing down the best pitchers in baseball to name the best, considers -- or even knows -- how many Opening Day starts each of the best pitchers in baseball have made. Because it's a crazy method of evaluation that's rarely been used, outside of making Morris look like a credible Hall of Fame candidate.

A better definition of an ace pitcher, a non-controversial one widely used whether you're a stathead or have old-school tendencies, is a durable starting pitcher who keeps the other team from scoring. After all, that's the primary contribution of a pitcher to teams winning baseball games.

Here, Morris fares poorly and Schilling fares extremely well. In the parks and leagues Morris played in over his career, a 4.10 ERA would have been a league-average pitcher. Morris' 3.90 ERA leaves him with an ERA+ of 105. That's a good pitcher, but not a great one. Schilling, on the other hand, had a 3.46 ERA in an era with more offense, when a 4.39 ERA was league average, resulting in an ERA+ of 127. The 563 extra innings Morris threw don't make up the difference, as Schilling would have to throw 563 innings of an 8.36 ERA to come down to Morris' career ERA+. Would anyone suggest pitching like that would enhance his ace status?

Jack Morris, proven winner

As the argument goes, Jack Morris was able to pitch to the score, enabling him to win more games for the Tigers than you would expect from his ERA.

When the record is actually looked at, there's no such evidence that Morris successfully pitched to the score. While he may have attempted to do so, the facts tell a different story. Based on the offenses of his teams and his runs allowed, you would expect to see 251 wins. Instead, he won 254, an extra win that came around less often than presidential elections. In tie games during his career, Morris allowed a .692 OPS, compared to his .693 OPS allowed overall. Morris did win more games than you would expect from his ERA in itself, but that was as a result of the offense. If you want to reward the Tigers' offense, it would make more sense to honor Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker, two players who should've been in the Hall a long time ago.

At 254-186, Morris' .577 career winning percentage ranks 192nd all time. Schilling had fewer wins (216), but also fewer losses (146) and would have go a little below .500 for roughly two more seasons (38-40) to catch Morris in wins and losses.

Jack Morris, postseason legend

Morris, without a doubt, threw one of the most thrilling postseason games of my lifetime, his legendary Game 7 duel against John Smoltz in the 1991 World Series. The problem for Morris' postseason résumé is that taken as a whole, the rest of his playoff performances were considerably less impressive. In 13 career playoff starts, Morris' 3.80 ERA in 92⅓ innings isn't the stuff of legend. He allowed more than two runs in about half his playoff starts (six) and while he should get credit for that Game 7, you can't ignore the other 82⅓ innings of a 4.26 ERA.

Schilling's record, on the other hand, is one of the best in baseball history. An 11-2, 2.23 line in 19 starts is nearly unmatched in postseason history -- only Mariano Rivera has a higher WPA (win probability added) among pitchers. Schilling allowed two or fewer runs in 15 of 18 playoff starts and, as narrative goes, the Bloody Sock game is a ripping good yarn in its own right.

Jack Morris "felt" like a great

One of the common arguments made for Jack Morris is that everybody at the time knew they were looking at a great pitcher, and 25 years later we can't properly understand Morris' contributions. Accepting for the sake of argument that we should look at memories of actual performance over, well, actual performance, there are plenty of objective ways to see what contemporaries thought. Every offseason, the writers at the time, those who supposedly saw his greatness, had the opportunity to vote for the best pitchers that they saw in the previous year. And those writers who allegedly knew him best, generally ranked other pitchers above Morris.

Over his career, tallying up Cy Young votes, Morris accumulated .73 award shares, ranking 76th in the Cy Young era and putting him just ahead of Dontrelle Willis (.70) and Mike Hampton (.68) and well behind contemporaries who never won a Cy Young, such as Dave Stewart (1.22, 43rd) and Jimmy Key (1.25, 41st). Morris never finished higher than third in the Cy Young vote (he did it twice), and while he started three All-Star Games, a total of five All-Star appearances is a weak number for a player whose Hall of Fame case relies on reputation.

Schilling made only six All-Star appearances, but when the contemporaries who saw Schilling pitch were asked to name the greatest pitchers every October, Schilling's name came up a lot more often. He never won the Cy Young award outright, but finished second on three occasions and his 1.85 award shares rank him 18th overall.

The freak stat

In the end, practically every argument for Jack Morris will mention that he had the most pitching wins in a conveniently named decade (the 1980s). This sounds sexier than it actually is, and while it's a testament to his durability, it's also a testament to the coincidence that the best part of Morris' career conveniently fit between a year ending in zero and a year ending in nine. Once you actually look at winningest pitchers over decades that aren't tidily described, pitchers like Paul Derringer and Bucky Walters start to trickle in, making the stat less exciting.

Schilling's freak stat doesn't need any parlor tricks. Since walks became the statistic we know today in 1889, Schilling has the best strikeout-to-walk ratio ever. No contrived qualifications needed. Ever.

Jack Morris played a role in baseball history, but it was a supporting one. Induction into the Hall should represent true greatness. If 2013 ends and Curt Schilling didn't give a speech in a certain small town in upstate New York, it will have been the voting that fell short, not his qualifications.

Dan Szymborski covers baseball for ESPN Insider. He has written about the sport since 2001 for the Baseball Think Factory, where he is an editor. He is also the developer of the ZiPS projection system. You can find his ESPN archives here and follow him on Twitter here.

__________________
Superman was flying around and saw Wonder Woman getting a tan in the nude on her balcony. Superman said I going to hit that real fast. So he flys down toward Wonder Woman to hit it and their is a loud scream. The Invincible Man scream what just hit me in the ass!!!!!
Subby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 07:15 AM   #59
Lathum
Favored Bitch #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Madeira, Oh
Todays the day we get no one in, what a joke.

all these old farts who vote need to be replaced. Anyone who won't put someone on the first ballot out of principale needs to go, what a dumb criteria.

I was listening to Buster Olney today and he said Piazza isn't because some writters feel he took PEDs despite never being linked in any way. If this is where we are at just say no one who played from 1990-2010 can get in and be done with it. Total joke.
Lathum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:10 AM   #60
Bad-example
College Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: san jose CA
I would have voted for Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, Piazza, Trammell, Biggio, Bagwell and Raines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarcone View Post
Jack Morris is a shoe in for me.

What kind of shoe?
Bad-example is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 02:03 PM   #61
spleen1015
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
No one gets in this year.
__________________
Why choose failure when success is an option?
spleen1015 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 02:15 PM   #62
lungs
College Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Prairie du Sac, WI
Jeff Cirillo got zero votes? Bullshit is what that is.
lungs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 02:29 PM   #63
Buccaneer
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
Woo hoo, so happy no one is going in. Perhaps they can start removing those that were undeserving?
Buccaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 02:49 PM   #64
Logan
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer View Post
Woo hoo, so happy no one is going in. Perhaps they can start removing those that were undeserving?

Hopefully you mean the voters.
Logan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 02:56 PM   #65
JediKooter
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego
I hope Kurt Bevacqua is still eligible next year.
__________________
I'm a San Diego Chargers fan, of course I'm an atheist

Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4
JediKooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 03:03 PM   #66
Lathum
Favored Bitch #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Madeira, Oh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer View Post
Woo hoo, so happy no one is going in. Perhaps they can start removing those that were undeserving?

What is your criteria for "undeserving"
Lathum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 03:31 PM   #67
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
My FB friends already know my feelings on this ...

That the outcry is over the absence of Bonds & Clemens rather than the less than 20% showing for Dale Murphy says much about the sorry state of baseball, the media and the country as far as I'm concerned. The criteria is that "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." ... Murf should have gotten in 15 years ago.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis
JonInMiddleGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 03:34 PM   #68
Young Drachma
Dark Cloud
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Looking forward to a flood of self-righteous articles from @officialBBWAA members trying to convince us they were right. Hint: You weren't.
Young Drachma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 03:36 PM   #69
lighthousekeeper
College Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA View Post
My FB friends already know my feelings on this ...

That the outcry is over the absence of Bonds & Clemens rather than the less than 20% showing for Dale Murphy says much about the sorry state of baseball, the media and the country as far as I'm concerned. The criteria is that "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." ... Murf should have gotten in 15 years ago.

Homer:

A. you're 1
B. murph was 102 short
__________________
...
lighthousekeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 03:43 PM   #70
Lathum
Favored Bitch #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Madeira, Oh
When the people who vote for these things start leaving players off because they "think" they are tied to PEDs despite never being investigated, accused, showing up on the Mitchell report, etc...that is when there is a real problem.

The idiot reports should not get to play judge and jury regarding someones involvement in PEDs

Last edited by Lathum : 01-09-2013 at 03:43 PM.
Lathum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 03:45 PM   #71
molson
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
I don't mind the public 'roids guys not getting in, that was the players' choice to fight that battle forever and leave the mess to the writers. I don't know how much it hurt the non-public roids' guys, or if this is more just a case of a lot of potential candidates and writers generally not willing to vote for more than a couple guys, and thus a lot of vote splitting.

Last edited by molson : 01-09-2013 at 04:45 PM.
molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 03:53 PM   #72
Logan
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NYC
I read on another forum that there were at least a few writers who only voted for Jack Morris. Doesn't that tell you the system is completely fucked?
Logan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 03:59 PM   #73
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathum View Post
When the people who vote for these things start leaving players off because they "think" they are tied to PEDs despite never being investigated, accused, showing up on the Mitchell report, etc...that is when there is a real problem.

The idiot reports should not get to play judge and jury regarding someones involvement in PEDs

Is there someone associated with them that you're actually convinced is innocent? Surely not Bonds and/or Clemens. I'll assume you aren't talking about McGwire and/or Palmeiro.

That leaves a couple of obvious candidates I guess: Piazza & Bagwell.
Nate Silver has quantified that possibility based on the ballots that were made public. This chart illustrates the conclusion



But to be honest, I can understand the doubts that (seem to) exist for a fair number of voters. Both guys are right on the edge in my mind (indeed my own vote here had one in, one out). I'm not nearly as upset by their absence as I would be the inclusion of several of the others.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis
JonInMiddleGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 05:10 PM   #74
bhlloy
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Somewhere along the line I have convinced myself that Craig Biggio was far better than he actually was. I was all prepared to have a rant about him being left off but then I look at his stats and achievements and I actually agree he's not a first ballot guy. What do you know
bhlloy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 05:12 PM   #75
Buccaneer
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
No, the undeserving are all those marginal players that shouldn't be in the hall, esp. those voted by the cronies of the vet committee in the 60s and 70s. Some marginal players recently too because once you admit those players, then that opens up the floodgates for hundreds of other players just like them. Only the best, not the very good and not the roofers.
Buccaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 05:31 PM   #76
TRO
College Prospect
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Louisburg, KS
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhlloy View Post
Somewhere along the line I have convinced myself that Craig Biggio was far better than he actually was. I was all prepared to have a rant about him being left off but then I look at his stats and achievements and I actually agree he's not a first ballot guy. What do you know

Why does "first ballot" matter? He either is or isn't a hall of famer.
__________________
TRA, the Royal Ape
TRO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 05:46 PM   #77
bhlloy
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRO View Post
Why does "first ballot" matter? He either is or isn't a hall of famer.

It matters to the voters which means it matters quite a bit
bhlloy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 06:20 PM   #78
lungs
College Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Prairie du Sac, WI
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA View Post
My FB friends already know my feelings on this ...

That the outcry is over the absence of Bonds & Clemens rather than the less than 20% showing for Dale Murphy says much about the sorry state of baseball, the media and the country as far as I'm concerned. The criteria is that "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." ... Murf should have gotten in 15 years ago.

Is the Dale Murphy argument one of those "you had to be there to understand" arguments? My first year of baseball awareness was 1988, the year he kind of fell off a cliff. It's hard for me to say that a guy that wasn't anything special or downright terrible after age 31 is Hall of Fame worthy.

Of course I have a sneaking suspicion that Dale Murphy is the epitome of what you consider to be the glory days of your baseball memories?
lungs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 06:28 PM   #79
Alan T
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mass.
Dale Murphy when you watched him in the mid 1980s you knew that you were watching one of the best players in the game, period. He had great character both on and off the field and there really was not much that could be said bad about him. He had good speed, good glove and a good bat. Despite being on one of the worst teams in baseball he still received national notice for his high calibre of play.

What he has against him is his career tailed off right when the lively ball era picked up in the late 1980s. He never played for a real winning team other than a few years when joe torre managed the braves and the biggest issue is the depressed stats for that era of players. None of the best players of that era really had outstanding stats such as Murphy, Dawson, bell, etc unless they played a very long career.

So maybe it was a case of you had to be there, but in the mid 1980s there was no question of if Murphy would make the hall, just when would he.
__________________
Couch to ??k - From the couch to a Marathon in roughly 18 months.


Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 06:32 PM   #80
rowech
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs View Post
Is the Dale Murphy argument one of those "you had to be there to understand" arguments? My first year of baseball awareness was 1988, the year he kind of fell off a cliff. It's hard for me to say that a guy that wasn't anything special or downright terrible after age 31 is Hall of Fame worthy.

Of course I have a sneaking suspicion that Dale Murphy is the epitome of what you consider to be the glory days of your baseball memories?

Heard something interesting. In 1999, Murphy had 19% in his second year, Blyleven had only 14% in his first year. In 2000, Jack Morris had his first year and had 22%. Murphy had 23% and Blyleven had 17%.

Which one got in and which ones aren't going to?
rowech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 06:36 PM   #81
frnk55
High School JV
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Murph was my favorite player back in the 80's next to Kirby. Great career but imo I don't think he should be in the Hall.
frnk55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 06:46 PM   #82
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs View Post
Is the Dale Murphy argument one of those "you had to be there to understand" arguments?

I think Alan T's comment about how at the time it wasn't a question of if but simply just a matter of when kinda describes it as well as anything.

Quote:
Of course I have a sneaking suspicion that Dale Murphy is the epitome of what you consider to be the glory days of your baseball memories?

Eh, although it's a fair question IMO, that'd probably be a stretch in my case. If you absolutely pinned me down to a specific timeframe for the absolute height of my baseball memories/fandom it would likely be the Garvey-Lopes-Russell-Cey era in Los Angeles, so more like 74-80 (ages 7-13 for me). Murphy was only a 3rd year starter in '80 and was still a couple of years away from his first MVP season.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis
JonInMiddleGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 06:52 PM   #83
Glengoyne
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan T View Post
...

So maybe it was a case of you had to be there, but in the mid 1980s there was no question of if Murphy would make the hall, just when would he.

I felt the same way about Will Clark during that era.
__________________
Pain is temporary. Quitting lasts forever. -- Lance Armstrong
Glengoyne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 07:06 PM   #84
tarcone
Pro Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pacific,MO
Stupid. There are plenty of HOFers in this group. I always think of a layer that is dominant for at least 5 years straight. Maybe thats not a great criteria. But if a player can dominate his contemporaries for, at least, half a decade (Sandy Koufax, anyone?) then thats a hall of famer. OR a player that excelled at his postition as compared to HOFers.
Either one works for me.
__________________
Im getting tired of saying this, Wait till next year, Kodos.

Last edited by tarcone : 01-09-2013 at 07:06 PM.
tarcone is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 07:17 PM   #85
rowech
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarcone View Post
Stupid. There are plenty of HOFers in this group. I always think of a layer that is dominant for at least 5 years straight. Maybe thats not a great criteria. But if a player can dominate his contemporaries for, at least, half a decade (Sandy Koufax, anyone?) then thats a hall of famer. OR a player that excelled at his postition as compared to HOFers.
Either one works for me.

Five years isn't very long enough by any means. Strawberry, Gooden, Eric Davis and some others would be in.

If you're doing time, I think you need an 8-10 year period of greatness. That takes most guys from youth through their prime and into the swoon or gives a late bloomer through the end of their time. Or, you need 15 years of being really good.

I also think guys should face a quick test and that is what's your first reaction? Most guys would be a clear case one way or another.
rowech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 07:23 PM   #86
oykib
College Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
If they don't want to put in any PED guys, I guess that's okay (actually , it's pretty stupid). But, if that's the case, I don't want to see any executives, league officials or journalists from that era go in either. They were all complicit in the steroid/HGH thing.
oykib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 07:29 PM   #87
Atocep
Pro Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tacoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logan View Post
I read on another forum that there were at least a few writers who only voted for Jack Morris. Doesn't that tell you the system is completely fucked?

All those people did was make it harder for Morris to get in. With no one getting in this year and Maddux, Glavine, Frank Thomas, Mike Mussina on the ballot next year it's going to be an incredibly stacked ballot.
Atocep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 07:30 PM   #88
rowech
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by oykib View Post
If they don't want to put in any PED guys, I guess that's okay (actually , it's pretty stupid). But, if that's the case, I don't want to see any executives, league officials or journalists from that era go in either. They were all complicit in the steroid/HGH thing.

I wrote something similar to this on another board. The press sure is suddenly all about their morality, etc. but while this was going on, where was the journalism? The hard reporting? Making sure the story gets out? Now they suddenly care.
rowech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 07:50 PM   #89
Mizzou B-ball fan
General Manager
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
What should the MLB Hall of Fame be? - ESPN
Mizzou B-ball fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:15 PM   #90
AENeuman
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SF
I am with the many in this country who are dismayed how little our All Star voting figured into this...
AENeuman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:25 PM   #91
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
Anybody else notice that the writers are getting all this heat & yet the informal voting here also failed to produce a candidate over 68% either?

The writers had 5 players over 50%, FOFC had 5 players over 50%, agreeing on three of those. (They had Morris & Bagwell, we had Bonds & Clemens).

Even with what is pretty clearly (based on the percentages) a very lenient group here, nobody even cracked 70% ... so how far off are the writers really?
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis
JonInMiddleGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:31 PM   #92
Buccaneer
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by AENeuman View Post
I am with the many in this country who are dismayed how little our All Star voting figured into this...

Not sure if serious?
Buccaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:33 PM   #93
oykib
College Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA View Post
Anybody else notice that the writers are getting all this heat & yet the informal voting here also failed to produce a candidate over 68% either?

The writers had 5 players over 50%, FOFC had 5 players over 50%, agreeing on three of those. (They had Morris & Bagwell, we had Bonds & Clemens).

Even with what is pretty clearly (based on the percentages) a very lenient group here, nobody even cracked 70% ... so how far off are the writers really?

The difference is that the writers are the ones that created the logjam. Let's go back and revise the list based on guys who should be in the Hall already. For example, give us last year's list and I'm pretty sure Bagwell and Raines are off it already.
oykib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 09:01 PM   #94
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by oykib View Post
The difference is that the writers are the ones that created the logjam. Let's go back and revise the list based on guys who should be in the Hall already. For example, give us last year's list and I'm pretty sure Bagwell and Raines are off it already.

Here's last year's actual voting, I honestly don't think it changes the outcome here one bit this year. Might have been worth a few percentage points but not enough to push anyone over 75%.

We had 435 votes cast here this time by 70 voters, averaging just over 6 per person. That's not an indication that too many people were wishing they had room to vote for more guys (I myself voted for 5, certainly no statistical outlier)
2012 Hall of Fame Voting - Baseball-Reference.com
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis
JonInMiddleGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 09:08 PM   #95
Big Fo
Pro Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
I failed to notice the rules and actually voted for 13 this year. Still better than someone who votes for Jack Morris and Jack Morris only imo.
Big Fo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 10:43 PM   #96
AENeuman
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SF
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer View Post
Not sure if serious?

Taking the high road is pretty easy after the low road is washed out/up.
AENeuman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 11:05 PM   #97
molson
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan View Post

It's so difficult to write about the HOF and criteria because the arguments tend to just be circular, "you can't have a HOF without X!"

In that article, he goes with:

"Do we really want to look up, 10 or 20 years from now, and find we've constructed a Hall of Fame that doesn't include:

(Lists a bunch of known steroid freaks, Mike Piazza, and for good measure, Pete Rose)"

What does that even mean? Will my life not be complete if I "look up" 20 years form now and see that Barry Bonds isn't in the HOF? Somehow, I think I'll manage. I'll say, "ya, he's not in the HOF because he cheated and pissed everyone off, it was a dark decade for baseball that isn't remembered well, most of those guys didn't end up getting in". Makes sense to me. Do we really need a "long, serious national conversation" about this (actual quote). It's an honor voted on by humans who have various critera and those guys didn't fit the bill. Maybe some of them will get in later. I have trouble understanding the idea that some people just HAVE to have this particular honor or its some kind of disaster. Bonds took a ton of drugs, it became known, he was very unpopular (for that and because of his personality), so he doesn't get honored. Fantastic. They don't get the votes, they don't get the votes. There's no one particular inherent correctness of voting that people have to comply with for the stars to align and for the world to make sense. The guys who vote don't want to honor them. It's their little club. Maybe some other group can invite Barry and Roger to a big banquette and they can give them a shiny plaque. That private club can have different opinions than this private club. It's all good.

Edit: And Stark and a lot of people also have severe butt-hurt about the idea that we can't know with 100% certainty who's a cheater and who isn't, so therefore we shouldn't punish anyone. Interesting theory, but I hope we never try it in real life. Do you know how many unpunished criminals are walking around? How many unknown cheaters there are competing in every sport today? How many teams and organizations play fast and loose with salary cap or recruiting rules without being detected? Life doesn't have a lot of "100%s". You sure as heck aren't going to pull that off in a Human-voting HOF. You just have to give up the idea. You're not going to have 500 voters who think exactly the same about everything. And that's not a terrible thing.

Last edited by molson : 01-09-2013 at 11:18 PM.
molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 12:06 AM   #98
LloydLungs
College Prospect
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Metairie, LA
Selfishly I was hoping Biggio would get in -- I've only been to 20 or so MLB games, but I was in attendance for his major league debut. What are the odds of seeing a Hall-of-Famer's debut with so few chances?

And sorry Aaron Sele, even though you somehow got an actual vote from an actual voter, I'm still going to confuse you with Jason Bere in perpetuity.
LloydLungs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 12:29 AM   #99
larrymcg421
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
If I made a Venn diagram of things molson, Jon, and I all agree on, this thread would probably constitute the entirety of the very narrow overlapping section.
__________________
"If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you." - Isaac Jaffee, Sports Night

Tracking Shots: A Movie Review Blog
larrymcg421 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 06:58 AM   #100
sterlingice
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LloydLungs View Post
Selfishly I was hoping Biggio would get in -- I've only been to 20 or so MLB games, but I was in attendance for his major league debut. What are the odds of seeing a Hall-of-Famer's debut with so few chances?

I'm sure he'll be in and it will probably be next year. I'd really like to have seen him go in with Bagwell this year so they could have an "all-Houston" Hall of Fame before some of the bigger guns of the next few years start going in.

SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out!

Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!"
Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!"


sterlingice is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 AM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.