Hall of Fame Ballot is out

LivnLegend · 12-11-2002, 12:38 PM

I haven't seen this posted here so thought I'd throw it out. Always good for a debate

It's that time again. The ballot for the Hall of Fame is in the hands of the voters. Here's who we have on the board:

(x-first time eligible)
Bert Blyleven, x-Brett Butler, Gary Carter, x-Vince Coleman, Dave Concepcion, x-Darren Daulton, x-Mark Davis, Andre Dawson, x-Sid Fernandez, Steve Garvey, Rich Gossage, Keith Hernandez, x-Rick Honeycutt, x-Danny Jackson, Tommy John, Jim Kaat, x-Darryl Kile, Don Mattingly, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, x-Eddie Murray, Dave Parker, x-Tony Pena, Jim Rice, x-Ryne Sandberg, x-Lee Smith, Bruce Sutter, x-Danny Tartabull, x-Mickey Tettleton, Alan Trammell, x-Fernando Valenzuela, x-Mitch Williams, x-Todd Worrell.

Sort of a weak class.

My ballot:
Eddie Murray – can’t argue much with 500 HR and the 3,000 hits
Bert Blyleven- 287 wins, 3700Ks, 60 shutouts. If not for those horrible Twins teams of the 70's, he'd have the magical 300 wins
Steve Garvey – Yea, my homer pick. I know he’ll never make it in on the writer’s vote but he'll always have my vote

I'm on the fence:
Lee Smith – 478 saves; not first ballot but maybe down the line
Andre Dawson – only guys with more RBI than him not in the Hall (who are eligible) are Murray and Baines

Delgadodawg · 12-11-2002, 12:55 PM

Gary Carter!---He is my Steve Garvey choice

Old Man · 12-11-2002, 12:59 PM

I have to agree Gary Carter somewhere in the mix. Last year he was only a few votes short if I remember right. Eddie Murray had such a good career and is worthy.

Delgadodawg · 12-11-2002, 01:04 PM

I would also vote for Murray, Blyleven and Dawson.

I am not a big fan of Murray, I think he was a good hitter, but his stats have a lot to do with longevity. I never thought of him as one of the premier players in the league.

Having said that, like Legend said you can't really argue with his numbers.

LivnLegend · 12-11-2002, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Delgadodawg
I would also vote for Murray, Blyleven and Dawson.

I am not a big fan of Murray, I think he was a good hitter, but his stats have a lot to do with longevity. I never thought of him as one of the premier players in the league.

Well the same could be said for Blyleven I guess.
Blyleven never led the league in wins, never won a Cy Young, and only led the league in strikeouts (his forte) only once (a side affect of playing much of his career during the same era as Nolan Ryan's prime).

Murray never won the MVP or batting title and I think he only led the league in HR during the abbreviated strike year of '81. Plus, he was a dick.
Despite that, those lifetime totals (hits, home runs) have yet to be ignored by voters.

D-Dawg, Appreciate your "Garvey vote" for Cater but I think he stands a much better chance than Garv of getting in although I am not sure why. I guess simply because of the position Carter played.

ScottFalk · 12-11-2002, 01:38 PM

Murray
Blyleven
Concepcion - Should be in. Combination of hitting and fielding that was not seen back then.

Vida Blue · 12-11-2002, 02:20 PM

Definitely Blyleven and Murray and Rose if MLB lets him in.

Hammer755 · 12-11-2002, 02:38 PM

My actual votes:
Eddie Murray - I'm almost hesitant to include Murray, as I feel the HOF if for 'Great' players, while Murray was only 'Very Good'. However, I will make an exception since Murray was very good and very consistent over a very long period of time and racked up 500 HR in the process, as well as 8 AS games, 8 MVP Top 10's, and 3 Gold Gloves. Most players cannot sustain that level of play for so many years (between 77 and 96, never had less than 76 RBI in a season, and broke 80 all but 3 years and surpassed 90 12 times).

Ryne Sandberg - I'm surprised there hasn't been more support for Ryno. He was the best 2B in the game for almost the entirety of his career. He's a no-brainer in my opinion with 10 AS appearances, 9 GG, an MVP and 2 other Top 5 finishes.

My sentimental vote:
Dale Murphy - If we can keep guys out for being jerks, why can't Murphy get in for being such a good person, not to mention such a good player. The opposite of Murray, Murphy was dominant for about 5-7 years with back-to-back MVP's, 5 GG, and 7 ASG's, and was mediocre from then on out. I've mentioned this before, but he retired mid-season with 398 HR, rather than hang around just to hit 400 and reach that magical milestone (I'm looking right at you Jose Canseco!!!).

My close but no cigar votes:
Gary Carter - One of the better catchers to play the game, but not an 'Elite' player, in my opinion. Came close last year, but probably missed his best chance, although with this year's weak class he may slip in. 11 All-Star Games, 3 Gold Gloves, and 4 Top 10 MVP seasons may be enough to get him in, however.

Bert Blyleven - Similar to Murray, only Blyleven was just 'Good' for an extended period, not 'Very Good'. Many people say he had the best curveball of all time, but that should have no bearing on the vote one way or the other. Barely a 0.500 pitcher (only 2 All-Star appearances), which is the same argument that went against Nolan Ryan, the only difference was that Ryan had all those K's and won 300 games. If you take Blyleven, then you've got to take Kaat as well.

Andre Dawson - Similar to Murray's career with added SB, but his average season was not as good as Murray's. Take away his monster 1987 and his numbers are not that eye-popping, although he did win 8 GG and make 8 All-Star appearances, and finished second in the MVP balloting twice in addition to the one he won.

Lee Smith - How do you rate closers? Who knows really? He has the saves record going for him, but almost every team now has a closer as good as Smith was, so that detracts greatly from his value.

Allan Trammell - 6 All-Star appearances, 4 Gold Gloves, a WS MVP, and finished in the Top 10 in MVP balloting 3 times, which says that he was among the best at his position in his era. Hit 0.285, finished in the Top 10 in hitting 5 times, and over 1000 RBI in a time when SS didn't contribute much offensively.

sixto · 12-11-2002, 02:51 PM

My ballot started with Blyleven, Carter, John, Kaat, Murray, Rice, Sandberg on it. First to go were Tommy John and Jim Kaat. They have good cases - low career ERAs, good winning pcts, 288 and 283 wins, pitched effectively to age 45 and 43. low SO and poor H/IP ratios soured me on both. Very similar careers. In similarity scores, every pitcher they're similar to is a borderline HOFer. Too borderline.

Then I took out Rice. To me he had a sustained career of greatness and his '77-'79 stretch was one of the greatest 3-year stretches in the last 50 years. But I just wasn't feeling it. He's a HOFer to me, but not this year.

Then Sandberg. Just because Bobby Doerr was voted in - long after his career was over - doesn't mean Sandberg is a first-ballot player. In my opinion he will be one of the weakest first-ballot HOFers ever this year. He was a great player and has a HOF case. But not as a first-year nominee.

I went with Murray, Carter and Blyleven, whose SO and H/IP numbers, as well as his ability to win on bad teams, made the difference for me.

I love HOF discussions.

Hammer755 · 12-11-2002, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixto

Then I took out Rice. To me he had a sustained career of greatness and his '77-'79 stretch was one of the greatest 3-year stretches in the last 50 years. But I just wasn't feeling it. He's a HOFer to me, but not this year.

Then Sandberg. Just because Bobby Doerr was voted in - long after his career was over - doesn't mean Sandberg is a first-ballot player. In my opinion he will be one of the weakest first-ballot HOFers ever this year. He was a great player and has a HOF case. But not as a first-year nominee.

I love HOF discussions.

I love HOF discussions too, which leads me to inevitably ask this question every time it's discussed. Why is a player a HOF'er one year and not another? Will Sandberg's numbers change one iota between now and next year, or five years down the road. The HOF qualifications should be the same now, or 10 years from now.

Now I understand that a change in era forces you to look at players and especially stats differently, but the era won't change between now and when you think Rice deserves to be enshrined.

ziimalan · 12-11-2002, 03:10 PM

why is Kile on there? Just because he died doesnt make him good enough to be in the hall of fame

Hammer755 · 12-11-2002, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ziimalan
why is Kile on there? Just because he died doesnt make him good enough to be in the hall of fame

See this thread.

Basically, the eligibility rule for the HOF is that anyone who plays 10 years in the league is eligible to be placed on the ballot. If an active player dies, and fulfills the 10 year rule, which Kile did, he is immediately placed on the ballot.

holyroller · 12-11-2002, 03:19 PM

My two cents:
Bert Blyleven
Gary Carter
Rich Gossage
Eddie Murray
Ryne Sandberg
Alan Trammell

spleen1015 · 12-11-2002, 03:31 PM

Eddie Murray.

That's all.

The Professor · 12-11-2002, 03:32 PM

I can't add anything more insightful than what these fine posters have done above, so:

Murray - for reasons already stated...
Blyleven - " "
Kaat - Because if you put The Dutchman in, you have to put him in, too, IMO
Ryno - Ick! He's a Cub...but...

and

Rich Gossage - I would give the vote to The Goose well before Lee Smith. Rollie Fingers is in and Gossage was, in an era when closers pitched more than 1 inning, simply the most dominant for a good stretch of time. Sure, the closers of today are racking up numbers that make Goose like rather plain...but he is my "Garvey" vote.

Dale Murphy also gets a "Garvey" vote -- what a great guy and perhaps the best player in baseball for that magical stretch over the mid-80s.

Sitting the Fence:

Carter
Morris

sixto · 12-11-2002, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hammer755
Now I understand that a change in era forces you to look at players and especially stats differently, but the era won't change between now and when you think Rice deserves to be enshrined.

Yeah, I usually try to be an empirical thinker but I confess, in this case I allowed myself to be sentimental, which is I guess kind of some of the fun of the HOF. Also, I didn't take another look at Rice's stats before I voted this year. If I had I probably would have kept him on my ballot. But something kept me from looking and there's something to that.

As for Sandberg, I think I'm just trying to respect history. There are a lot of truly great players in the HOF who didn't go first ballot, and for Sandberg to do it to me is just not ideal. Since the HOF doesn't distinguish between Mike Schmidt and Bobby Doerr, it's as if keeping someone off the ballot for a period is the only way of differentiating the greatest from the merely great.

Hammer755 · 12-11-2002, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixto
Yeah, I usually try to be an empirical thinker but I confess, in this case I allowed myself to be sentimental, which is I guess kind of some of the fun of the HOF. Also, I didn't take another look at Rice's stats before I voted this year. If I had I probably would have kept him on my ballot. But something kept me from looking and there's something to that.

As for Sandberg, I think I'm just trying to respect history. There are a lot of truly great players in the HOF who didn't go first ballot, and for Sandberg to do it to me is just not ideal. Since the HOF doesn't distinguish between Mike Schmidt and Bobby Doerr, it's as if keeping someone off the ballot for a period is the only way of differentiating the greatest from the merely great.

But the HOF also doesn't differentiate between first-ballot HOF'ers and otherwise, either. It's like you're saying that Sandberg is a second-tier HOF'er, when in reality there isn't such a thing. A player is either a Hall of Famer or not.

Please don't think that I'm trying to mock your thought process either. The majority of voters think exactly the way that you do, that there are players worthy of first-ballot enshrinement, and those that aren't, but are still Hall of Famers. I just have the opposite opinion, that a player is either a HOF'er or not, and his status shouldn't change based on time elapsed.

LivnLegend · 12-11-2002, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hammer755
Why is a player a HOF'er one year and not another? Will Sandberg's numbers change one iota between now and next year, or five years down the road. The HOF qualifications should be the same now, or 10 years from now.

I agree with this point except in the case of Lee Smith and relief pitchers. As you can see above, for Smith I said maybe down the line he goes in, but not first ballot. I think the measure of closers has not fully been established although I think it is getting clearer. Manager tendencies in regard to relievers has become pretty streamlined these days. When Thigpen set the saves record, at that point it was unclear what the benchmark should be for truly great relievers. Would 400 saves be something that any decent closer would get? At the time some thought so. Long gone are the (somewhat recent) days of Bruce Sutter leading the league with 28 saves. At the same time, we are not going to see every good reliever hit 400 saves. Hoffman should do it. Nen could. After that, who knows? Guys like Beck and Wetteland were just rolling along, grabbing 40 saves per year until they burned out (injury or otherwise).

As for Sandberg, I left him off my list because I have never felt he was that much better than Whitaker. Sandberg had the MVP, but Whitaker has a World Series ring. Outside of that, they are very, very similar players, both offense and defense. Whitaker is no Hall of Famer, why would Sandberg be one?

sixto · 12-11-2002, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hammer755
I just have the opposite opinion, that a player is either a HOF'er or not, and his status shouldn't change based on time elapsed.

I respect your opinion. I guess I do feel like Sandberg is a 2nd tier guy. At the same time I'd rather let him in than keep him out.

Also, stats do change over time. Bill James has mentioned that Dick Allen's reputation will eventually fade into the background and all that will be left is his stats, and they will look too good to leave out. In the case of Kaat and Bunning and Tommy John, key stats like ERA and W are all that's going to be left of them soon, and the fact that they were never the most feared pitchers of their day will be gone.

Someday Ryne Sandberg's ability to turn a DP or stretch a 2B to a 3B will be gone, and his numbers will be all that's left, and they will look different then.

blubbla · 12-11-2002, 05:32 PM

Here's my votes:

Gary Carter: A gamer, played well at his peak, stayed in the lineup, numbers mirror Fisk.

Eddie Murray: Got the magic numbers, that's enough for me.

Ryne Sandberg: Best 2B of our time with the bat, no slouch in the field, catalyst of the Cubs '84 and '89 division title winners. He may have hurt his chances a bit with his '96-'97 comeback.

Andre Dawon: "Garvey vote" for me. I think his combination of speed, power, and leadership speaks for itself. And if his knees weren't shot from all those years in Montreal...

and of course ... I'd write in Pete Rose.

12-11-2002, 12:38 PM	#1
LivnLegend Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: 100% pure adrenaline! Posts: 5,624	Hall of Fame Ballot is out I haven't seen this posted here so thought I'd throw it out. Always good for a debate It's that time again. The ballot for the Hall of Fame is in the hands of the voters. Here's who we have on the board: (x-first time eligible) Bert Blyleven, x-Brett Butler, Gary Carter, x-Vince Coleman, Dave Concepcion, x-Darren Daulton, x-Mark Davis, Andre Dawson, x-Sid Fernandez, Steve Garvey, Rich Gossage, Keith Hernandez, x-Rick Honeycutt, x-Danny Jackson, Tommy John, Jim Kaat, x-Darryl Kile, Don Mattingly, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, x-Eddie Murray, Dave Parker, x-Tony Pena, Jim Rice, x-Ryne Sandberg, x-Lee Smith, Bruce Sutter, x-Danny Tartabull, x-Mickey Tettleton, Alan Trammell, x-Fernando Valenzuela, x-Mitch Williams, x-Todd Worrell. Sort of a weak class. My ballot: Eddie Murray – can’t argue much with 500 HR and the 3,000 hits Bert Blyleven- 287 wins, 3700Ks, 60 shutouts. If not for those horrible Twins teams of the 70's, he'd have the magical 300 wins Steve Garvey – Yea, my homer pick. I know he’ll never make it in on the writer’s vote but he'll always have my vote I'm on the fence: Lee Smith – 478 saves; not first ballot but maybe down the line Andre Dawson – only guys with more RBI than him not in the Hall (who are eligible) are Murray and Baines __________________ Excess ain't rebellion. You're drinking what they're selling.

12-11-2002, 12:59 PM	#3
Old Man Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 464	I have to agree Gary Carter somewhere in the mix. Last year he was only a few votes short if I remember right. Eddie Murray had such a good career and is worthy. __________________ Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983 "All the fat guys watch me and say to their wives, 'See, there's a fat guy doing okay. Bring me another beer.'" -Mickey Lolich

12-11-2002, 01:38 PM	#6
ScottFalk Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 73	Murray Blyleven Concepcion - Should be in. Combination of hitting and fielding that was not seen back then. __________________ Scott MLB1966-Philadelphia Phillies MBBL-Salt Lake City Missions PWBL-St Louis Cardinals

12-11-2002, 02:20 PM	#7
Vida Blue Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Greater Reich of Ontario Posts: 324	Definitely Blyleven and Murray and Rose if MLB lets him in. __________________ "The only way I'm going to get a Gold Glove is with a can of spray paint." - Reggie Jackson

12-11-2002, 02:38 PM	#8
Hammer755 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 2,348	*My actual votes:* Eddie Murray - I'm almost hesitant to include Murray, as I feel the HOF if for 'Great' players, while Murray was only 'Very Good'. However, I will make an exception since Murray was very good and very consistent over a very long period of time and racked up 500 HR in the process, as well as 8 AS games, 8 MVP Top 10's, and 3 Gold Gloves. Most players cannot sustain that level of play for so many years (between 77 and 96, never had less than 76 RBI in a season, and broke 80 all but 3 years and surpassed 90 12 times). Ryne Sandberg - I'm surprised there hasn't been more support for Ryno. He was the best 2B in the game for almost the entirety of his career. He's a no-brainer in my opinion with 10 AS appearances, 9 GG, an MVP and 2 other Top 5 finishes. *My sentimental vote:* Dale Murphy - If we can keep guys out for being jerks, why can't Murphy get in for being such a good person, not to mention such a good player. The opposite of Murray, Murphy was dominant for about 5-7 years with back-to-back MVP's, 5 GG, and 7 ASG's, and was mediocre from then on out. I've mentioned this before, but he retired mid-season with 398 HR, rather than hang around just to hit 400 and reach that magical milestone (I'm looking right at you Jose Canseco!!!). *My close but no cigar votes:* Gary Carter - One of the better catchers to play the game, but not an 'Elite' player, in my opinion. Came close last year, but probably missed his best chance, although with this year's weak class he may slip in. 11 All-Star Games, 3 Gold Gloves, and 4 Top 10 MVP seasons may be enough to get him in, however. Bert Blyleven - Similar to Murray, only Blyleven was just 'Good' for an extended period, not 'Very Good'. Many people say he had the best curveball of all time, but that should have no bearing on the vote one way or the other. Barely a 0.500 pitcher (only 2 All-Star appearances), which is the same argument that went against Nolan Ryan, the only difference was that Ryan had all those K's and won 300 games. If you take Blyleven, then you've got to take Kaat as well. Andre Dawson - Similar to Murray's career with added SB, but his average season was not as good as Murray's. Take away his monster 1987 and his numbers are not that eye-popping, although he did win 8 GG and make 8 All-Star appearances, and finished second in the MVP balloting twice in addition to the one he won. Lee Smith - How do you rate closers? Who knows really? He has the saves record going for him, but almost every team now has a closer as good as Smith was, so that detracts greatly from his value. Allan Trammell - 6 All-Star appearances, 4 Gold Gloves, a WS MVP, and finished in the Top 10 in MVP balloting 3 times, which says that he was among the best at his position in his era. Hit 0.285, finished in the Top 10 in hitting 5 times, and over 1000 RBI in a time when SS didn't contribute much offensively. Last edited by Hammer755; 12-11-2002 at 02:43 PM.

12-11-2002, 12:55 PM	#2
Delgadodawg All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Vancouver Posts: 800	Gary Carter!---He is my Steve Garvey choice

12-11-2002, 01:04 PM	#4
Delgadodawg All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Vancouver Posts: 800	I would also vote for Murray, Blyleven and Dawson. I am not a big fan of Murray, I think he was a good hitter, but his stats have a lot to do with longevity. I never thought of him as one of the premier players in the league. Having said that, like Legend said you can't really argue with his numbers.

12-11-2002, 02:51 PM	#9
sixto Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,271	My ballot started with Blyleven, Carter, John, Kaat, Murray, Rice, Sandberg on it. First to go were Tommy John and Jim Kaat. They have good cases - low career ERAs, good winning pcts, 288 and 283 wins, pitched effectively to age 45 and 43. low SO and poor H/IP ratios soured me on both. Very similar careers. In similarity scores, every pitcher they're similar to is a borderline HOFer. Too borderline. Then I took out Rice. To me he had a sustained career of greatness and his '77-'79 stretch was one of the greatest 3-year stretches in the last 50 years. But I just wasn't feeling it. He's a HOFer to me, but not this year. Then Sandberg. Just because Bobby Doerr was voted in - long after his career was over - doesn't mean Sandberg is a first-ballot player. In my opinion he will be one of the weakest first-ballot HOFers ever this year. He was a great player and has a HOF case. But not as a first-year nominee. I went with Murray, Carter and Blyleven, whose SO and H/IP numbers, as well as his ability to win on bad teams, made the difference for me. I love HOF discussions.

12-11-2002, 03:10 PM	#11
ziimalan Major Leagues Join Date: May 2002 Location: new jeru Posts: 392	why is Kile on there? Just because he died doesnt make him good enough to be in the hall of fame __________________ hmmmmm...

12-11-2002, 03:19 PM	#13
holyroller Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: OTBL Forums Posts: 3,532	Re: Hall of Fame Ballot is out My two cents: Bert Blyleven Gary Carter Rich Gossage Eddie Murray Ryne Sandberg Alan Trammell __________________ Back to work, but not drawing a paycheck. TonyJ et. al.'s alias “I confused it with the chicken’s neck,” Mocanu, who was admitted to the emergency hospital in Galati, was quoted as saying. “I cut it ... and the dog rushed and ate it.”

12-11-2002, 03:31 PM	#14
spleen1015 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,008	Eddie Murray. That's all.

12-11-2002, 03:32 PM	#15
The Professor Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: East of East Posts: 3,020	I can't add anything more insightful than what these fine posters have done above, so: Murray - for reasons already stated... Blyleven - " " Kaat - Because if you put The Dutchman in, you have to put him in, too, IMO Ryno - Ick! He's a Cub...but... and Rich Gossage - I would give the vote to The Goose well before Lee Smith. Rollie Fingers is in and Gossage was, in an era when closers pitched more than 1 inning, simply the most dominant for a good stretch of time. Sure, the closers of today are racking up numbers that make Goose like rather plain...but he is my "Garvey" vote. Dale Murphy also gets a "Garvey" vote -- what a great guy and perhaps the best player in baseball for that magical stretch over the mid-80s. Sitting the Fence: Carter Morris __________________ History isn't really about the past - settling old scores. It's about defining the present and who we are."

12-11-2002, 05:32 PM	#20
blubbla Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Herscher, IL Posts: 2,460	Here's my votes: Gary Carter: A gamer, played well at his peak, stayed in the lineup, numbers mirror Fisk. Eddie Murray: Got the magic numbers, that's enough for me. Ryne Sandberg: Best 2B of our time with the bat, no slouch in the field, catalyst of the Cubs '84 and '89 division title winners. He may have hurt his chances a bit with his '96-'97 comeback. Andre Dawon: "Garvey vote" for me. I think his combination of speed, power, and leadership speaks for itself. And if his knees weren't shot from all those years in Montreal... and of course ... I'd write in Pete Rose.