Ripken, Gwynn elected to the hall - Page 6

Zoso1515 · 01-09-2007, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc

I'm assuming the post I quoted was in direct response to my post about Gwynn and Ripken not receiving votes since it was right below my post and there was no quote.

Regardless I think we're in agreement here so we can leave the semantics out of this.

You're posts were both at the same time, so it's entirely possible that he was responding to you. But given the fact that he would have to read your post and type up his response is less than 60 seconds isn't likely and the content of his post clearly referred to the previous post, its clear he was not, in fact, talking about Gwynn.

Jason Moyer · 01-10-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

How Blyleven, Gossage, Rice, a few others don't make it is beyond me. How McGwire gets less than 25% is ridiculous. The two that got in totally deserve it, but yet again the voters suck major donkey balls.

Why I've decided I no longer care even a tiny bit about the baseball hall of fame (yes, I actually cared a tiny bit prior to this election):

Alan Trammell 13.4%
- 1 less vote than Dave Concepcion, who was a very good player, but jesus
Don Mattingly 9.9%
- Half a career being a good player seems to have shrouded the half a career when he and Will Clark were the best first basemen in the game
Dale Murphy 9.2%
- I wouldn't vote for him either, but he's certainly a better choice than either Jim Rice or Andre Dawson, both in terms of performance and off-the-field standards - hell, he received fewer votes than DAVE PARKER
Albert Belle 3.5%
- At least the BBWAA are consistent when it comes to holding grudges against someone.

And from ESPN fan voting (and I suspect this is indicative of how the real voting is going to go):

8) Is Tim Raines (eligible in 2008) a Hall of Famer?
81.1% No
18.9% Yes

9) Is Rickey Henderson (eligible in 2009) a Hall of Famer?
94.7% Yes
5.3% No

CommishJoe · 01-10-2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Considering that Bonds is the best baseball player ever, the first vote he is eligible for will be an interesting day.

YOU consider him to be the best baseball player ever, but that doesn't make it fact. Just like I consider him to be a lying, cheating scum bag(as a baseball player, not as a person since I don't know him personally) who hasn't earned the right to call himself anything but a cheat, but that doesn't make it fact either.

The fact is, he was putting up HoF numbers before he blew up like a balloon, so I do think he deserves to be voted in either way (and if I had a vote, I would vote for him because of this). I can definately see him not getting votes though because of the steroid issue.

** FYI -- I wrote this before reading through the entire thread. The "best player ever" argument is an old one, so I replied right away

CommishJoe · 01-10-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagrims

Gossage will get inducted next year - barring any weird revelations, I'd be willing to bet on it.

I would tend to agree. Also, if Blyleven has any sort of shot, next year is it IMO. With the weak freshman class, more writers might be inclinded to vote for him.

BrentBlades · 01-10-2007, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Why I've decided I no longer care even a tiny bit about the baseball hall of fame (yes, I actually cared a tiny bit prior to this election):

Don Mattingly 9.9%
- Half a career being a good player seems to have shrouded the half a career when he and Will Clark were the best first basemen in the game
Dale Murphy 9.2%
- I wouldn't vote for him either, but he's certainly a better choice than either Jim Rice or Andre Dawson, both in terms of performance and off-the-field standards

I'd love to know how you came to that ridiculous statement. Jim Rice I don't know about as I only got to see the very end of his career really. However I don't understand how you can say you wouldn't vote for Dale Murphy, but you think he's a better choice then Dawson. That just flabbergast me.

Jason Moyer · 01-10-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrentBlades

I'd love to know how you came to that ridiculous statement. Jim Rice I don't know about as I only got to see the very end of his career really. However I don't understand how you can say you wouldn't vote for Dale Murphy, but you think he's a better choice then Dawson. That just flabbergast me.

Dale Murphy was a better player. In his prime, Dale Murphy hit .300, walked 90-100 times, and hit 35-40 homeruns. He also had a season of 30 SB vs 4 CS, altho he wasn't the baserunning threat Dawson was early in his career. He also had a better relationship with the press, which seems to be the predominant deciding factor in someone's Hall worthiness nowadays (if you don't believe me, wait until Eckstein retires). Andre Dawson was a great player with the Expos, but his years in Chicago are vastly overrated. With the Cubs he did one thing truly well, he only did it a really high level for one season, and he did it in a park that made it seem more impressive than it really was.

Jim Rice - people say they feared him when he came to the plate. If I had been a Sox fan in the late 70's, I would have feared seeing him come to the plate with anyone on base, since he was far more likely to hit into a double play than hit the ball out of the park. Even with that he did enough positive things to be about as good as Dawson, but he wasn't on the same level as Dale Murphy.

All 3 players benefited from home fields that inflated homerun totals, but Murphy was the only one who was a good all-around player. He could run, he could hit for power, he could play defense, and he could get on base.

andymac · 01-10-2007, 11:56 AM

Yea, I would call Dale Murphy the definitive almost hall-of-famer. His peak is borderline hall-worthy & I would probably give him the benefit of the doubt if he could have given us any longevity but he was basically done being a good player at the age of 33.

Dawson just didn't have the peak. His career value is higher than Murphy but I'm just not an advocate of putting in players who didn't have the peak value.

mikev · 01-10-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Why I've decided I no longer care even a tiny bit about the baseball hall of fame (yes, I actually cared a tiny bit prior to this election):

9) Is Rickey Henderson (eligible in 2009) a Hall of Famer?
94.7% Yes
5.3% No

I really hope you're posting that because the 5.3% who voted No are really really dumb.

Zoso1515 · 01-10-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikev

I really hope you're posting that because the 5.3% who voted No are really really dumb.

He's probably putting it there to compare the vote totals for two similar players.

Vris · 01-10-2007, 01:13 PM

The question remains: Are you voting based on who's up for election or who's in the hall already? I think a lot of people just vote based on who's up for election.

<Pion> · 01-10-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikev

I really hope you're posting that because the 5.3% who voted No are really really dumb.

To me all of this demonstrates how difficult it is to get a large group of people to agree 100% with anything.

MorseMoose · 01-10-2007, 01:25 PM

I'm under the impression that some voters feel that only a certain amount (one?/two?) deserve to be inducted each year which is why there are still guys left out (Blyleven for example).

2007: 2
2006: 1
2005: 1
2004: 2
2003: 2
2002: 1
2001: 2
2000: 2
1999: 3
1998: 1
1997: 1
1996: 0
1995: 1
1994: 1
1993: 1
1992: 2
1991: 3
1990: 2

darkhorse · 01-10-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposableheros

well, i guess it really depends on what makes a player worthy, in your eyes.

to me, yes, he is still a HoF member without his streak.

Ripken probably has a much better career and his teams win more games if Cal isn't so selfish about continuing the streak, no matter what.

darkhorse · 01-10-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoso1515

He's probably putting it there to compare the vote totals for two similar players.

They're similar, but Henderson was much better. Not five times better, mind ya. The people who voted against Raines are ignorant.

MorseMoose · 01-10-2007, 06:10 PM

How does a guy like Blyleven actually lose votes from last year? Did he give up more homeruns? Did he lose more games? Did his ERA magically go up?

darkhorse · 01-10-2007, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

How does a guy like Blyleven actually lose votes from last year? Did he give up more homeruns? Did he lose more games? Did his ERA magically go up?

The corpse that is the BBWAA continues to decompose.

magnet · 01-10-2007, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

How does a guy like Blyleven actually lose votes from last year? Did he give up more homeruns? Did he lose more games? Did his ERA magically go up?

He cursed on the air during a baseball game?

Zoso1515 · 01-10-2007, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

They're similar, but Henderson was much better. Not five times better, mind ya. The people who voted against Raines are ignorant.

Much better? Its really not that big of a difference.

Y0DA55 · 01-10-2007, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

How does a guy like Blyleven actually lose votes from last year? Did he give up more homeruns? Did he lose more games? Did his ERA magically go up?

How does a team like Michigan have USC and then Florida jump ahead of them in the polls in two consecutive weeks without playing a game?

I also don't think that you can compare the teams at the beginning of December to the beginning of January. That's a long time to have off.

Also, you do have a valid point that I agree with... I'm just saying...

darkenigma510 · 01-10-2007, 07:02 PM

When are they going ever let other baseball media people vote? Is Vin Scully not qualified?

It seems that the restriction to only let baseball writers in and not other media people vote is a relic from the past.

01-10-2007, 11:56 AM	#107
andymac Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Effingham, IL Posts: 5,725	Yea, I would call Dale Murphy the definitive almost hall-of-famer. His peak is borderline hall-worthy & I would probably give him the benefit of the doubt if he could have given us any longevity but he was basically done being a good player at the age of 33. Dawson just didn't have the peak. His career value is higher than Murphy but I'm just not an advocate of putting in players who didn't have the peak value. __________________ June Madness: Links FTB: andymac

01-10-2007, 01:13 PM	#110
Vris Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: somewhere where I don't know where I am Posts: 3,251	The question remains: Are you voting based on who's up for election or who's in the hall already? I think a lot of people just vote based on who's up for election. __________________ None Blog it.

01-10-2007, 01:25 PM	#112
MorseMoose Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 6,023 Infractions: 1/1 (1)	I'm under the impression that some voters feel that only a certain amount (one?/two?) deserve to be inducted each year which is why there are still guys left out (Blyleven for example). 2007: 2 2006: 1 2005: 1 2004: 2 2003: 2 2002: 1 2001: 2 2000: 2 1999: 3 1998: 1 1997: 1 1996: 0 1995: 1 1994: 1 1993: 1 1992: 2 1991: 3 1990: 2

01-10-2007, 06:10 PM	#115
MorseMoose Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 6,023 Infractions: 1/1 (1)	How does a guy like Blyleven actually lose votes from last year? Did he give up more homeruns? Did he lose more games? Did his ERA magically go up?

01-10-2007, 07:02 PM	#120
darkenigma510 All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Wild West Posts: 1,353	When are they going ever let other baseball media people vote? Is Vin Scully not qualified? It seems that the restriction to only let baseball writers in and not other media people vote is a relic from the past.