Your 2014 Hall Of Fame Ballot

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Tram2Whitaker

Looking over past ballots, I didn't realize that Kirk Gibson didn't garner enough votes to even stay on the ballot after his first year; and Lou Whitaker. Perhaps the veteran's committee should pick them up.

I half agree with you. Whitaker should be in, or at the very least least be seriously discussed. It's a real crime and shame how few votes he got. I think that's an equally damming indictment of the morons that currently vote for the HOF as some of their other more high profile crimes (Raines, Biggio, Piazza, Bagwell, taking so long on Blyleven, not to mention Bonds or Clemens).

As for Gibson though, I just don't see him being anywhere near good enough for the HOF. He was a good player, but by no means a great one. To be honest, I'm not even sure he makes the 'Hall of Very Good'.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

A bajillon people have already made this argument far more convincingly than I or his other partisans on this board could do. Just google Tim Raines Hall of Fame or something like that...

Bill James once said of Rickey Henderson "If you could split [Henderson] in two, you’d have two Hall of Famers". Raines is one of those Hall of Famers that would come from splitting Henderson in two.

Raines is better than half a Henderson......

Back in the 80's, I always wanted Raines on my Strat teams more than Henderson because 1) He was a switch hitter and usually hit for a better average and 2) stole bases at a better rate........in their prime, Raines was at least Rickey's equal, I believe........

Both of them suffered from playing in tough parks on hitters.....

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

I half agree with you. Whitaker should be in, or at the very least least be seriously discussed. It's a real crime and shame how few votes he got. I think that's an equally damming indictment of the morons that currently vote for the HOF as some of their other more high profile crimes (Raines, Biggio, Piazza, Bagwell, taking so long on Blyleven, not to mention Bonds or Clemens).

As for Gibson though, I just don't see him being anywhere near good enough for the HOF. He was a good player, but by no means a great one. To be honest, I'm not even sure he makes the 'Hall of Very Good'.

If the Hall of Fame is for the absolute best of the best, then Whitaker and Gibson have no business being there......if the Hall of Fame is for every fella that was a pretty good one, then you can let Whitaker sit next to Blyleven (who also has no business being considered the best of the best)........Gibson was pretty good, but injuries robbed him of too much to make it in either scenario......

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Questdog

If the Hall of Fame is for the absolute best of the best, then Whitaker and Gibson have no business being there......if the Hall of Fame is for every fella that was a pretty good one, then you can let Whitaker sit next to Blyleven (who also has no business being considered the best of the best)........

That's the question, isn't it? It really depends on how you define 'absolute best of the best' or 'pretty good'.

Should the standard for the Hall of Fame be that a player be better than a fair portion of the guys already in the Hall? A big Hall, in other words.

That's what I personally tend to think is the real HOF standard since, after all, there are many, many 'pretty good' guys are in fact already in the Hall.

If that's so than Whitaker is without a doubt significantly better than Mazeroski, George Kelly, Rabbit Maranville and dozens of guys already in.

I won't even get into Blyleven since we could likely argue about him all day...

If you use 'absolute best of the best' as the standard though, I think we can all agree that that doesn't include quite a large amount of guys who are already in the Hall. So you'd need to start hauling some of the guys who are already in out, which seems impractical at best and potentially scandalous at worst.

So I don't see any way to argue that induction to a Hall of Fame that has already inducted Bill Mazeroski needs to be reserved for pantheon type players. That ship already sailed when they let Maz, George Kelly, Catfish Hunter, Andre Dawson and their fellow "very good" players in. It seems silly to try to put that right some two to three dozen or so 'very good' players later.

Leaving all that behind, let me ask this: What's the difference between Whitaker and Roberto Alomar?

The answer: There really isn't any except for 25 points of batting average which Alomar picked up by playing the non-overlapping portions of his and Whitaker's career in a much more offensive time period (late 90's and early 2000's compared to the late 70's and early 80's). When you adjust for the eras they played in, Whitaker and Alomar are the exact same player.

So why is Alomar a no doubt HOfer and Whitaker a 2%er? The best explanation I can come up with is that the voters are operating off their own pre-conceived ideas rather than taking an objective look at the players records and comparing them to guys already in the Hall.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Raines is better than half a Henderson......

Back in the 80's, I always wanted Raines on my Strat teams more than Henderson because 1) He was a switch hitter and usually hit for a better average and 2) stole bases at a better rate........in their prime, Raines was at least Rickey's equal, I believe........

Both of them suffered from playing in tough parks on hitters.....

I agree that Raines is better than half a Henderson. I was just using the quote to try to help make my point.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Why? How is Raines NOT a HOFer?

I'm not meaning to single you out personally or attack you or anything. I just don't get how he hasn't been elected irl, or even in this thread yet. To me he's a no doubt HOFer, no questions asked.

I really think it must be the cocaine, since the HOF elections have seemingly become the purview of the "morality" police (most of whom who know nothing about morality nor have any claim to being particularly moral themselves) rather than being based on players actual ability to play baseball extraordinarily well...

That being said, glad you have Trammell somewhere on your list He's another guy that for whom I just don't understand how he could be so darn underrated by so many people.

Rock is one of my Top 25 All Time favorite players so I dont know how much I believe this.
He only had 5 good seasons then fall off the planet as a lead off hitter. 1982-87 he was deadly. After that he was below average. !981-1987 he was an All Star every year then never again. No GG. Thats all I really have. I would put him in front of several Red Sox players who are in.

[hfield007]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

I really think it must be the cocaine, since the HOF elections have seemingly become the purview of the "morality" police

come on, look at my list. i'm hardly worried about morality haha

[shawa666]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Raines is one of those guys I never ever had heard about until I somewhat half-heartedly followed last year's (or rather this year's?) voting. He never seems to be talked about in current days' broadcasts.

Oops. That was not exactly making a case for somebody.

That's because he played most of his career in Montreal.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by shawa666

That's because he played most of his career in Montreal.

In addition to that I am actively avoiding Nationals home games for I find F.P. Santangelo's voice and manner highly annoying. That may explain a thing or two.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by hfield007

come on, look at my list. i'm hardly worried about morality haha

I was talking about the real HOF electors, absolutely wasn't trying to pick on you

[Astros33Resurrected]

Roberto Alomar: 2320 g at 2B, 116 OPS+, 63.5 WAR, 7 teams. Famous misdeed: Spat at umpire. Result: 2nd-ballot HOFer. Sweet Lou: 2308 g at 2B, 116 OPS+, 69.7 WAR, 1 team. Famous misdeed: Forgot uniform at 1985 ASG. Result: 2.9% of HOF vote. Go figure...

Thats the quote from the sponsor of Whitaker's page on baseball reference.

[CD1083]

This argument is never going to go away is it?

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Astros33Resurrected

Roberto Alomar: 2320 g at 2B, 116 OPS+, 63.5 WAR, 7 teams. Famous misdeed: Spat at umpire. Result: 2nd-ballot HOFer. Sweet Lou: 2308 g at 2B, 116 OPS+, 69.7 WAR, 1 team. Famous misdeed: Forgot uniform at 1985 ASG. Result: 2.9% of HOF vote. Go figure...

Thats the quote from the sponsor of Whitaker's page on baseball reference.

Alomar lifetime avg of .300 Whittaker .276 that ends that discussion. Very few .300 hitters are not in the HOF. Alomar is also considered one of the top 3 2B of all time with Sandberg & Hornsby.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by The Game

Alomar lifetime avg of .300 Whittaker .276 that ends that discussion. Very few .300 hitters are not in the HOF. Alomar is also considered one of the top 3 2B of all time with Sandberg & Hornsby.

Pardon me, sir. But Roberto Alomar should never be mentioned in the same breath with Rogers Hornsby.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by The Game

Alomar lifetime avg of .300 Whittaker .276 that ends that discussion.

I think we have a candidate for the BBWAA!

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Pardon me, sir. But Roberto Alomar should never be mentioned in the same breath with Rogers Hornsby.

Rajah is my all time 2B Sandberg is not in my top 300 players Alomar is 125th approx.

[Astros33Resurrected]

Originally Posted by The Game

Alomar lifetime avg of .300 Whittaker .276 that ends that discussion. Very few .300 hitters are not in the HOF. Alomar is also considered one of the top 3 2B of all time with Sandberg & Hornsby.

Biggio>Alomar. I'd also take Kent over him.

With that said, batting average should not be a primary reason for anyone getting into the hall. This is the problem with the voters. They use old methods of determining the value of a player.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by The Game

Alomar lifetime avg of .300 Whittaker .276 that ends that discussion. Very few .300 hitters are not in the HOF. Alomar is also considered one of the top 3 2B of all time with Sandberg & Hornsby.

You seemingly didn't read my entire comment about Whitaker, or that quote about Whitaker or accurately understand them if you did.

That extra 25 points in batting averages comes solely from Alomar playing in an era in which batting averages and runs scored in general were higher.

Whitaker's OPS+ is actually a point higher than Alomar's indicating that when the context of their careers is taken into account, Whitaker was the better hitter.

[Up here in Canada]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Pardon me, sir. But Roberto Alomar should never be mentioned in the same breath with Rogers Hornsby.

Why not?

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Up here in Canada

Why not?

Well, let's start with this. Rogers Hornsby led the major leagues in OPS+ 12 times in his career, so he was among the very elite hitters in his era. He won seven batting titles. He had 200 hits seven times, and hit .400 three times. He won two Triple Crowns. He won 2 MVP awards, also finishing second once and third once. His career OPS+ was 175.

Alomar never led the major leagues in anything except runs scored (once) and plate appearances (once). The highest that he ever finished in MVP voting was third (once) and fourth (once). His career OPS+ was 116.