If I had a ballot, it would look like this:

1. Jeff Bagwell

2. Tim Raines

3. Trevor Hoffman

4. Edgar Martinez

5. Curt Schilling

6. Mike Mussina

7. Vladimir Guerrero

8. Billy Wagner

9. Jeff Kent

10. Larry Walker

Honorable mention goes to Fred McGriff, whom I'd have to leave off due to the rule of 10.

Um Kershaw???

Here is mine. I know this would mean Tim Raines would roll off, but I don't believe he had a better career than any of these players when compared to their contemporaries.
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Jeff Bagwell
Curt Schilling
Ivan Rodriguez
Mike Mussina
Sammy Sosa
Larry Walker
Edgar Martinez
Manny Ramirez

He is not eligible for the HOF until after he plays this season.

At least you're consistent. It depends how you feel about users. Let all of them in or none of them in. I prefer the latter. Some of your players either got busted or have been suspected. Hence why I left Pudge off.

If you take away home runs, I would put Raines over Sosa, as homers were the only distinct advantage the latter had.

I really don't worry about the PED stuff. If they want to come up with a rule banning them officially than, fine, that would change my vote. As it stands, though, there is too much ambiguity to deciding who is guilty and who wasn't. Also since mine is just for fun and there is no actual weight to it I can do what I want without defending it too much. haha.

swap out Vlad and Wagner for Bonds and Clemens and that would be my ballot. (tho I think both wagner and vlad get in, but we are limited to ten)

So, I really can't find rhyme to reason as to why Pudge is currently at 78% when he's been suspected while Bagwell is waiting until his 7th year to get elected. If you told me one of them used and the other didn't, my money would be on Pudge based on what Canseco wrote about him and him saying 'Only God knows' in regarda to whether he used or not.

While he wasn't busted ala Clemens, Manny, Sosa, I'm suspicious. Hence why I wouldn't vote for him. Yet there was also suspicion for Piazza and Bagwell. They've waited. While none of the busted users have come close before this year.

This whole fiasco screams cherry picking.

If you like WAR, he has that.

Only one presumably clean pitcher has 3000 strikeouts, eligible for the Hall and not in, that's Schilling.

Outside of the surprise pennant in 1993, the Phillies didn't do much. He was the 1990s version of Felix Hernandez, if you ask me. The game has evolved considerably from when he pitched in Philly.

Don't forget the 123 ERA+.

Curt Schilling the person belongs in the Hall of Shame. Curt Schilling the pitcher belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Schilling was never Felix Hernandez. No one watched Schilling pitch with Baltimore or Philadelphia and called him a king. Felix was seen as the heir apparent the second he stepped on to the mound at 19 years old. Schilling has nothing in common with him.

Schilling was the dominant ace of a team which usually went nowhere and often in last place. Hence the comparison.

I think its pretty generous to use Felix's name in comparison to Schilling. Felix has already won a Cy Young, finished 2nd twice, 4th once, and is a 6 time All Star all before his 31st birthday. At 31 Schilling was a one time All Star who finished 4th in CY once.

As I said, the game has greatly evolved. Felix won a Cy Young with a 13-12 record, which would never have happened in the '90s. Had Schilling been a Brave or a Yankee in the '90s with the exact same stats, he'd have a much higher profile. If the playoffs count, when the Phillies did go to the World Series, Schilling was NLCS MVP.

Now, he best seasons didn't come until the Diamondbacks and Red Sox, but he hardly became a great starter overnight with those teams. By age 31, Schilling also established himself a multi time strikeout leader, with durability in games started, innings pitched, lowest WHIP, lowest H/9 and also had a very high K/9 rate.

He was no scrub in Philly. His team just didn't go anywhere save for one surprise pennant run.

Tonight we should know the new members of the HOF. As it stands now there are 55.2% of the ballots made known. Right now it looks like Raines (89.2%) and Bagwell (88.3%) are the only ones that I would say are the sure bets.


Pudge is the only other one over the 75% currently sitting at 78.8%, but last year there were 70.7% ballots known and Bagwell went down 6.1% after the results came in. So at this point I would consider Pudge anything but a lock.

Two other players worth watching are Trevor Hoffman and V. Guerrero. Hoffman is sitting at 72.5%, but last year he gained 3.8% after the official results. A 3.8% jump could also help Vlad Guerrero as he is currently sitting at 71.7%.

There's always talk of a logjam, but how many voters do something to clean up the logjam?

so your argument is all about public perception? the public are mostly morons, their opinion means nothing.

King Felix would have to pitch 8 more years at a 4 WAR pace to equal Schilling's production. He may do that as he is a great arm, but history says he won't.

Maybe you should read my other replies where I pointed out why Felix at 31 has nothing in common with Schilling at 31.

They didn't vote NO, he just didn't get the 75% vote. To many choices.
With the stats that Foxx put up he should have been in on his first year of eligibility, not year seven. Which is my point, his stats didn't change in those seven years.
The unfortunate thing with the early years of the HOF there were 100 player on the ballot. Years when not even 1 player made the the hall with several players very deserving. Look at the list from 1950, not 1 player voted in and yet there were a lot of HOF's on the ballot.
If a criteria is set a player is either in or is not on. No vote. No popularity contest.
JMO

Let's be honest, we have no clue if we're watching a Hall of Famer or not. That's for most players in the game. About four or five players are Hall of Famers if they retired today. The rest have either more to do or a lot more to do.

pretty much, which is why people should not compare active players to retired players, one has a body of work we can compare to other greats, the other is a work in progress

I just don't know about Pudge being a Hall of Famer. Did he take anything? Was Canseco right? When asked if he took or not, why would he say, "Only God knows"

Pudge went from a mini Lou Ferrigano to a normal sized guy in 1 off season when testing was announced. Claimed he lost all the muscle to extend his career.LOL

I can't believe Jorge Posada gets only 3 percent of the vote and falls off after one ballot. He deserved better.

So we likely get four next year - Vlad, Hoffman, Chipper and Thome.

That's a good, less controversial class.


.

The lack of support Jeff Kent received is criminal. His stats are impressive in general, but when compared to second basemen he is in the top 3 (1st in many) on just about every offensive stat that matters.

The fact that that Kent has stayed on 4 years is not criminal when compared to other, arguably, more qualified. In their first years on the ballot the following players didn't make it past 5%:

Bobby Grich only got 2.6%
Lou Whitaker - 2.9%
Willie Randolph - 1.1%

A quick comparison in stats that are used to compare between era and teams:
Name****WAR****oWAR****dWAR****OPS+
J. Kent****55.2****59.3****-0.6****123
B.Grich****70.9****62.1****16.2****125
L. Whitaker****74.9****67.1****15.4****117
W. Randolph****65.5****53.6****19.4****104

The only stats that seem to matter to you are HR, SLG, RBI (since these are the only stats he is top 3 for first basemen). His HR only was in the top 10 once in his career (2002-37, 7th). RBI top 10 6 times, but top 5 only three times. His slugging only made it in top 10 twice.

His negative dWAR (also his runs from fielding being -42, and leading the league in errors 4 times) shows that he could have been put at another position as he wasn't any better than the average replacement player at 2nd base. You do this and his comparison for Offensive play doesn't hold up anymore.
Also you need take into account his offensive stats were inflated batting after Bonds. His time with the Giants his WAR average was 5.23, the rest of his career his average was 2.16.

OK, my quick glance wasn't accurate, but Kent is still at the top of the leaderboard in many important areas.

HR - 1st with 377
Doubles - 4th with 560
Hits - 12th with 2461 (ahead of Whitaker marginally, ahead of Grich and significantly ahead of Randolph)
OPS - 6th with .855 (behind Ryan Schimpf who has 89 career games and Ross Barnes who played in the 1880's...others ahead of him are Hornsby, Gehringer and Jackie Robinson - pretty good company)
SLG - 3rd at .500 (again behind Jackie and the apparently HOF-bound :D Ryan Schimpf...)

5 All-Stars, 4 silver sluggers, 2000 NL MVP with 3 other Top 9 finishes.

I do hear defense as a detractor for Kent, but his career fielding average is just a couple points lower than Grich and Whitaker, and slightly ahead of Randolph. Kent never once led the league in errors. Do you mean he led second basemen in errors? That's plausible, but he never led the league in that category.

Not taking away from Grich or Whitaker because I could definitely get behind their enshrinement as well (Randolph not as much) but Kent has more than enough on his resume to garner much more consideration than he's getting. I really think the biggest knock on him was the fact that nobody really liked the guy. Media and teammates alike were all pretty consistent in feeling he was a jerk and that's coming back to haunt him, which is a shame really because it shouldn't be a popularity contest. If he had those stats with Kirby Puckett's personality he would've been a first ballot guy.

You say the biggest knock is his personality, but I gave you legitimate stat ones. You are comparing him to other 2nd basemen, but he could have very well ended up at 3rd and then his offensive stats would just be good not great. His numbers only look good when you end the statement with "for a second baseman". You can't take a good batsman and put in at a position where other's weren't as good and base it off of that. If you are going to compare him to other 2nd basemen it is best to compare his full performance and his defense didn't hold up.

As I mentioned before his numbers were inflated by Bonds who in the six years walked 840 times (159/162 games).

Giants years (900games) .297 BA/ .368 OBP/ .535 SLG
All other years (1333games) .286 BA/ .348 OBP/ .477 SLG

His per 162 game numbers don't hold up when he wasn't with Bonds either:
Giants 184 hits / 32HR/ 19.62 ABperHR / 124 RBI
Other Teams 169 hits/ 24 HR/ 25.11 AB per HR/ 96 RBI

All of his awards and noteworthy seasons come from that 6 year stretch with the Giants. Move him to another position or to another team and we wouldn't even be talking about him.

I disagree that his defensive faults negate his offense. He wasn't the butcher at second you're trying to make him out to be. He lacked range for sure but throughout his career he wasn't awful at the position. Saying you "could have" moved him to another position isn't legitimate statistical fact, it's speculation. He was a second baseman whether he might have been better at another position or not. It's worth noting too that his years in San Fran were also during his prime years. Obviously hitting with Bonds in the lineup helped but it was also the time of his career that he should have been most productive. I respect your view that he doesn't measure up in your eyes but I maintain that he should eventually get in. Definitely feel that he merits better than 16% of the vote or whatever it was.

I would think it has to do with the fact that Pudge was FAR superior at his position than Bagwell was at his. I think it's easier to stick to your values when excluding a "borderline" HOFer than one of the best of all time, unless those "best" happen to be arrogant, miserable SOB's like Clemens and Bonds.

Are you sure about that? Bagwell is easily a Top 10 first baseman if all time. Maybe Top 5. If we're talking modern era he's even further up that.

Also, put Jeff Kent in. He gets by. Other positions, no. Second base? Put him in.

Top 5:
Gehrig
Foxx
Brouthers
Pujols
Bagwell??

Jeff Bagwell was better than: Greenberg, Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, McCovey, Bill Terry, Johnny Mize, Eddie Murray, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Cap Anson? Or mostly-1B like Killebrew, Banks, Miggy, or Carew? Looks to me like he's barely in the top-5 of his own era, and that's only if you like him over McGwire and don't count Miggy.

Sorry, he's in the marginal-HOF tier, with Perez, Cepeda, Mattingly, and Hodges.

All time, I rank Bagwell seventh, behind Gehrig, Foxx, Anson, Pujols, Brouthers and Roger Connor. I'd put him above everyone else.

What makes him better than Thomas, Murray, Cabrera, Terry, or Banks?

I tend to think of Banks as a shortstop and Cabrera who played multiple positions. I would call Thomas the better hitter, Bagwell the better player. Bagwell was very valuable and terrific all around.

I would put him below Greenberg and Mize who lost prime years to the war. Also, he is below Cabrera. That puts him 10th. IRod is only behind Bench and Berra, also Josh Gibson if we are including Negros Leaguers which you didn't with Bagwell.

It feels pretty strange for someone to lump Roger Connors and Dan Brouthers with Albert Pujols or Miguel Cabrera. I guess you're looking at numbers or WAR or something but there's no way they stay on any list in the modern game.

Kent is a borderline guy who I think falls short.

18th all time in 2b fWAR

19th all time in 2b wRC+

out of the top 100 in 2b defense

75th all time in 2b OBP

the only places he is in the top 10 are slugging and homers, the rest of his game is pretty...mediocre

I have reason to think Rodriguez juiced and therefore don't rank him.

Brouthers did some pretty remarkable stuff in his day.

I think someone who puts up his numbers at his position warrants Hall inclusion more than someone like a first baseman would.

I think when a player brings negative value at his position, that argument goes out the window. Kent could have easily played 1b or OF. When a player brings negative value to his team, what does it matter where he played?

In the case of IRod, he brought elite defense, which allowed the voters to put aside the PED suspicions, unlike Piazza or Bagwell. I personally wouldn't have voted for him either, because I think he doped.

I can only speculate on why he was elected. Certainly at majority of voters now have no standards and are voting for known cheaters. There are a few who aren't voting for anyone suspected. Then there are those who are taking it on a case by case basis. Enough of those didn't believe Canseco or maybe they saw Piazza get elected and put I Rod in the same group.

Second base is a tougher position than first or outfield. I'm not sure how you measure valur.

Bagwell could play defense also. That includes a .993 fielding percentage.

I have no reason to doubt Canseco. He's been right time and time again.

A- fielding % is a terrible way to judge defense as it tells us nothing about their range, number of plays made ,arm strength ...etc it just tells us a % of errors made, and errors don't tell us the complete story as more errors does not always mean worse defense as a player may create more outs on defense yet make more errors.

B- sure a player with good numbers at 2b has more value than a similar player at 1b, but Kent wasn't good enough at 2b to merit HOF inclusion. the only place he's a top player all time is in homers.

C- using hearsay to determine HOF voting is a pretty sketchy system

Kent had good offensive numbers at second base.

People used gut instinct to exclude Bagwell. I'm less likely to think Bagwell used than Pudge.

they were pretty good, 19th in wRC+ is borderline HOF. But defense matters, and when you are near the bottom in 2b defense during your era it's kinda tough to call you a HOF player. 18th in career 2b fWAR is also borderline. it depends on if you are a big hall person or not.

I guess compared to others I can be a big Hall person, but there are also quite a few I'd kick out and also have voiced my opposition to players who get popular support from different eras. There is no cut off. You're either in or you're out, for me. Defense does matter, but not enough for me to punish what Kent did at the plate.