HOF results

[paul]

Griffey and Piazza were elected. Griffey set a new record with 99% of the votes, breaking the record held by Tom Seaver. As a lifelong Seaver fan, I'm saddened.

[Wite3]

Begs the question...who are the three asses that left Griffey off and why?

Joshua

[ksabet]

Originally Posted by paul

Griffey and Piazza were elected. Griffey set a new record with 99% of the votes, breaking the record held by Tom Seaver. As a lifelong Seaver fan, I'm saddened.

why are you saddened?

I never really understood all the hoopla over %. You're in youre in right?

I think how many years it takes is more important to a players legacy.

[39special]

Originally Posted by ksabet

why are you saddened?

I never really understood all the hoopla over %. You're in youre in right?

I think how many years it takes is more important to a players legacy.

+1

[paul]

I'm saddened because it was just nice to be able to say that my favorite player held the all time record for HOF votes. No big deal though.

If I remember correctly, 4 guys didn't vote for Seaver. Two were protesting Pete Rose being left off the ballot. One was sick in the hospital and mismarked his ballot. And one always voted no for first year players just to ensure that no one ever was a unanimous selection. I wonder if there are similar stories for the three no votes for Griffey.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by paul

Griffey and Piazza were elected. Griffey set a new record with 99% of the votes, breaking the record held by Tom Seaver. As a lifelong Seaver fan, I'm saddened.

Fyi Paul, the real sad thing is that of the 5 writers that didn't vote for Seaver, 3 of them totally boycotted the HOF voting that year because the HOF banned Pete Rose. Those 3 writers publicly stated they were offended the HOF chose to take the Rose situation completely out of the writers hands, thus choosing to submit empty ballots. In restrospect, only 2 writers left Seaver off the ballot because of not voting for "1st timers". Had there been NO Rose ban, Seaver would still own the highest %. Oh well....

JoeT

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by paul

I'm saddened because it was just nice to be able to say that my favorite player held the all time record for HOF votes. No big deal though.

If I remember correctly, 4 guys didn't vote for Seaver. Two were protesting Pete Rose being left off the ballot. One was sick in the hospital and mismarked his ballot. And one always voted no for first year players just to ensure that no one ever was a unanimous selection. I wonder if there are similar stories for the three no votes for Griffey.

Paul - never saw your 2nd post until now. It was 5 non-voters and I'm almost certain 3 boycotted the vote. I assumed the other 2 were non-first ballot voters, but as you stated, one might have misparked his ballot. Bottom line is with no Rose ban, Seaver would still stand at the top of the charts!

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by paul

Griffey and Piazza were elected. Griffey set a new record with 99% of the votes, breaking the record held by Tom Seaver. As a lifelong Seaver fan, I'm saddened.

I guess im biased since im from seattle but griffey deserves 100% imo

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Wite3

Begs the question...who are the three asses that left Griffey off and why?

Joshua

+1 Joshua, totally agree...

[kamikidEFFL]

I grew up watching Griffey. I think it should of been 100% for sure

[Griffins]

Originally Posted by Wite3

Begs the question...who are the three asses that left Griffey off and why?

Joshua

Probably the same 3 that voted for Mike Sweeney.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Wite3

Begs the question...who are the three asses that left Griffey off and why?

Here is a plausible explanation. They wanted to vote for 11 guys but were limited to 10. If I was in that situation I could see leaving off the guy (Griffey) that was getting in no matter what I did.

[timber63401]

Anybody that doesn't vote for someone just because they "never vote people on first ballot" deserve the honor of voting revoked.

[CMIZ5290]

First of all, the reason the three guys left off Griffey probably was because of someone getting hurt feelings on something as stupid as an interview where there were hurt feelings. Maybe someone didn't like the way Griffey treated him. In other words, someone getting pissed off and telling their other writer buddies. Maybe one of them agreed. Yes, human nature does come into the equation ( even though it shouldn't). Secondly, I look at Griffey from the time he was an 18yr old rookie to the time he retired, he basically had the same physical structure and abilities. Then I look at guys like McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa. Please.....Go back to their early photos and then look at how they ballooned up later in their careers. It's borderline ridiculous, and so obvious as well. Griffey was clean, and had the best swing ever in the game with maybe Ted W. getting a close argument. If he had not had the serious injuries, he would have hit 800 home runs. Just my opinion....

[oldjudge]

I think it's a joke that Piazza got in. He was a liability behind the plate. The most important part of a catcher's game is on defense.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

First of all, the reason the three guys left off Griffey probably was because of someone getting hurt feelings on something as stupid as an interview where there were hurt feelings. Maybe someone didn't like the way Griffey treated him. In other words, someone getting pissed off and telling their other writer buddies. Maybe one of them agreed. Yes, human nature does come into the equation ( even though it shouldn't).

I'll bring up Jeff Kent again. How does a guy with his run producing numbers at second base not get more votes?? Your statements probably say it all.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I'll bring up Jeff Kent again. How does a guy with his run producing numbers at second base not get more votes?? Your statements probably say it all.

I think Kent was hurt by the 10 player rule on the ballot. A lot of voters are still putting PED users on the ballot because they don't believe they should be excluded. Therefore, somewhat more "marginal" HOFers are losing significant numbers of votes.

I think Kent will eventually be voted in by the Veterans Committee, and I don't really have a problem with that approach.

Personally, I still don't believe PED users should get into the HOF. Their numbers aren't "real" numbers. People argue that they were competing against other PED users so those stats were legit. However, to me, it's like Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France. You can say that he was competing against other users on the Tour, so you shouldn't strip him of his titles? That doesn't make sense to me. The Hall honors the best players, and you can't really say you deserve to be one of the best if you cheated your way there.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by glchen

I think Kent was hurt by the 10 player rule on the ballot. A lot of voters are still putting PED users on the ballot because they don't believe they should be excluded. Therefore, somewhat more "marginal" HOFers are losing significant numbers of votes.

I think Kent will eventually be voted in by the Veterans Committee, and I don't really have a problem with that approach.

Personally, I still don't believe PED users should get into the HOF. Their numbers aren't "real" numbers. People argue that they were competing against other PED users so those stats were legit. However, to me, it's like Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France. You can say that he was competing against other users on the Tour, so you shouldn't strip him of his titles? That doesn't make sense to me. The Hall honors the best players, and you can't really say you deserve to be one of the best if you cheated your way there.

Well said. But I do hope the voters wake up and elect Kent the traditional way. For all of the steroid heads, I hope to God they never get to Cooperstown.

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Well said. But I do hope the voters wake up and elect Kent the traditional way. For all of the steroid heads, I hope to God they never get to Cooperstown.

Well, there's probably already a few in.

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by paul

Griffey and Piazza were elected. Griffey set a new record with 99% of the votes, breaking the record held by Tom Seaver. As a lifelong Seaver fan, I'm saddened.

Griffey was a great player but he was no Tom Seaver when it comes to HOF players. Of course they weren't apples to apples as on was a pitcher and the other an outfielder so I guess there were other criteria to be evaluated.

[clydepepper]

Reliable sources indicate a strong possibility that two of the three voters who did not vote for Griffey are brothers: Moe and Curly. The third voter goes by Larry.



I was happy to see that one of my favorite players, David Eckstein, got two votes...but, I hope those two votes did not come at Griffey's expense.


Like Jayson Stark, I would have had Billy Wagner (another of my favorites) as one of my full ballot of ten. (check out Starks comments from this morning on ESPN.com)

Good to see Trevor Hoffman get so much support in his first year.

I think with Piazza getting in, Bagwell should get in next year, then perhaps Sheffield and even Bonds and Clemens and Sosa.

I'm not yet accepting of those last few getting in but the Commissioner made a good, sound argument as to why they should get in.

The same reasoning would keep out Palmeiro, McGwire, and Manny Ramirez since they have actually been caught in the act.
.
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I'll bring up Jeff Kent again. How does a guy with his run producing numbers at second base not get more votes?? Your statements probably say it all.

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Reliable sources indicate a strong possibility that two of the three voters who did not vote for Griffey are brothers: Moe and Curly. The third voter goes by Larry.



I was happy to see that one of my favorite players, David Eckstein, got two votes...but, I hope those two votes did not come at Griffey's expense.


Like Jayson Stark, I would have had Billy Wagner (another of my favorites) as one of my full ballot of ten. (check out Starks comments from this morning on ESPN.com)

Good to see Trevor Hoffman get so much support in his first year.

I think with Piazza getting in, Bagwell should get in next year, then perhaps Sheffield and even Bonds and Clemens and Sosa.

I'm not yet accepting of those last few getting in but the Commissioner made a good, sound argument as to why they should get in.

The same reasoning would keep out Palmeiro, McGwire, and Manny Ramirez since they have actually been caught in the act.
.
.

I very much doubt Sheffield ever gets in even if they start inducting roiders.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

However, if the other players producing those numbers were roiders, and Kent wasn't, wouldn't that mean something? I've never heard of Kent being tainted by roid rumors, so I assume he's clean. Like McGriff, I think this is another place where PED users hurt legitimate players because their stats get lost in the forest.

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Reliable sources indicate a strong possibility that two of the three voters who did not vote for Griffey are brothers: Moe and Curly. The third voter goes by Larry.



I was happy to see that one of my favorite players, David Eckstein, got two votes...but, I hope those two votes did not come at Griffey's expense.


Like Jayson Stark, I would have had Billy Wagner (another of my favorites) as one of my full ballot of ten. (check out Starks comments from this morning on ESPN.com)

Good to see Trevor Hoffman get so much support in his first year.

I think with Piazza getting in, Bagwell should get in next year, then perhaps Sheffield and even Bonds and Clemens and Sosa.

I'm not yet accepting of those last few getting in but the Commissioner made a good, sound argument as to why they should get in.

The same reasoning would keep out Palmeiro, McGwire, and Manny Ramirez since they have actually been caught in the act.
.
.

I agree that it was nice to see Hoffman get support, but also sad that Lee Smith did not gain any ground. Lee was the premeir closer in his era and players should be grouped with their peers. Nobody was better than Lee in his time but the fact that he in general was not associated with any particular team has hurt his chances. In my Hall, he is a first round winner as not only was he a great closer, but he is also a top notch human being. Great guy and none of the nasty attitude that so many stars have. All positives in my book. Maybe he will eventually make it in through the veterens committee.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

In context, Peter??? What the hell other second baseman produced as many runs as him year after year? And according to your logic, since it was the era of 'huge numbers,' why were Piazza and Griffey elected?? They, too, played in the same era as Kent.

[veloce]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I think it's a joke that Piazza got in. He was a liability behind the plate. The most important part of a catcher's game is on defense.

A good article that points out that, while Piazza was poor at throwing out runners, he was a plus defender in addition to an all-time great offensive catcher: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...han-a-big-bat/

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by kmac32

Griffey was a great player but he was no Tom Seaver when it comes to HOF players. Of course they weren't apples to apples as on was a pitcher and the other an outfielder so I guess there were other criteria to be evaluated.

Ken Griffey Jr is right up there with seaver.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

In context, Peter??? What the hell other second baseman produced as many runs as him year after year? And according to your logic, since it was the era of 'huge numbers,' why were Piazza and Griffey elected?? They, too, played in the same era as Kent.

Well, since to date he is only getting 15 percent of the vote, sounds like you have your work cut out for you to convince people that that is the relevant criterion, to be the leading run producer at a given position. FWIW JAWS has him at 18th all time second baseman. Piazza is 5th at catcher. Griffey is 5th in center.

[Golfcollector]

Griffey is #4 all time in the NON Steroids Home Run Category, and was the best defensive CF of an entire generation, while playing for mostly bad teams.

Yeah...I guess he wasn't better than Seaver...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Ken Griffey Jr is right up there with seaver.

I would say not quite. Seaver is a top 10 all time pitcher. Griffey is probably more in the top 25 than top 10 tier.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by kmac32

I agree that it was nice to see Hoffman get support, but also sad that Lee Smith did not gain any ground. Lee was the premeir closer in his era and players should be grouped with their peers. Nobody was better than Lee in his time but the fact that he in general was not associated with any particular team has hurt his chances. In my Hall, he is a first round winner as not only was he a great closer, but he is also a top notch human being. Great guy and none of the nasty attitude that so many stars have. All positives in my book. Maybe he will eventually make it in through the veterens committee.

Being 71-92 didn't help Smith either. He comes in 14th among relief pitchers in the JAWS metric. Hoffman, interestingly, is 21st. I have read that he was very overrated but I can't place that now, maybe Bill James?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well, since to date he is only getting 15 percent of the vote, sounds like you have your work cut out for you to convince people that that is the relevant criterion, to be the leading run producer at a given position. FWIW JAWS has him at 18th all time second baseman. Piazza is 5th at catcher. Griffey is 5th in center.

Ha ha. Now it's about everyone's favorite new stat of relevance, WAR?? Only moments ago you said he shouldn't be elected because, "Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers." So when one stat doesn't fit your narrative, you find one that does? Is that where we're at?

[packs]

Griffey was a monster. I'd say he's top 10. Elite defense, elite hitter, the prettiest swing you ever saw. Had a real shot at breaking Aaron's record if not for getting hurt.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Ha ha. Now it's about everyone's favorite new stat of relevance, WAR?? Only moments ago you said he shouldn't be elected because, "Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers." So when one stat doesn't fit your narrative, you find one that does? Is that where we're at?

Do you even know how WAR works? It's adjusted for the era.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Griffey was a monster. I'd say he's top 10. Elite defense, elite hitter, the prettiest swing you ever saw. Should have hit 800 homers if not for getting hurt.

Nah.
Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Batting - 26 (73), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 162 (71), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 235 (29), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 61 (28), Average HOFer ≈ 50

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would say not quite. Seaver is a top 10 all time pitcher. Griffey is probably more in the top 25 than top 10 tier.

Peter - Seaver is top 7 WAR & JAWS with a "cheater" (Clemens) and two 19th century pitchers (Kid Nichols & Cy Young for half a career) rated above him. Thus, a top 4/5 pitcher of all time which Griffey cannot nearly boast among position players. Not taking anything away from Junior because he is one of my all-time favorites, but on a comparable basis, not as highly ranked as Tom Terrific.

JoeT

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Peter - Seaver is top 7 WAR & JAWS with a "cheater" (Clemens) and two 19th century pitchers (Kid Nichols & Cy Young for half a career) rated above him. Thus, a top 4/5 pitcher of all time which Griffey cannot nearly boast among position players. Not taking anything away from Junior because he is one of my all-time favorites, but on a comparable basis, not as highly ranked as Tom Terrific.

JoeT

Exactly. Now if Junior didn't get hurt, who knows, but we can't rate guys on what might have been. It always amuses me to hear people who say Ryan was better than Seaver. Not.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

I would put Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker in before Kent. Especially Grich.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

I would put Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker in before Kent. Especially Grich.

Tom C

Yeah, although I don't think contemporaneously he was considered a superstar, Grich rates as the number 7 all time second baseman by the JAWS metric. He's ahead of Sandberg and Alomar and Biggio, and just behind Carew, which I really can't figure out. Must be one of those era adjusted phenomena.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Exactly. Now if Junior didn't get hurt, who knows, but we can't rate guys on what might have been. It always amuses me to hear people who say Ryan was better than Seaver. Not.

LOL - I totally agree....not even close Peter. Nolan Ryan was NEVER the equal of Tom Seaver. Post WWII, Combination peak value and career, only Maddux and Randy Johnson rate with Seaver. Pedro Martinez doesn't have the same longevity, Koufax was a 4/5 year pitcher and Clemens was a cheater. Here's a Seaver stat that is absolutely remarkable. Over the first 15 consecutive seasons of his career, Seaver posted a 2.62 ERA, an incredible feat considering he averaged approximately 252 IP per season over that span!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yeah, Reggie really said it best, didn't he.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Do you even know how WAR works? It's adjusted for the era.

So, you ignored my question about you changing stats to fit your narrative, and you ask me if I EVEN KNOW how WAR works? Are you serious?? Kent has a .290 lifetime average, is the all-time HR leader for second baseman and is what, 3rd or 4th in career RBI's for the position? Those are actual stats. And we were all around to watch him play. His career wasn't something so long ago in the past that we have to develop a stat like WAR to figure out if he was good or not. He was a monster at second base and the guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Ken Griffey Jr is right up there with seaver.

Did not say that Griffey didn't belong in the Hall of Fame. What I basically said is that in his era, Seaver was in a league of his own. In the Griffey era, there were quite a few guys that could hit the ball and field so when you look at his peers, he was awesome but some other players had almost as much value. Also keep in mind that many of Griffey's peers were steroid users so it is harder to judge his class of position players. Seaver did not come from the steroid era so talent was easier to judge.

[AddieJoss]

Anyone have thoughts in Mussina jumping up in the voting to 43%? Think he eventually gets there?

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by AddieJoss

Anyone have thoughts in Mussina jumping up in the voting to 43%? Think he eventually gets there?

Lee Smith started there and his % has not change much and even declined a little. Great player but with the way HOF voters do things, I doubt if he will.

[AddieJoss]

Originally Posted by kmac32

Lee Smith started there and his % has not change much and even declined a little. Great player but with the way HOF voters do things, I doubt if he will.

Mussina has been increasing each year on the ballot....and has a bunch of gold gloves to go with his pitching stats.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by kmac32

I agree that it was nice to see Hoffman get support, but also sad that Lee Smith did not gain any ground. Lee was the premeir closer in his era and players should be grouped with their peers. Nobody was better than Lee in his time but the fact that he in general was not associated with any particular team has hurt his chances. In my Hall, he is a first round winner as not only was he a great closer, but he is also a top notch human being. Great guy and none of the nasty attitude that so many stars have. All positives in my book. Maybe he will eventually make it in through the veterens committee.

Premier closer in his era? Really? Early 80s, Sutter was better. Late 80s & Early 90s, Eck was better. Mid-late 90s? No.

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Premier closer in his era? Really? Early 80s, Sutter was better. Late 80s & Early 90s, Eck was better. Mid-late 90s? No.

And who is third on the list of all time saves in MLB? Wasn't Sutter or Eckersley last time I checked. Believe the order is Hoffman, Rivera, Smith. Don't see Sutter or Eckersley in the top 5 of the list. Sutter is 26th on the list with 300 saves and Eckersley is 6th with 390 saves. Smith had 478 career saves. The numbers speak for themselves.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I very much doubt Sheffield ever gets in even if they start inducting roiders.

I think Bagwell, Sheffield and Sosa would get in because while there was only speculation, none ever failed a drug test or were otherwise suspended for same.

Palmeiro, Ramirez, and Rodriguez were all suspended for PEDs, while McGwire got caught with some in his locker (funny how he never got charged for anything, but the known presence of the stuff in his locker put him in this group). I think McGwire skated at the time because, admit it, we were all caught up in that HR race. I was really more offended by his lying to the Maris family.

Bonds and Clemens are a more difficult discussion: Both were arguably the best players at their position well before 'strange things' started showing up. Neither was ever convicted of using PEDs, although if you want to believe in such, no one would be better prepared to have the finest 'masking' product available.
.
.