Is CC Sabathia a Hall of Famer?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Hall of Stats says Reese 120 (100 is HOF worthy), Rizzuto 77.

[Yastrzemski Sports]

CC is pitching in a hitters ballpark, against a DH, in one of the most hitter friendly ballparks in baseball. At the same time, he has earned a roster spot playing on one of the most competitive teams in one of the most demanding markets in baseball. He is not compiling numbers. He is a productive and important part of the team. He has a career war which places him in company with many other HOF pitchers. ERA does not tell the whole story. He is almost 100 wins over .500 with an ERA+ of 117. Combined with a CY and a WS he will probably be a first ballot guy.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Career stats of the two are very similar. Rizzuto won three major awards and was second in MVP voting once. Reese won no major awards. Also, Phil had just a few more championship rings. However, I see them both as borderline HOFers at best.

never mind, Kenny Cole said the same thing.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Yastrzemski Sports

CC is pitching in a hitters ballpark, against a DH, in one of the most hitter friendly ballparks in baseball. At the same time, he has earned a roster spot playing on one of the most competitive teams in one of the most demanding markets in baseball. He is not compiling numbers. He is a productive and important part of the team. He has a career war which places him in company with many other HOF pitchers. ERA does not tell the whole story. He is almost 100 wins over .500 with an ERA+ of 117. Combined with a CY and a WS he will probably be a first ballot guy.

First ballot? I'm going to say a name that no one associates with the HOF but in my opinion is a name I'd rather have on the rubber than CC: Tim Hudson. He also won almost (89) 100 more games than he lost, his ERA is lower than CC at 3.49, his ERA+ is higher at 120 and his best season (7.5 WAR in 2003) is better than CC's Cy Young season (6.3 in 2007). Even Hudson's second best season in 2002 (WAR of 6.9) was better than any single Sabathia season.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by packs

First ballot? I'm going to say a name that no one associates with the HOF but in my opinion is a name I'd rather have on the rubber than CC: Tim Hudson. He also won almost (89) 100 more games than he lost, his ERA is lower than CC at 3.49, his ERA+ is higher at 120 and his best season (7.5 WAR in 2003) is better than CC's Cy Young season (6.3 in 2007). Even Hudson's second best season in 2002 (WAR of 6.9) was better than any single Sabathia season.

As much as it pains me to agree with Packs (who is using WAR in a discussion???!!!) he's got a point. Hudson really was consistently good longer than CC and his peak was higher.

Now Packs, about Corey Dickerson...

[packs]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

As much as it pains me to agree with Packs (who is using WAR in a discussion???!!!) he's got a point. Hudson really was consistently good longer than CC and his peak was higher.

Now Packs, about Corey Dickerson...

Haha I've always thought Hudson has been criminally overlooked and he's been one of my favorite players since he came into the league. I loved watching him pitch.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I was thinking the same thing today...it seems a pitcher winning 300 games in this era will be extremely rare if seen at all? I think 250 is the new 300!!!! Especially if you've won WS's and have a lot of strikeouts. His style has evolved similarly to pettittes from more of a power game to offspeed painting the corners. I think they both deserve to go in!

Dont understand why Post Season stats should count too. Petitte did really well in the post season..

[Orioles1954]

Tim Hudson was a great ball player. He did rack up a lot of numbers in a pitching friendly park but was a “compiler” (just kidding) toward the latter part of his career.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Tim Hudson was a great ball player. He did rack up a lot of numbers in a pitching friendly park but was a “compiler” (just kidding) toward the latter part of his career.

Haha it was his last three seasons that killed his HOF case. If not for them he he would have been (correct me if I'm wrong) the only pitcher other than Babe Ruth to pitch at least 10 seasons and never have a losing record. Except for two of those three last seasons!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Tim Hudson was a great ball player. He did rack up a lot of numbers in a pitching friendly park but was a “compiler” (just kidding) toward the latter part of his career.

Turner field was pretty neutral with it's ballpark factor bouncing around from year to year on either side of "1" which is in essence, no affect.

[darwinbulldog]

For me he's a yes, but (a) just barely and (b) there are at least 25 better players (including those still active) who aren't in yet. I'd put Sabathia just a little behind Tiant and just a little ahead of Guidry.

[Misunderestimated]

Eventually CC gets it... His career isn't quite over yet. If the Yankees do something (win the Series) this year he might get some extra-credit there to go with 250+ wins.

He's not a dominator like Halladay was... Kershaw would get in if he had to retire now because of his health.

He's likely to be one of the last 250+ winners we see for a while (Verlander probably?) ... nice career, consistent.... Not a pure compiler (Jamie Moyer or Quinn from way back in the 1900-30s) but not as big a winner as Mussina or Hunter. No negatives for PEDs that I'm aware of like Pettite. Pretty much a model citizen if I remember right so no "character issues" (Schilling).

I do think Luis Tiant was better .... but different eras. I hope he gets in. Same with Tommy John who is also a bit of a "compiler" but with a great comeback story.

Anyway, the recent inductions of Smith and Baines suggest that the Hall doors will are wide open even if the writers don't let CC in within the initial run... I think that the writers will but not until they make him wait for a while.

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

It's now the Hall of Very Good and Not Necessarily Amazing. And he belongs there under that umbrella with other Bronx Bombers of similar stature.

I agree. very good is the mark now.
HOF means little anymore...unless you have their RC in a 10. (Did not mention PSA). Then, you are in like Flint. Yeah, he deserves.

Besides, his cards are produced in the great bulge production numbers. Never will hold a good return.

CC is not a HOFer in my thoughts. My baseball side. Not my card side.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by xplainer

I agree. very good is the mark now.
HOF means little anymore...unless you have their RC in a 10. (Did not mention PSA). Then, you are in like Flint. Yeah, he deserves.

Besides, his cards are produced in the great bulge production numbers. Never will hold a good return.

CC is not a HOFer in my thoughts. My baseball side. Not my card side.

Unless someone's election is a real shock, like Smith and Baines, I agree it won't have a big effect on price. Smith's and Baines' 9s and 10s though went up exponentially when they were elected and still haven't come back to prior levels or even close.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Dont understand why Post Season stats should count too. Petitte did really well in the post season..

Not really. He pitched a lot in the postseason and did OK not "really well". 3.81 ERA with a 1.305 WHIP. Nothing special.

[Yastrzemski Sports]

Originally Posted by packs

First ballot? I'm going to say a name that no one associates with the HOF but in my opinion is a name I'd rather have on the rubber than CC: Tim Hudson. He also won almost (89) 100 more games than he lost, his ERA is lower than CC at 3.49, his ERA+ is higher at 120 and his best season (7.5 WAR in 2003) is better than CC's Cy Young season (6.3 in 2007). Even Hudson's second best season in 2002 (WAR of 6.9) was better than any single Sabathia season.

Hudson had a very nice career. The reason no one associated him with the HOF is that he has isn’t going there. He has 222 wins and 2000 strikeouts. CC has 250 wins and 3000 K to go with the CY. If you are comparing a guy with 2000k to a guy with 3000k that’s where the argument ends.
CCs best season were 19-7, 3.21 and 21-7, 3.18. He also had two more 19 win seasons. Also, CC had a war of 7.2 in 2008 which was split with Cleveland and Milwaukee. CC is retiring at the end of this season. I would guess he and Ichiro will go in together - because at this time they are the only 2 players retiring who are worth voting for. There is always the possibility he will have to wait another year but I doubt it.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by packs

Not really sure why people don't think another pitcher will win 300 games. Randy Johnson won 300 games after he turned 25 years old. He's obviously one of the greatest pitchers of all time, but so are the majority of people who won 300 games.

Simple answer. MLB Baseball has turned a starting pitcher into a 6 inning pitcher. The less a pitcher “hangs around”, the less likely his chances are to claim a victory.

[Vintageclout]

3.71 lifetime ERA; a horrific 1.26 WHIP and here’s the worst stat of all: only ONE season with a sub-3.00 ERA (and that was a 2.70 Figure). This means even at his ultimate “peak”, he was not putting up earth-shattering numbers. After the 2.70 ERA, I believe his best figure was 3.17. Total “compiler”. He has only averaged 13 wins per season AND he pitched for great Indian and Yankee teams who both provided plenty of run support. Hall of Famer? Not in my book, but as others have accurately stated in this post, he will eventually get it.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Well you do have to look at that ERA in context. His ERA+ is 117, so he was 17% better than the league average pitcher. In an era where scoring is up so much the raw number can be misleading.

I certainly find him better than Jack Morris who "only" won 254 games and had a 3.90 ERA with an ERA+ of 105.

I'd also take him over Burleigh Grimes whose ERA was 3.53 but his ERA+ was only 108.

Oh and he beats the pants off of them in WHIP too.

I guess my big issue is there are a SLEW of pitchers I'd put in before him, but I'd have put them in before Morris too. Luis Tiant, Tommy John, even Jim Kaat. However you can unscrew a light bulb, but not a HOF, unless you're in favor of throwing guys out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I always thought Rick Reuschel was quite a bit better than jack Morris and maybe some others in the Hall.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

good call Resuchel is also on my list, just forgot about him. He's probably higher than John and Kaat, neck and neck with Tiant for me.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Well you do have to look at that ERA in context. His ERA+ is 117, so he was 17% better than the league average pitcher. In an era where scoring is up so much the raw number can be misleading.

I certainly find him better than Jack Morris who "only" won 254 games and had a 3.90 ERA with an ERA+ of 105.

I'd also take him over Burleigh Grimes whose ERA was 3.53 but his ERA+ was only 108.

Oh and he beats the pants off of them in WHIP too.

I guess my big issue is there are a SLEW of pitchers I'd put in before him, but I'd have put them in before Morris too. Luis Tiant, Tommy John, even Jim Kaat. However you can unscrew a light bulb, but not a HOF, unless you're in favor of throwing guys out.

If a lot of your argument for a guy going into the Hall is "well, he's better than this guy who's already in..." then the guy probably doesn't belong. HOFers stand on their own. There are lots of guys better than Harold Baines that don't belong, for example.

At least in the case of Morris, he had some dominant postseason outings, including the iconic 1991 game 7. CC? Career 4.31 ERA in the postseason while averaging under 6 innings a start.

CC had some good, even very good, years. Anything great? Nah. Sure, it's important to look at the context of when he played. Good idea. So compare him to his contemporaries - Roy Halladay. Justin Verlander. Clayton Kershaw. Zack Greinke. Madison Bumgarner. Curt Schilling. Randy Johnson. Roger Clemens. Greg Maddux. Corey Kluber. Max Scherzer. And so on. All pitched in the same eras as CC. All put up seasons (or many, many seasons) better than CC's best.

I just don't see him at HOF level.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Yastrzemski Sports

Hudson had a very nice career. The reason no one associated him with the HOF is that he has isn’t going there. He has 222 wins and 2000 strikeouts. CC has 250 wins and 3000 K to go with the CY. If you are comparing a guy with 2000k to a guy with 3000k that’s where the argument ends.
CCs best season were 19-7, 3.21 and 21-7, 3.18. He also had two more 19 win seasons. Also, CC had a war of 7.2 in 2008 which was split with Cleveland and Milwaukee. CC is retiring at the end of this season. I would guess he and Ichiro will go in together - because at this time they are the only 2 players retiring who are worth voting for. There is always the possibility he will have to wait another year but I doubt it.

The stats you're bringing up for CC are compiler stats. Without hanging around as a below average pitcher since 2013 and putting up one decent season in 2017, CC doesn't sniff 250 wins or 3000 K's.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Not really. He pitched a lot in the postseason and did OK not "really well". 3.81 ERA with a 1.305 WHIP. Nothing special.

Well sabathia in his career is 3.71 (and people think he should be in HOF) and postseason opponents are better overall so 3.81 is actually really well and very close to Petite's regular season . Petite won 19 post season games. Petite also was on 5 championship teams and won MVP in 2001 I think thats speccial

CC's poste season ERA was 4.31 and he won 10 games.

Petite won most post season games of all time. Cant blame him for being in so many post season games. But again, thats my point he was in so many games and when we count stats for HOF like total wins they dont count postseason which they should for guys like Petite who were in so many games..

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Well sabathia in his career is 3.71 (and people think he should be in HOF) and postseason opponents are better overall so 3.81 is actually really well and very close to Petite's regular season . Petite won 19 post season games. Petite also was on 5 championship teams and won MVP in 2001 I think thats speccial

CC's poste season ERA was 4.31 and he won 10 games.

Petite won most post season games of all time. Cant blame him for being in so many post season games. But again, thats my point he was in so many games and when we count stats for HOF like total wins they dont count postseason which they should for guys like Petite who were in so many games..

Well, the point is that Pettite didn't do anything particularly outstanding in the playoffs. He pitched a lot. He got 44 starts and had a 3.81 ERA. That's not bad. Pretty good in fact. But "really well"? Nah. 4.06 ERA in the World Series. "Really well"? Disagree. "Really well" is Curt Schilling going 11-2 overall with a 2.23 ERA. It's John Smoltz going 15-4 overall with a 2.67 ERA. It's Madison Bumgarner having a 0.25 ERA in the World Series and a 2.11 overall in the playoffs.

[Baseballcrazy62]

Based on today’s announcement I thought this might be relevant. Congrats to all the new !HOF’ers

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Close but no cigar. Who cares about strikeouts? An out is an out. Career 3.71 ERA, 1.26 WHIP--Good, not great.

I have to agree with Jay. Add the fact he posted only ONE season with a sub-3.00 ERA & 20 wins. Solid pitcher but not HOF caliber. Peak value, Tiant & Schilling were superior. HOF continues to be watered down.

[BioCRN]

People can bang on that Schilling drum all they want, but it's not numbers that's keeping him out of the HOF.

I think he belongs and I think he'll eventually get in, but he's got a whole career of pissing off teammates, sportswriters, and people from all walks of life during and after his career.

It has nothing at all to do with what was going on between the mound and the batter. That "character" thing they stress does some heavy lifting, especially historically, but that is keeping Schilling out of the HOF.

As far as CC goes, I'm not surprised he's a HOF'r, but I am surprised it's 1st ballot.

[conor912]

He is now.

[michael3322]

Quite stunning that CC got in on the first ballot.

Consider the case of Johnny Mize...

Hall of Fame votes...
1960 BBWAA (16.7%)
1962 BBWAA ( 8.8%)
1964 BBWAA (26.9%)
1964 Run Off ( 6.0%)
1966 BBWAA (26.8%)
1967 BBWAA (30.5%)
1967 Run Off ( 4.6%)
1968 BBWAA (36.4%)
1969 BBWAA (34.1%)
1970 BBWAA (42.0%)
1971 BBWAA (43.6%)
1972 BBWAA (39.6%)
1973 BBWAA (41.3%)
1981 Veterans (inducted)
Selected to HOF in 1981 by Veteran's Committee

SUMMARY
WAR 70.6
AB 6443
H 2011
HR 359
BA .312
R 1118
RBI 1337
SB 28
OBP .397
SLG .562
OPS .959
OPS+ 158


Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 50 (33rd), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 202 (50th), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 175 (62nd), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 47 (104th), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS
First Base (9th):
70.6 career WAR | 48.4 7yr-peak WAR | 59.5 JAWS | 6.1 WAR/162
Average HOF 1B (out of 25):
64.8 career WAR | 42.0 7yr-peak WAR | 53.4 JAWS | 4.8 WAR/162

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...mizejo01.shtml

[D. Bergin]

Mize would have gotten in a lot quicker today. He had the type of underlying stats that today's analysts love, and have found to be more relevant to winning then formerly thought.

He just didn't get to those magical and arbitrary compilation numbers that were more relevant for power hitters then, than they are now.

I remember Mize getting in pretty well, in 1981, because I was in the 6th grade, and my 6th grade history teacher then, was a huuuuge Johnny Mize fan, for a reason that still eludes me to this day.

He had Johnny Mize stuff posted in the classroom, he would collect Johnny Mize cards and memorabilia, and he celebrated openly in the classroom when Mize finally got in the HOF.

He loved me, because I was a little baseball history nerd, even then. When we had to do a big front of the class presentation on the topic of our choice, that counted for a big portion of our grade...I did a presentation on Baseball History...snuck a little bit on Johnny Mize in there...and got a no doubt A+ on the assignment.

LOL, might have been the last A+ I ever got in my school career. Might have also been the last time I didn't have a full on panic attack, when having to speak in front of a bunch of people at one time.

[yanks87]

It is the Hall of Fame argument time of year! I will once again and throw my foil hat on and jump into the fray.

CC a Hall of Famer? Yes. I think there needs to be an establishment of the GOLDEN NUMBERS of Hall induction. CC being one of 14 pitchers with 250 wins and 3000 K's makes it a no brainer for me. When you think about the pre-Yankee days, he was an absolute monster. First ballot all the way.

Ichiro is a no brainer for me, he was truly a generational hitter, we won't see the likes of that plate discipline for a while, if ever again.

SINCE THE DOOR IS OPEN, I will once again go back to my Golden Number theory for hall induction. As the game continues to go to specialized roles, there has to be some bench mark for HOF inductions, or a LOT of good players are going to make it in. I know that there are plenty that are already a bunch of polarizing players in the hall, but my biggest pet peeve is players like Edgar Martinez, in my mind, a WAR induction only. Good player, yup, great hitter, yup, hall of famer? NOPE. It's a moot point, but a DH going into the Hall should have 3000 hits or 500 home runs. They should not be judged the same way field players for eligibility. Edgar had a .309/2247/309 (BA/Hits/HR) line. David Ortiz is more worthy of the hall with a .286/2472/541 line because of those 541 home runs. Edgar never should have gone in.

For closers, what is the golden number for saves? 400? If that is the case then there are going to be a bunch going into the hall, is John Franco a hall of famer? Kenley Jansen has 447 saves, 20 more than Wagner, is he a first ballot guy?!! There is a part of me that wonders why it is not acceptable that on some years, there may be only one induction, or none?! Crazy talk, I know, but like I said, it is that time of year.

[Seven]

I think what it comes down to, as well, is the fact that the Hall of Fame is not the Hall of Stats. If you were a well liked player, that put up numbers, you have a better shot of getting in. I think this is also what hurt the big 3 of the PED era. Clemens, Bonds and ARod, were vilified at one point or another in their careers.

Sabathia hit some of the stat thresholds needed, everyone had positive things to say about him, and he was loved by his teammates. Am I a little surprised he was a first ballot? Yes. But he was going to make it regardless.

[jayshum]

Given how the game changes over time, I think it would be hard to just base induction to the HoF on reaching certain statistical milestones. Also, that would potentially reward compilers who play for a long time but never were considered to be a great player. Harold Baines anyone?

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by conor912

He is now.

+1 he's in, doesn't matter. OBE.

[KJA]

Originally Posted by yanks87

It is the Hall of Fame argument time of year! I will once again and throw my foil hat on and jump into the fray.

CC a Hall of Famer? Yes. I think there needs to be an establishment of the GOLDEN NUMBERS of Hall induction. CC being one of 14 pitchers with 250 wins and 3000 K's makes it a no brainer for me. When you think about the pre-Yankee days, he was an absolute monster. First ballot all the way.

Ichiro is a no brainer for me, he was truly a generational hitter, we won't see the likes of that plate discipline for a while, if ever again.

SINCE THE DOOR IS OPEN, I will once again go back to my Golden Number theory for hall induction. As the game continues to go to specialized roles, there has to be some bench mark for HOF inductions, or a LOT of good players are going to make it in. I know that there are plenty that are already a bunch of polarizing players in the hall, but my biggest pet peeve is players like Edgar Martinez, in my mind, a WAR induction only. Good player, yup, great hitter, yup, hall of famer? NOPE. It's a moot point, but a DH going into the Hall should have 3000 hits or 500 home runs. They should not be judged the same way field players for eligibility. Edgar had a .309/2247/309 (BA/Hits/HR) line. David Ortiz is more worthy of the hall with a .286/2472/541 line because of those 541 home runs. Edgar never should have gone in.

For closers, what is the golden number for saves? 400? If that is the case then there are going to be a bunch going into the hall, is John Franco a hall of famer? Kenley Jansen has 447 saves, 20 more than Wagner, is he a first ballot guy?!! There is a part of me that wonders why it is not acceptable that on some years, there may be only one induction, or none?! Crazy talk, I know, but like I said, it is that time of year.

Good conversation to have about closers, I do think at least 400 saves but I also think a sub 3.00 ERA and maybe 1000k's? Right now Kimbrel and Jansen are over 400 along with K Rod and Franco. Next closest to 400 is Aroldis Chapman who I think falls short of 400. I do wonder if we will ever see a relief pitcher get in, someone that isn't a closer like a Jesse Orosco type.

[jchcollins]

CC as 1st ballot surprised me, but I quickly became more annoyed by the number of people on social media who think it's a literal felony that Ichiro wasn't unanimous. The importance of institutional history is a short-lived thing, I guess.

[John1941]

Ichiro was an incredible player and richly deserved to be a Hall of Famer - but I really don't understand why every famous & qualified player is supposed to be elected unanimously. Ichiro and Jeter have both fallen just one vote short recently - why were they even close to being unanimously elected? They were both incredible players and richly deserve to be Hall of Famers, but they're not perfect - Jeter wasn't Honus at the plate and the defensive metrics hate him, and Ichiro didn't hit for power or walk (or get along with the media). (For context: I'm a Yankees fan & love Ichiro.)

Mariano being elected unanimously made at least some sense to me because he was almost the perfect closer. (I may be biased because I'm a big Mariano fan...) But if every great player is elected unanimously, then being elected unanimously will no longer mean anything. It will become routine & we'll be angry when our favorite isn't elected without a single dissent. That just doesn't seem healthy. Isn't being elected to the Hall of Fame enough?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by John1941

Ichiro was an incredible player and richly deserved to be a Hall of Famer - but I really don't understand why every famous & qualified player is supposed to be elected unanimously. Ichiro and Jeter have both fallen just one vote short recently - why were they even close to being unanimously elected? They were both incredible players and richly deserve to be Hall of Famers, but they're not perfect - Jeter wasn't Honus at the plate and the defensive metrics hate him, and Ichiro didn't hit for power or walk (or get along with the media). (For context: I'm a Yankees fan & love Ichiro.)

Why would a player need to be perfect to be unanimous? I don't understand the connection. If a player is an obvious HOFer, such as Jeter, Ripken, Mantle, Pujols, Seaver, Bench, Ichiro, they should be unanimous. For them to be not unanimous is some sports writer saying "nah, that guy isn't a Hall of Famer" when that is CLEARLY not the case. And, no, the "Well, Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous so Ichiro shouldn't be either" argument isn't valid either.

[michael3322]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Mize would have gotten in a lot quicker today. He had the type of underlying stats that today's analysts love, and have found to be more relevant to winning then formerly thought.

He just didn't get to those magical and arbitrary compilation numbers that were more relevant for power hitters then, than they are now.

I remember Mize getting in pretty well, in 1981, because I was in the 6th grade, and my 6th grade history teacher then, was a huuuuge Johnny Mize fan, for a reason that still eludes me to this day.

He had Johnny Mize stuff posted in the classroom, he would collect Johnny Mize cards and memorabilia, and he celebrated openly in the classroom when Mize finally got in the HOF.

He loved me, because I was a little baseball history nerd, even then. When we had to do a big front of the class presentation on the topic of our choice, that counted for a big portion of our grade...I did a presentation on Baseball History...snuck a little bit on Johnny Mize in there...and got a no doubt A+ on the assignment.

LOL, might have been the last A+ I ever got in my school career. Might have also been the last time I didn't have a full on panic attack, when having to speak in front of a bunch of people at one time.

Great post. Thanks Dave.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Why would a player need to be perfect to be unanimous? I don't understand the connection. If a player is an obvious HOFer, such as Jeter, Ripken, Mantle, Pujols, Seaver, Bench, Ichiro, they should be unanimous. For them to be not unanimous is some sports writer saying "nah, that guy isn't a Hall of Famer" when that is CLEARLY not the case. And, no, the "Well, Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous so Ichiro shouldn't be either" argument isn't valid either.

To me, the only reason that makes sense for withholding a vote from an obvious Hall of Famer is if there are more than 10 candidates that a voter wants to vote for so the obvious Hall of Famer is left off their ballot because the voter figures that candidate will get voted in anyway. If the voting method were changed so that a voter cast a Yes/No vote for every person on the ballot, it's possible that there would be more unanimous inductees.

[GeoPoto]

Maybe the voter believes that, particularly with the advent of public shaming resulting in a trend toward a "bigger" hall, that unanimous should be reserved as a way to honor the top one tenth of one percent. And he doesn't think Ichiro's career warrants that distinction. Nobody else has to agree with him. It's his opinion and he is entitled to it. He doesn't have to believe that Ichiro doesn't belong in the hall. He only has to trust that Ichiro will make it without his vote.

[D. Bergin]

I don't normally subscribe to old school ways of interpreting the sport of baseball...but if Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron didn't get 100% of the vote...I'm not sure why I should care that Ichiro didn't get 100% of the vote.

Hell, Mantle was 43 votes short of a unanimous selection.

Rickey Henderson, who was worth almost 2 Ichiro's, via the WAR statistic, was left off of 28 ballots.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I don't normally subscribe to old school ways of interpreting the sport of baseball...but if Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron didn't get 100% of the vote...I'm not sure why I should care that Ichiro didn't get 100% of the vote.

Hell, Mantle was 43 votes short of a unanimous selection.

Rickey Henderson, who was worth almost 2 Ichiro's, via the WAR statistic, was left off of 28 ballots.

Wow, completely agree with every word of this.

[jayshum]

I still am amazed that Mariano Rivera was unanimous considering the general disdain for closers/relief pitchers getting into the Hall of Fame. Sure he's probably the best closer ever, but it's still hard to believe he got 100%.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I still am amazed that Mariano Rivera was unanimous considering the general disdain for closers/relief pitchers getting into the Hall of Fame. Sure he's probably the best closer ever, but it's still hard to believe he got 100%.

Same...and I'm a huge Yanks and Mariano fan.

Figured at least a couple writers would have held out based on the Closer/Reliever argument.

I am certainly not in favor of forcing writers to publicly reveal their votes. Not with the Troll culture we have today.

Vote for so and so or death threats will immediately ensue, while Stephen A. Smith and Chris Russo and Skip Bayless and Pat McAfee and whoever the hell else, publicly eviscerates you to their Millions+ brainless audiences.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Same...and I'm a huge Yanks and Mariano fan.

Figured at least a couple writers would have held out based on the Closer/Reliever argument.

I am certainly not in favor of forcing writers to publicly reveal their votes. Not with the Troll culture we have today.

Vote for so and so or death threats will immediately ensue, while Stephen A. Smith and Chris Russo and Skip Bayless and Pat McAfee and whoever the hell else, publicly eviscerates you to their Millions+ brainless audiences.

The 100% thing only became a thing when it became a thing with Mariano. I agree that it surprises me that he was the one to finally break through the "tradition" that nobody can get 100%.

Once he did, though, it's interesting that a number of very popular players both came one vote short. I wonder if the same happens to guys like Pujols, Cabrera, or other "no doubt" guys on the horizon. If Rivera is destined to be the only one with a perfect vote, that's just....odd.

Personally, I disagree on public ballots. Getting a vote is a great honor that should be taken seriously. I feel many who have the vote don't take it as seriously as they should. If you're not willing to publicly defend your choices against a few internet trolls, decline your ballot. If everyone had to defend their vote, I think we'd see a lot less shenanigans.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Personally, I disagree on public ballots. Getting a vote is a great honor that should be taken seriously. I feel many who have the vote don't take it as seriously as they should. If you're not willing to publicly defend your choices against a few internet trolls, decline your ballot. If everyone had to defend their vote, I think we'd see a lot less shenanigans.

People get death threats and get their homes Swatted on a regular basis, for a lot less then: "You didn't vote for my favorite player", or better yet..."the guy I bet on to get a certain % of the ballots, didn't get that %".

Somebody making 40K or less a year to be a sportswriter (and a lot of them make a lot less then that nowadays), shouldn't have themselves and their families subjected to that, just because it's a honor just to be asked.

Certainly not because Stephen A. Smith wants to dole out his pound of flesh on National Television...not because he's personally outraged...but because it creates an angry and engaged audience that keeps him relevant and makes him and his employer shitloads of money in the process.

If the HOF thinks somebody is abusing their position as a voting member, just don't invite them back the next year...but it's not the end of the world because anybody does or doesn't get 100% of the votes.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I don't normally subscribe to old school ways of interpreting the sport of baseball...but if Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron didn't get 100% of the vote...I'm not sure why I should care that Ichiro didn't get 100% of the vote.

Hell, Mantle was 43 votes short of a unanimous selection.

Rickey Henderson, who was worth almost 2 Ichiro's, via the WAR statistic, was left off of 28 ballots.

Agree 100%. I will add Lou Gehrig and Roberto Clemente. if they can't get 100% when they are the only one on the ballot and no doubt Hall of Famers, then Ichiro, maybe the 10th best RF, and Jeter, maybe the 10th best SS, getting within 1 vote of 100% is remarkable.

I can see Mariano getting 100%. He is no doubt the best relief pitcher ever. Unless for some reason you don't think relievers belong in the HOF, how could you not vote for him? If Ichiro and Jeter only had only 1 hold out, then Albert Pujols has to be unanimous, doesn't he? Going forward, maybe Ohtani, depending on how his career finishes. But saying some random player should have been 100% just because he belongs in the HOF makes no sense.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

People get death threats and get their homes Swatted on a regular basis, for a lot less then: "You didn't vote for my favorite player", or better yet..."the guy I bet on to get a certain % of the ballots, didn't get that %".

Somebody making 40K or less a year to be a sportswriter (and a lot of them make a lot less then that nowadays), shouldn't have themselves and their families subjected to that, just because it's a honor just to be asked.

Certainly not because Stephen A. Smith wants to dole out his pound of flesh on National Television...not because he's personally outraged...but because it creates an angry and engaged audience that keeps him relevant and makes him and his employer shitloads of money in the process.

If the HOF thinks somebody is abusing their position as a voting member, just don't invite them back the next year...but it's not the end of the world because anybody does or doesn't get 100% of the votes.

This is true of anyone who writes anything publicly, including journalists. It sucks that that's the world we live in nowadays, but I don't know what makes the HOF vote any different than any other article or tweet anyone puts out there.