HOF Future Eligibles

[Sean]

I really like Vlad Guerrero, but I don't think he gets in... at least not on the first ballot.
I hope I'm wrong.

[btcarfagno]

Trevor Hoffman? Oh please no. And if Jorge Posada gets more than 5% of the vote Ted Simmons should go apeshit on the BBWAA.

Tom C

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Trevor Hoffman? Oh please no. And if Jorge Posada gets more than 5% of the vote Ted Simmons should go apeshit on the BBWAA.

Tom C

Agreed on Simmons...Posada isn't in the same ballpark as him regarding HOF numbers and the type of hitter Simmons was.

[Klrdds]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Trevor Hoffman? Oh please no. And if Jorge Posada gets more than 5% of the vote Ted Simmons should go apeshit on the BBWAA.

Tom C

Agree with you on Simmons. Posada gets the benefit of the doubt because he was a Yankee. Simmons gets hurt because he was a contemporary with Bench when the Cards were ok to bad and the Reds were one of the best in baseball.

[arc2q]

Are those really the only significant players with first-time eligibility in 2016 and 2017? Things have really thinned out. Even without PEDs to consider, I would consider only Griffey as a HOF lock. Guerrero and Ramirez (my opinion) were historically borderline.

Because I grew up in the 80s I consider every player on what I call the Schmidt-Dawson-Raines-Murphy paradigm (I just made that up). Schmidt was the only lock yet I felt (and still feel) all four were better in their day than the 90's/00's power hitters, including Guerrero, Ramirez, Tejada, Edmonds, Sosa, etc.

[rats60]

Griffey 1st ballot, Vladimir 2nd or 3rd. This will be when Bagwell and Piazza make it. If Hoffman gets in, Billy Wagner should too. I don't want to fill the hall with a bunch of relievers. Everyone else no. We could see a ballot where no one gers 75%.

[Runscott]

I think too many of the voters believe Bagwell and Piazza might be steroid users. The gate still hasn't opened for anyone who even 'might be' one of them.

[Centauri]

Griffey for sure. Manny and Pudge Rodriguez would be no doubt about it HOF'ers based on their resumes. Trevor Hoffman?!? No way.

Allow me moment to laugh at any writer who does not vote for the Big Unit. You sir, are an idiot.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Trevor Hoffman? Oh please no. And if Jorge Posada gets more than 5% of the vote Ted Simmons should go apeshit on the BBWAA.

Tom C

Ok, what's wrong with Hoffman? 600 saves, a sub 3 ERA, more than a K an inning. The guy was not only a great closer with one of the highest save conversion percentages, he is an also an incredible humble role model. No, he shouldn't get in because he's a great role model but I tell you what, he's cut from the same type of cloth as Jeter, Mariano, Tony Gwynn and a few other incredible team players. He dominated at his position. Yeah, I'll give Mariano an edge on being the better closer but Trevor was no slouch as a closer.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Fred

Ok, what's wrong with Hoffman? 600 saves, a sub 3 ERA, more than a K an inning. The guy was not only a great closer with one of the highest save conversion percentages, he is an also an incredible humble role model. No, he shouldn't get in because he's a great role model but I tell you what, he's cut from the same type of cloth as Jeter, Mariano, Tony Gwynn and a few other incredible team players. He dominated at his position. Yeah, I'll give Mariano an edge on being the better closer but Trevor was no slouch as a closer.

He's a closer. Which means he wasn't good enough to be a starter. Someone who played a total of less than 1100 innings in the major leagues does not deserve to be in the Hall. Saying he might be the second best relief pitcher of all time carries about as much weight with me as someone who was the second best pinch hitter of all time.

Tom C

[LincolnVT]

Hoping for 2016!

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

He's a closer. Which means he wasn't good enough to be a starter.

Tom C

That's not at all what being a closer means. Personally, I would be all for Lee Smith and Hoffman is a no brainer.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

That's not at all what being a closer means. Personally, I would be all for Lee Smith and Hoffman is a no brainer.

Of course that is what it means. Hoffman began his professional career as a closer in the minors because his pitch repertoire was not good enough to be a starter. There was a REALLY good reason why Hoffman was an 11th round draft choice. Admittedly he was great at what he was asked to do. But going max effort for 15-20 pitches at a time does not make someone a Hall Of Famer.

Tom C

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Of course that is what it means. Hoffman began his professional career as a closer in the minors because his pitch repertoire was not good enough to be a starter. There was a REALLY good reason why Hoffman was an 11th round draft choice. Admittedly he was great at what he was asked to do. But going max effort for 15-20 pitches at a time does not make someone a Hall Of Famer.

Tom C

In order to keep the tone civil, I will say your arguments make no sense and your statements reflect no understanding of baseball in the post-1970s era.

[Exhibitman]

On the juicers, it seems to me that the game has to decide whether integrity plays a role in the HOF. Bonds and Clemens were likely HOFers without the steroids but we will never know that in the end because they cheated, as have A-Roid and Palmiero and several others, which we know for a fact. I don't care if they can jack a ball into the upper deck or throw 100 mph. If I ever have a grandson and if I ever get to take him to Cooperstown I'd really prefer not to have to explain how the PED jocks are role models. I'd rather show him the stats these guys have and explain that they cheated and because of that they have never been given the honor of election to the hall. And yes, I do realize that there are some pretty shitty people in the HOF--racists, drunks, and jerks--but their presence is not a reason to add some more bad apples to the barrel. That said, if there is nothing in the Mitchell Report on a guy and nothing else showing he used I don't see how you can justify keeping him out on the basis of PED use.

[Robextend]

I'm really torn when it comes to closer's. Can they be considered failed starters...maybe, but they are an accepted part of the game these days and there probably should be a place for them in the HOF. With that said, I would think you need to be a completely dominant one to get in, and I am not sure there are any in that I would consider dominant.

Even Eckersley, who is regarded as a top closer of all-time...take a look at his 11 year stretch as closer as far as ERA:

1987 - 3.03
1988 - 2.35
1989 - 1.56
1990 - 0.61
1991 - 2.96
1992 - 1.91
1993 - 4.16
1994 - 4.26
1995 - 4.83
1996 - 3.30
1997 - 3.91

His dominance fizzled after 5 years or so...his starting numbers were good, but certainly not HOF worthy as maybe a Smoltz would be considered.

So why is Eckersley in the HOF?

[refz]

The championships will probably or eventually land Posada in the hall.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by refz

The championships will probably or eventually land Posada in the hall.

4 champions did not do anything for Bernie Williams, who was twice the hitter Posada was.

[JollyElm]

Debating the relevance of closers (regardless of which side of the fence your opinion lies on) is quite similar to the lingering debates regarding the election of place kickers to the NFL Hall of Fame in Canton.

With kickers, they spend almost the entire game on the bench and come in when needed. If they make game winning kicks (Vinatieri), they are celebrated. If they go wide right (Norwood), their name is forever attached to a single moment of failure.

Closers are an integral part of the game. Ask any Mets fan when was the last time they had anyone…ANYONE…who could seal a victory for us and they will laugh at you. A team absolutely needs that guy. But when you're talking about baseball overall, it seems closers are very much denigrated for the small amount of time they are actually in the game. As others have said, gone are the days of the Gossage, Smith, Sutter 'long saves.' Now it seems the most time a closer is in the game is a single inning. It's ridiculous how that aspect of the game has changed so much and it (along with other things people have said in this thread) will always work against them being enshrined.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Robextend

I'm really torn when it comes to closer's. Can they be considered failed starters...maybe, but they are an accepted part of the game these days and there probably should be a place for them in the HOF. With that said, I would think you need to be a completely dominant one to get in, and I am not sure there are any in that I would consider dominant.

Even Eckersley, who is regarded as a top closer of all-time...take a look at his 11 year stretch as closer as far as ERA:

1987 - 3.03
1988 - 2.35
1989 - 1.56
1990 - 0.61
1991 - 2.96
1992 - 1.91
1993 - 4.16
1994 - 4.26
1995 - 4.83
1996 - 3.30
1997 - 3.91

His dominance fizzled after 5 years or so...his starting numbers were good, but certainly not HOF worthy as maybe a Smoltz would be considered.

So why is Eckersley in the HOF?

I've been asking that for awhile now. I didn't think he belonged when he got elected.

[Greg Sonk]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

He's a closer. Which means he wasn't good enough to be a starter. Someone who played a total of less than 1100 innings in the major leagues does not deserve to be in the Hall. Saying he might be the second best relief pitcher of all time carries about as much weight with me as someone who was the second best pinch hitter of all time.

Tom C

Obviously I agree with you wholeheartedly, but please don't even dignify "closer" as a position. He pitches. Relief pitchers are inherently less valuable than equivalent starters because they don't throw as many innings. There's no argument to be made to the contrary.

We have all this evidence that points to the relative value of relievers to starters and we still see media members saying Hoffman had excellent longevity while simultaneously questioning Pedro's. Can't account for willful ignorance.

[btcarfagno]

Actually I made a mistake. I forgot Hoffman started as an infielder in the minors, so his draft spot was due to his bat being terrible. That said, however, they did not try to make him a starter. He was a reliever because of his limited amount of major league pitches.

Tom C