2016 Hall of Fame Ballot, Who would you vote for?

[KCRfan1]

McGwire hitting in the Home Run Derby at Fenway was classic. Just remember to turn off the sound so you don't have to listen to Behrman.

[cardsfan73]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

McGwire hitting in the Home Run Derby at Fenway was classic. Just remember to turn off the sound so you don't have to listen to Behrman.

If this were facebook I would have hit the like button!

[Beatles Guy]

Mike Piazza
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Jeff Bagwell
Mark McGwire
Sammy Sosa
Ken Griffey Jr.

If I had a vote on the Veteran's Committee: Ted Simmons and Gil Hodges.

[KCRfan1]

+1 for Simmons and Hodges

[the 'stache]

My ballot:

Piazza
Bagwell
Raines
Trammell
Griffey Jr
Edmonds
Hoffman

Yes, I would eventually vote for Clemens and Bonds to be in the Hall. They would have been Hall of Famers if they'd never juiced. But because they did, I wouldn't put their names on my first ballot. Or my second. Or third.

Originally Posted by Beatles Guy

Mike Piazza
If I had a vote on the Veteran's Committee: Ted Simmons and Gil Hodges.

+1 to this

I remember seeing Simba play at Milwaukee County Stadium as a kid. When he got the sweet spot of the bat on the ball, you could hear it all the way in Waukesha. The man was very strong. Simmons was an extra base hit machine, and there's a compelling case to be made for his induction. Here's a list of the Major League players who started at least 1,000 games at catcher, sorted by career extra base hits:

Ivan Rodriguez 934
Carlton Fisk 844
Johnny Bench 794
Mike Piazza 779
Ted Simmons 778
Yogi Berra 728
Gary Carter 726

Rodriguez is likely a first ballot Hall of Famer, and Piazza should get in soon. You mean to tell me that every guy on this list is a Hall of Famer but Simmons?

And Hodges? I'm sorry, Hodges is one player where I feel the WAR metrics simply do not do him justice. He should have been in long ago.

[Topps206]

I feel that it's wrong to give love to Gil Hodges without acknowledging someone like Keith Hernandez, who I think has a stronger case.

[the 'stache]

Here's another head scratcher. Hernandez won 12 Gold Gloves. Yet, his career dWAR is 0.6.

I watched him play first base. He was spectacular. He changed opposing manager strategy. So how is it that his glove work was worth only a half a win over a replacement first baseman?

[KingFisk]

I am still torn on Clemens and Bonds, as those guys were truly special players even before they juiced. I am not convinced Clemens has the latter day resurgence without the medication. He looked to this untrained eye like he was cooked around '93 and not sure he did enough before then to warrant entry. But what a stretch of dominance from 1986-1992. Barry Bonds was just a tremendous hitter who achieved almost God-like skills when he went on the PEDs. Tough call. Those two aside, my ballot -

Griffey
Raines
Piazza
Schilling
Mussina
Bagwell
Walker
Trammell

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Here's another head scratcher. Hernandez won 12 Gold Gloves. Yet, his career dWAR is 0.6.

I watched him play first base. He was spectacular. He changed opposing manager strategy. So how is it that his glove work was worth only a half a win over a replacement first baseman?

Stats and metrics favor different players. Rick Reuschel had a high WAR, yet no movement.

Hernandez had a better OPS+ and was a better defender than Ebbets product Hodges.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Topps206

I feel that it's wrong to give love to Gil Hodges without acknowledging someone like Keith Hernandez, who I think has a stronger case.

Does that make John Olerud a HOFer? They had basically the same career. If anything, Olerud was better offensively...

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Does that make John Olerud a HOFer? They had basically the same career. If anything, Olerud was better offensively...

To whom are you referring? I feel Keith should be in and I don't think that for Hodges/Olerud.

[hawaiian bam bam]

Griffey-1st ballot all the way, maybe even the all time votes getter beating out seavers 98.84%

Piazza-was very close last year, will make it either in 2016 or 2017

Raines-a very underrated player during his time, was on of the very best during his days, he should get a ton of votes this year.

Bonds-i think voters will start to show him some love. will probably see an increase in votes but probably 2-3 years away. still needs to work on repairing his reputation with the writes, which i think he will do this year as a hitting coach (become more approachable and nice!)

Clemens-simply the best pitcher of our time. was he on roids during his early dominating red sox days when he was legendary? if voters focus on that (non roid years) he should get in or alot closer in 2017

hoffman- mariano lite! easily the second greatest closer in baseball history. with some of the closers in the hall now, if they can make it, why not hoffman?

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by hawaiian bam bam

Clemens-simply the best pitcher of our time. was he on roids during his early dominating red sox days when he was legendary? if voters focus on that (non roid years) he should get in or alot closer in 2017

How do you know when Clemens (or anyone) started using? That's my biggest complaint with this "they would've been HOFers anyway" arguement. How does anyone know that these guys wouldn't have gotten hurt or tailed off dramatically? 4-5 great seasons isn't enough for HOF induction or Dwight Gooden, Maris, Strawberry and others of that caliber would be in already. Instead of the current stat lines and awards that Clemens, Bonds etc. have, what if we were looking at a 10-year career with 3-4 dominant seasons...hardly enough to merit induction. Who can say that wouldn't have happened? There are too many variables and the steroid use puts doubt over the entire bodies of these players work, making even lofty numbers like 600 career HRs seem meaningless. That doubt is the #1 reason these guys aren't in.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by dgo71

How do you know when Clemens (or anyone) started using? That's my biggest complaint with this "they would've been HOFers anyway" arguement. How does anyone know that these guys wouldn't have gotten hurt or tailed off dramatically? 4-5 great seasons isn't enough for HOF induction or Dwight Gooden, Maris, Strawberry and others of that caliber would be in already. Instead of the current stat lines and awards that Clemens, Bonds etc. have, what if we were looking at a 10-year career with 3-4 dominant seasons...hardly enough to merit induction. Who can say that wouldn't have happened? There are too many variables and the steroid use puts doubt over the entire bodies of these players work, making even lofty numbers like 600 career HRs seem meaningless. That doubt is the #1 reason these guys aren't in.

I think it's generally accepted that Bonds started using once he got to San Francisco. If there's compelling evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. But he'd already achieved greatness before putting on a Giants uniform. In the three seasons prior to his move out west, he'd been a two-time MVP, an MVP runner up, a three-time Gold Glove winner, and was a 30-30 player twice. His 162 game averages between 1990-1992 clearly establish him as one of the best two or three players in the game: .301 AVG, 113 runs, 36 doubles, 34 home runs, 122 RBI, 49 SB, 120 BB, .990 OPS, 177 OPS +, 8.9 WAR. While there's no way for sure to know what he'd have done had he remained in a Pirates uniform, barring injury, he was on the fast track to the Hall of Fame.

[jiw98]

I have a question for the HOF voters. If a player isn't worthy of getting in their first year of eligibility, how are they worthy a year or more later? The way I look at it is you are either good enough to be in the Hall or your not. After retirement players stats don't get better with age.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by jiw98

I have a question for the HOF voters. If a player isn't worthy of getting in their first year of eligibility, how are they worthy a year or more later? The way I look at it is you are either good enough to be in the Hall or your not. After retirement players stats don't get better with age.

There are different levels of Hall of Famers. At the very top, you have the immortals, like Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Walter Johnson, Stan Musial, Willie Mays and Christy Mathewson. These are the guys who deserve to be voted in on the first ballot. No waiting, Mr. Gehrig, here's your table.

Then there are guys like Duke Snider, Eddie Mathews and Orlando Cepeda. Clearly Hall of Fame players, but not quite on the same level as the true legends of the game. There is a hierarchy within the Hall, and I believe the voters handle their ballots to reflect this. Some will put their guys on their ballot right away, while some make players they eventually vote for wait a while.

[UnVme7]

Griffey
Bonds
Piazza
Kent

As far as Kent being compared to a 1st and 3rd baseman isn't right. His position was 2nd, and he should be compared as such.

As for his defense- saying his defense was horrible is a little harsh. I'd say it's pretty avg. People are saying Vizquel is a HOF'er. For what, because of his defense?

[packs]

Originally Posted by jiw98

I have a question for the HOF voters. If a player isn't worthy of getting in their first year of eligibility, how are they worthy a year or more later? The way I look at it is you are either good enough to be in the Hall or your not. After retirement players stats don't get better with age.

I don't agree with that. Sometimes a player's career takes on a different context as time goes on. Goose Gossage is a good example of that. Today closers pitch one inning. Over time people saw the contribution of Gossage as having a greater significance given the nature of the position today. That's likely why he's in.

Other times there's a high level of competition for votes. So even though a player has a HOF career, he may enter the voting at a bad time where people are forced to vote for one person over another. That could delay election like it did for Biggio.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't agree with that. Sometimes a player's career takes on a different context as time goes on. Goose Gossage is a good example of that. Today closers pitch one inning. Over time people saw the contribution of Gossage as having a greater significance given the nature of the position today. That's likely why he's in.

Other times there's a high level of competition for votes. So even though a player has a HOF career, he may enter the voting at a bad time where people are forced to vote for one person over another. That could delay election like it did for Biggio.

Great points...
Gossage was a closer when the position required someone to pitch multiple innings. Guys like Hoffman coming into a new inning with the bases empty, and with a lead, didn't know pressure like Goose and his contemporaries did. Relievers today would panic if they had to come in with 1 out in the 8th and runners on 1st and 3rd, and THEN pitch the 9th. The game changed immensely and voters finally realized just how impressive it was to do what Gossage did.

As far as competition for votes, that could be fixed by allowing voters to vote for as many candidates as they like. The ballot is already vetted to a large degree before reaching the voters, so my opinion is that if the player's name appears on the ballot someone should be allowed to cast a vote for them without having to sacrifice a vote for someone else. That way the folks trying to keep Alan Trammell and Lee Smith on the ballot would still be able to vote for the slam-dunk guys like Greg Maddux without worry that their candidate might not meet the minimum requirement.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't agree with that. Sometimes a player's career takes on a different context as time goes on. Goose Gossage is a good example of that. Today closers pitch one inning. Over time people saw the contribution of Gossage as having a greater significance given the nature of the position today. That's likely why he's in.

Other times there's a high level of competition for votes. So even though a player has a HOF career, he may enter the voting at a bad time where people are forced to vote for one person over another. That could delay election like it did for Biggio.

I like your point, but think Biggio is a bad example. Many don't think he's a qualified HOFer, 3,000 hits or not.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I think it's generally accepted that Bonds started using once he got to San Francisco. If there's compelling evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. But he'd already achieved greatness before putting on a Giants uniform. In the three seasons prior to his move out west, he'd been a two-time MVP, an MVP runner up, a three-time Gold Glove winner, and was a 30-30 player twice. His 162 game averages between 1990-1992 clearly establish him as one of the best two or three players in the game: .301 AVG, 113 runs, 36 doubles, 34 home runs, 122 RBI, 49 SB, 120 BB, .990 OPS, 177 OPS +, 8.9 WAR. While there's no way for sure to know what he'd have done had he remained in a Pirates uniform, barring injury, he was on the fast track to the Hall of Fame.

I am aware that he had a great 7 years in Pittsburgh, but that's actually my point. 7 great years does not a HOFer make. If that's the case put Don Mattingly in right now. "Well on your way to the HOF" and "worthy of the HOF" are completely different things, just ask Darryl Strawberry, Doc Gooden, etc. If all we should look at are the 7 years Bonds was supposedly clean (which is debatable, because whether it's generally accepted or not, who really knows) then I don't think he deserves HOF enshrinement any more than any other player who was very good (or even great) for such a short period of time. Dale Murphy was a two time MVP as well, with 5 Gold Gloves and 7 All-Star appearances, easily one of the top players in the league for the same amount of time that Bonds was a Pirate. Yet Murphy did it clean by all accounts, and is punished for hanging around the game and experiencing the natural decline in performance, even though his career stats make a compelling arguement for induction. Why should the track Bonds was on before allegedly using be viewed any differently than the track Murph was on?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I am aware that he had a great 7 years in Pittsburgh, but that's actually my point. 7 great years does not a HOFer make. If that's the case put Don Mattingly in right now. "Well on your way to the HOF" and "worthy of the HOF" are completely different things, just ask Darryl Strawberry, Doc Gooden, etc. If all we should look at are the 7 years Bonds was supposedly clean (which is debatable, because whether it's generally accepted or not, who really knows) then I don't think he deserves HOF enshrinement any more than any other player who was very good (or even great) for such a short period of time. Dale Murphy was a two time MVP as well, with 5 Gold Gloves and 7 All-Star appearances, easily one of the top players in the league for the same amount of time that Bonds was a Pirate. Yet Murphy did it clean by all accounts, and is punished for hanging around the game and experiencing the natural decline in performance, even though his career stats make a compelling arguement for induction. Why should the track Bonds was on before allegedly using be viewed any differently than the track Murph was on?

Bonds had three great years in Pittsburgh, and I'm in complete agreeance with you that he would not have warranted Hall induction solely based on his time as a Pirate. But, I've never said he would. My contention has always been that by the time he got to San Francisco, he was already one of the top two or three players in the game, and it was unnecessary for him to take steroids to become great. If he'd just continued on at the same level, or nearly the same level, for several years in San Francisco, he'd have a great case for induction.

And Murphy, while a two-time MVP, was never on Bonds' level. Murphy's best season, by WAR, was a 7.7 in 1987. His two MVP seasons he had a 7.1 and a 6.1. Look at the seasons Bonds had just in Pittsburgh: a 9.7 WAR in 1990, a 9.0 in 1992, and 8.0 in 1989, and a 7.9 in 1991. Then, as a Giant, he was off the charts.

From 1980 to 1990, Murphy played nearly every game, every season. By 1990, his age 34 season, he'd compiled only a 46.9 WAR. By 1992, when he left for San Francisco at age 28, Barry Bonds had already compiled a 50.1 WAR. He compiled a higher WAR in 1,000 games than Murphy did in 1,983 games.

And Don Mattingly didn't really have seven great seasons. He had three (1984-1986), one really good season (1987), and a couple other pretty good seasons (1988 and 1989). If Don hadn't hurt his back, I feel he'd have been a Hall of Famer. He was a great hitter and run producer, and an exceptional glove man. It's too bad, because I always really liked him.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

My contention has always been that by the time he got to San Francisco, he was already one of the top two or three players in the game, and it was unnecessary for him to take steroids to become great. If he'd just continued on at the same level, or nearly the same level, for several years in San Francisco, he'd have a great case for induction.

Without splitting hairs on the accuracy of a speculative stat such as WAR, this is the important part. Yes Bonds was on his way. Then he cheated and now he's on the outside looking in. Simple as that really. Saying that he didn't need to take steroids is not only speculation, it's irrelevant, because whether he did or didn't need to, he took them. He shouldn't be put in based on speculation of what he might have done during his career if he had been clean. The same consideration is not given to great players who had their careers derailed by injury, it shouldn't be given to someone who cheated, which is much more within the control of the player than getting hurt.

[EvilKing00]

Piazza
bagwell
Clemens
bonds
Sheffield
McGwire
Griffey
Raines