HOF results

[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.

[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/

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[clydepepper]

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.
(Well, maybe not)

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 went back and checked the Mitchell Report and Sheffield, Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens were all mentioned and I believe that report still has enough influence to keep all those mentioned out of the Hall & I hope the commissioner and the voters would feel the same way.
.
.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by 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...

This is true. All of it.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[UnVme7]

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.

Right, but those big(steroid) numbers came from guys in other positions. It's unfair to compare a 2nd baseman to a 1st baseman or catcher as far as numbers is concerned. You just don't.

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by UnVme7

Right, but those big(steroid) numbers came from guys in other positions. It's unfair to compare a 2nd baseman to a 1st baseman or catcher as far as numbers is concerned. You just don't.

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

OPS+ shows how a player rates offensively when compared to their contemporaries and when adjusted for park factors.

Jeff Kent career OPS+ 123
Bobby Grich career OPS+ 125

Bobby Grich 4x Gold Gloves (and should have won several more)
Jeff Kent Gold Gloves...BWWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Kent should absolutely be getting a higher percentage than he is currently. He may get in eventually and I have no problem with that at all. But you MUST take his numbers within the context of his times...whatever position he plays. Bobby Grich was a better second baseman (relative to his era) than was Jeff Kent. Lou Whitaker was a slightly worse offensive player but a much better defensive player. Heck, taking defense into account, I could make a case for Willie Randolph not being that far off from Kent.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

OPS+ shows how a player rates offensively when compared to their contemporaries and when adjusted for park factors.

Jeff Kent career OPS+ 123
Bobby Grich career OPS+ 125

Bobby Grich 4x Gold Gloves (and should have won several more)
Jeff Kent Gold Gloves...BWWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Kent should absolutely be getting a higher percentage than he is currently. He may get in eventually and I have no problem with that at all. But you MUST take his numbers within the context of his times...whatever position he plays. Bobby Grich was a better second baseman (relative to his era) than was Jeff Kent. Lou Whitaker was a slightly worse offensive player but a much better defensive player. Heck, taking defense into account, I could make a case for Willie Randolph not being that far off from Kent.

Tom C

Grich rates 7th per JAWS, Kent 18th. But just ask Darren, we saw Kent so we don't need JAWS.

[UnVme7]

Kent shouldn't be penalized for playing avg defense. If that's his only flaw then I don't have a problem getting in.

Edgar is getting quite a few votes and he didn't even play defense at all. At least Kent played a defensive position.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by UnVme7

Right, but those big(steroid) numbers came from guys in other positions. It's unfair to compare a 2nd baseman to a 1st baseman or catcher as far as numbers is concerned. You just don't.

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

Well, try to convince the 6 out of 7 voters who don't agree, what can I say. Maybe his stock will go up over time.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by UnVme7

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

Plus he was on Survivor!

[packs]

You don't need JAWs to tell you anything about a player you watched. You can use JAWs to talk about Bill Dickey if you want, but Jeff Kent's entire career was played out before our eyes. Tell me who was a better hitter at second base than he was. There was no one. If he's not getting in it's because people think he juiced, not because he wasn't the best offensive second baseman of his time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

You don't need JAWs to tell you anything about a player you watched. You can use JAWs to talk about Bill Dickey if you want, but Jeff Kent's entire career was played out before our eyes. Tell me who was a better hitter at second base than he was. There was no one. If he's not getting in it's because people think he juiced, not because he wasn't the best offensive second baseman of his time.

And that's exactly the point of JAWS, to enable a meaningful comparison where you can't make one from personal observation, as well as to eliminate bias. Anyhoo, Alomar ranks ahead of Kent statistically. And Biggio.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_2B.shtml

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by packs

You don't need JAWs to tell you anything about a player you watched. You can use JAWs to talk about Bill Dickey if you want, but Jeff Kent's entire career was played out before our eyes. Tell me who was a better hitter at second base than he was. There was no one. If he's not getting in it's because people think he juiced, not because he wasn't the best offensive second baseman of his time.

From 1992-1997, Tony Phillips and Roberto Alomar and Chuck Knoblauch were better than Kent both offensively and defensively.

I have no problem saying that over a 8 year period from 1998-2005, Kent was the best offensive second baseman in baseball. Likely the best overall, as I value offense to defense about 80/20.

After 2005, guys like Utley and Cano and Pedroia are better than Kent all around.

Does being the top in your position in the majors over and 8 year period, plus being in the top 6-8 at your position for another 8 or so years, make you a Hall Of Famer? I think in conjunction with the way his counting stats look, most likely the answer is yes. I just don't think it is as ct and dry as some are making it out to be.

Tom C