2021 HOF Ballot

[Mike D.]

The career value of players being elected is actually going UP, and the number of players elected who played in each decade going down.

For every Ruth and Cobb, there are a lot of veteran committee picks that are just not worthy.

Think about it....in the last 30 years, how many truly undeserving players have been elected? Babies stands out like a sore thumb because there are so few others.

A few borderline guys for sure (Rice, Morris) but most would consider them at least borderline.

Here’s a list of HOFers by year https://www.mlb.com/news/hall-of-fam...ctions-by-year

[packs]

Just off the top of my head over the last decade the ones that stand out to me are:

Jack Morris
Lee Smith
Harold Baines
Trevor Hoffman
Bobby Cox
Whitey Herzog

I don't believe any of these inductees were HOFers. Hoffman's WAR is half of Rivera's, which goes to show how much less the closer he was. Smith is even lower than him. Never understood the criteria for managers. Cox and Herzog won exactly one world series. So have a lot of people.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by packs

Just off the top of my head over the last decade the ones that stand out to me are:

Jack Morris
Lee Smith
Harold Baines
Trevor Hoffman
Bobby Cox
Whitey Herzog

I don't believe any of these inductees were HOFers. Hoffman's WAR is half of Rivera's, which goes to show how much less the closer he was. Smith is even lower than him. Never understood the criteria for managers. Cox and Herzog won exactly one world series. So have a lot of people.

I was talking players...managers, owners, GM’s, and umpires...your guess is as good as mine!

The “modern closer” is such a new thing that we’re still figuring it out. Eck has a high WAR due to time as a starter. Wilhelm was unique in his era. Gossage, Fingers, and Sutter were an earlier era than the modern closer era. Rivera is clearly the gold standard of this era, but who else from the modern era belongs? Probably not a lot of guys, but probably not zero.

Hoffman and Smith both got in on raw save total numbers...which we know isn’t the best approach. I think Nathan and Wagner are best candidates, but could see it being hard to reach consensus.

[Throttlesteer]

Originally Posted by packs

Just off the top of my head over the last decade the ones that stand out to me are:

Jack Morris
Lee Smith
Harold Baines
Trevor Hoffman
Bobby Cox
Whitey Herzog

I don't believe any of these inductees were HOFers. Hoffman's WAR is half of Rivera's, which goes to show how much less the closer he was. Smith is even lower than him. Never understood the criteria for managers. Cox and Herzog won exactly one world series. So have a lot of people.

I think too much emphasis is put on WAR. It's a useful statistic, but not all-encompassing and troubling when applied to relievers. Rivera was the better pitcher without a doubt. But if relievers have a spot in the Hall, it's silly to say Hoffman isn't a HOFer.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

I think too much emphasis is put on WAR.

Good God y’all. What is it good for?

[Mike D.]

If baseball had stepped up and implemented testing as soon as a sniff of steroids was evident, the “nobody in” thing would make sense.

Since the sport buried its head in the sand for two decades, it’s not really possible to know who did what and when. You either elect nobody who played from 1985-2005 or you have what we have now.

Oh, except instead of sand, it was money. Which they shared with players who were using.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

If baseball had stepped up and implemented testing as soon as a sniff of steroids was evident, the “nobody in” thing would make sense.

Since the sport buried its head in the sand for two decades, it’s not really possible to know who did what and when. You either elect nobody who played from 1985-2005 or you have what we have now.

Oh, except instead of sand, it was money. Which they shared with players who were using.

"Baseball" if you mean Commissioner and Owners tried to implement testing with the 1994/5 agreement with the players. That was the first contract after Congress passed laws making steroids illegal and Fay Vincent sent his letter in 1991 pointing out that this made them illegal under Baseball's existing drug policy. The player's union refused to implement testing until 2002.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by rats60

"Baseball" if you mean Commissioner and Owners tried to implement testing with the 1994/5 agreement with the players. That was the first contract after Congress passed laws making steroids illegal and Fay Vincent sent his letter in 1991 pointing out that this made them illegal under Baseball's existing drug policy. The player's union refused to implement testing until 2002.

I was referring to the overall "baseball" (maybe the "royal" baseball?) - players, owners, sportswriters, and even us fans all deserve some of the blame.

We all know that at that time, the players and owners had a really bad relationship - we're talking the era that started with collusion and ended with the strike.

And 1994 was already too late...fans at Fenway Park were chanting "ster-oids" every time Canseco came to the plate as far back as '88...so I'm thinking maybe '85 or '86 when folks in the game "knew"?

But anyway, my point was really that it's too bad that it's come to this...discussions of HR shifts, back-nee, and the like is just....not as fun as a HOF discussions SHOULD be, ya know?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by conor912

Good God y’all. What is it good for?

[Tabe]

No way is Joe Nathan a HOFer. For me, to get in, a reliever needs to be dominant for a long time (bye bye, Eck). Nathan wasn't. Neither was Trevor Hoffman. I think the standard needs to be high - closers are pitching one inning at a time and they're coming in with no one on base. A 3.00 ERA for a closer is nothing. Guys should be in 1.50 - 2.50 range A LOT. That's why I think Billy Wagner is the guy among relievers right now - 15 years as a reliever, he had one ERA over 3.00 (6.18 during an injury-shortened year), with five ERAs under 2.00, finishing with a 2.31 for his career (187 ERA+). He wasn't better than Nathan - he was A LOT better than Nathan.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Tabe

No way is Joe Nathan a HOFer. For me, to get in, a reliever needs to be dominant for a long time (bye bye, Eck). Nathan wasn't. Neither was Trevor Hoffman. I think the standard needs to be high - closers are pitching one inning at a time and they're coming in with no one on base. A 3.00 ERA for a closer is nothing. Guys should be in 1.50 - 2.50 range A LOT. That's why I think Billy Wagner is the guy among relievers right now - 15 years as a reliever, he had one ERA over 3.00 (6.18 during an injury-shortened year), with five ERAs under 2.00, finishing with a 2.31 for his career (187 ERA+). He wasn't better than Nathan - he was A LOT better than Nathan.

No disagreement from me that Wagner is the next in line by a solid margin. I think Nathan is next best candidate...but “the line” very well be between them.

I have a few Nathan cards in my PSA sub pile, though, just in case (but more Wagner cards”.

Are there other relievers I’m overlooking?

[Jason19th]

Originally Posted by Tabe

No way is Joe Nathan a HOFer. For me, to get in, a reliever needs to be dominant for a long time (bye bye, Eck). Nathan wasn't. Neither was Trevor Hoffman. I think the standard needs to be high - closers are pitching one inning at a time and they're coming in with no one on base. A 3.00 ERA for a closer is nothing. Guys should be in 1.50 - 2.50 range A LOT. That's why I think Billy Wagner is the guy among relievers right now - 15 years as a reliever, he had one ERA over 3.00 (6.18 during an injury-shortened year), with five ERAs under 2.00, finishing with a 2.31 for his career (187 ERA+). He wasn't better than Nathan - he was A LOT better than Nathan.

I actually take a bit of an opposite view with relievers. I think we should be rewarding the guys who are truly dominate for 4-5 years rather then the guys who are pretty good for a long career. I look at a guy like Dick Radatz in the mid 1960, Mike Marshall in the 1970’s. Guys who were working 150-20 innings of relief and just carrying teams. Radatz over a three year period won 40 games and saved another 70 while keeping an era under 2.5. Marshall pitched 179 innings one year and then followed it up with 208 the next. Predictable both guys petered out pretty quick. But their greatness is clear .

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Think about it....in the last 30 years, how many truly undeserving players have been elected? Babies stands out like a sore thumb because there are so few others.

I assume you meant Baines, but babies do stand out because they are quite often so cute.

Brian

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I assume you meant Baines, but babies do stand out because they are quite often so cute.

Brian

Ha ha...yes, as someone who has been to the HOF with young children, I feel strongly that babies don’t belong!