2021 HOF Ballot

conor912 · #1 12-31-2020, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

I think too much emphasis is put on WAR.

Good God y�all. What is it good for?

Mike D. · #2 12-31-2020, 04:36 PM

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 · #3 12-31-2020, 05:56 PM

Quote:

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. · #4 12-31-2020, 06:14 PM

Quote:

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?

rats60 · #5 01-01-2021, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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?

The problem is that everything had to be negotiated and there was such a poor relationship between owners and players, as you stated, that getting agreement on steroids was pretty much impossible until the majority of players realized the problem. Baseball's drug policy agreed to in the 70s only covered illegal drugs. The NFL didn't even start testing until 1987 and steroids. Do anything before that was never happening.

The next agreement after that was 1990 and at that point Congress hadn't acted on steroids, so they weren't illegal under Baseball's drug policy. Getting the players to accept an expansion of drug policy while dealing with collusion just wasn't going to happen.

In 1994-95, the next contract, owners knew steroids were now covered under drug policy and illegal so they asked for testing but the players refused. Without testing it was going to take a player getting caught and arrested, maybe convicted for MLB to suspend a player.

I agree, the HoF discussions based on the on field performance are much more fun. How much should modern analytics count vs. more old school methods. Modern analysis says Yadi Molina isn't a HOFer, but some feel he is 1st ballot because his defense isn't captured by advanced metrics. Guys with shorter careers with high peaks vs. guys with longevity but low peaks, etc.

Mike D. · #6 01-01-2021, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

I agree, the HoF discussions based on the on field performance are much more fun. How much should modern analytics count vs. more old school methods. Modern analysis says Yadi Molina isn't a HOFer, but some feel he is 1st ballot because his defense isn't captured by advanced metrics. Guys with shorter careers with high peaks vs. guys with longevity but low peaks, etc.

Those conversations got plenty heated without the whole steroids thing, for sure!

The interesting thing to me is that 95% of the time, analytics and �traditional� stats paint a similar picture. A list of the top 100 players by WAR and an internet vote of the top 100 players would be more similar than different.

It�s the borderline cases where things get interesting...and it�s like everything else...if people use solid logic and are open minded, we can have great debates. If not, it�s like every other conversation on the internet.

Molina doesn�t scream �HOF� to me...several other catchers ahead of him on my list. But there may be reasons that stats don�t record - that doesn�t tend to be the case, but I for one am willing to be convinced.

PowderedH2O · #7 01-01-2021, 10:07 AM

The strangest thing is this: We talk about these big home run surges and how steroids made the totals go up so much... yet, if you compare 2019 to any of the "steroid era" years, they make the steroid era guys look like 98 pound weaklings. 58 guys hit 30 homers in 2019. 130 guys hit over 20 homers in 2019. Compare those numbers to 30-35 years ago... In 1988 FIVE guys hit 30 home runs. Is juicing going on now? Or is it just the fact that so many guys are throwing 98 mph and so many hitters are working out 2 hours a day?
Is it possible that some of the surges of the late 1990's are just surges due to these same factors and we are attributing steroids to too much of it?

BTW, I think once Selig got in the Hall, then that should just throw out the steroid issue once and for all. Put Palmeiro in. Despite being a cheater and a liar, he still has more legitimacy than Selig.

darwinbulldog · #8 12-31-2020, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912

Good God y�all. What is it good for?

Tabe · #9 01-01-2021, 03:06 AM

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. · #10 01-01-2021, 09:54 AM

Quote:

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?

Tabe · #11 01-01-2021, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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?

Francisco Rodriguez? Not that I'd vote for him either.

sreader3 · #12 01-02-2021, 07:03 PM

Todd Helton was a great fielding first baseman. While his range was about average, he was the best I ever saw at scooping bad throws out of the dirt -- an especially valuable skill at Coors Field where the afternoon sun is brutal. Also an incredibly tough out at the plate. Before his eye-hand went south in 2012, Todd would toy with pitchers, flicking his wrists and fouling balls off to create 10-12 pitch at bats at will before walking or doubling into the gap. By far the most professional combination hitter/fielder I ever had the privilege of watching in his hey day. Fewer strikeouts per plate appearance than Babe Ruth. Hell, Geoff Jenkins (who played six fewer years) K'ed more times than Todd. I hope he gets in.

(Edited to add: I love Scott Rolen as a player. But he struck-out in 19.1% of his at bats, compared to 14.8% for Helton. And he only drew 899 walks compared to 1335 for Helton. Tough for me to see how Rolen gets in and Helton gets left out, if that happens--which may happen).

Mike D. · #13 01-02-2021, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe

Francisco Rodriguez? Not that I'd vote for him either.

What, that bum? He's got a losing W-L record for his career (52-53)

He's got the save total, although worth fewer WAR than either Wagner or Nathan, but yeah, he's probably in the conversation, especially at that level below Wagner.

If Jonathan Papelbon wasn't basically done at age 34, I think he'd have had a a chance...but hard to make the HOF with only 725 IP.

Tabe · #14 01-02-2021, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D.

What, that bum? He's got a losing W-L record for his career (52-53)

He's got the save total, although worth fewer WAR than either Wagner or Nathan, but yeah, he's probably in the conversation, especially at that level below Wagner.

If Jonathan Papelbon wasn't basically done at age 34, I think he'd have had a a chance...but hard to make the HOF with only 725 IP.

I mean, if we're putting in closers with five great or near-great seasons and lots of bad ones, like Eck, then Rodriguez is a lock.

Jason19th · #15 01-01-2021, 12:34 PM

Quote:

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 .

howard38 · #16 01-01-2021, 01:44 PM

I'm not for voting in contemporary RPs unless they lapped the field like Mariano Rivera & I'm on the fence about guys from the 60s & 70s who threw more innings. But I wanted to give a shout out to John Hiller who was one & done on the ballot but IMO was as good or better than his direct contemporaries including Rollie Fingers & Sparky Lyle.

Mike D. · #17 01-01-2021, 02:54 PM

Relievers are tough...you either have a crazy high standard or you end up electing a LOT of guys - a lot of relievers have 3-5 runs...but not many go 10+.

perezfan · #18 01-01-2021, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howard38

I'm not for voting in contemporary RPs unless they lapped the field like Mariano Rivera & I'm on the fence about guys from the 60s & 70s who threw more innings. But I wanted to give a shout out to John Hiller who was one & done on the ballot but IMO was as good or better than his direct contemporaries including Rollie Fingers & Sparky Lyle.

Agree with this. For a Reliever to get into the Hall, the Bar should be set ridiculously high. Too many are in Cooperstown already, IMHO.

YazFenway08 · #19 01-01-2021, 03:30 PM

Are the names under consideration for the Early Baseball Era already known? I think this vote was moved into late 2021 but wasn�t sure if the ballot was already set before Covid hit.

Tabe · #20 01-01-2021, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason19th

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 .

I was specifically referring to modern closers, guys throwing 65-70 innings while only coming in with no one on base. I would use a slightly different standard on guys throwing 130+ innings.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Card shows in 2021	parkplace33	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	17	12-30-2020 01:42 PM
IBHOF Class of 2021	Exhibitman	Boxing / Wrestling Cards & Memorabilia Forum	3	12-28-2020 03:48 PM
2021 Autograph goals	Wrightfan85	Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports	11	12-18-2020 06:35 PM
2021 Autograph goals	Wrightfan85	Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports	0	12-15-2020 05:13 PM
Trout to Philly in 2021?	clydepepper	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	12	03-05-2019 06:25 PM