Hall of Fame Ballot Announced

[mrreality68]

All worthy in their own way that is why they are on list
But with doping, politics, and injuries effecting longevity (Mattingly) they all have questions.
McGriff and Shilling should be the Easy in but it will be interesting to see what happens with them and the rest.
Look forward to Dec announcement
Just wish we knew who the voters were and wish all ballots were made public

[Yoda]

McGriff's association with Halle Berry should be worth something.

[jingram058]

I don't see any of them as HOFers. Want another Harold Baines fiasco? The HOF is suffering from credibility as it is. Especially Schilling. He shouldn't get in on the strength of being an all-time moron. Right or wrong, that's how I feel.

[Vintagedeputy]

Don Mattingly was the greatest hitter I ever saw. You could throw loose dimes across the outfield and Donnie Baseball could hit them with a batted ball. All this nonsense about hitting against the shift / ban the shift would have meant nothing to Mattingly. He could put a ball on the field wherever he wanted to.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I don't see any of them as HOFers. Want another Harold Baines fiasco? The HOF is suffering from credibility as it is. Especially Schilling. He shouldn't get in on the strength of being an all-time moron. Right or wrong, that's how I feel.

How are these eight like Baines?

3 are obviously statistically HOFers, but have the David Ortiz problem that was just ignored.

2 are punished for personality and/or politics.

2 are questionable but are the opposite of Baines; Mattingly and Murphy are peak players not accumulators.

McGriff comes the closest, but he hardly seems to be a Baines type choice at all.

Schilling, if elected, will be elected for his 79.5 WAR and statistical performance, not for being an “all-time moron”.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by G1911

How are these eight like Baines?

3 are obviously statistically HOFers, but have the David Ortiz problem that was just ignored.

2 are punished for personality and/or politics.

2 are questionable but are the opposite of Baines; Mattingly and Murphy are peak players not accumulators.

McGriff comes the closest, but he hardly seems to be a Baines type choice at all.

Schilling, if elected, will be elected for his 79.5 WAR and statistical performance, not for being an “all-time moron”.

Couldn't agree more, aside from my feeling that Schilling is the only deserving candidate of the lot. Having polarizing opinions is completely separate from your achievements in your career.

How does Ortiz just get in so effortlessly? It pisses me off. I never liked the guy, not that my opinion matters in the equation of his being inducted when all the other users aren't. None of them or all of them. You can't have it both ways. If Ortiz could be revoked, I would be a happy guy.

[Bigdaddy]

So for me the whole steroid thing boils down to this: There is a rule that any player banned from MLB is not eligible for the HOF - think Rose or Shoeless Joe. Bonds, Clemens and Palmiero are not banned from MLB and could in theory play again next year if they could make a roster. If MLB has a problem with them, then make a statement and ban them from the game. That would solve the HOF issue.

But just like the lame Bud Selig who did nothing when steroids were raging, MLB continues to turn a blind eye and not take a strong stance. Yes, I know there are now stronger penalties, but it took a congressional hearing to push the league to do something.

[GeoPoto]

This is the way I lean -- if baseball (and the union) didn't feel that PEDs were sufficiently identified as unacceptable that banning was appropriate, then it falls in the "I'll do anything I can to help my team win (and make myself money)" category. In 1998, Bonds (likely without PEDs) became the first player in MLB history to get 400 HRs and 400 SBs. Everybody was too busy celebrating the McGuire/Sosa assault on 61 HRs to notice Bonds. La Rusa was shaming sports writers for violating the sanctity of the clubhouse and writing about McGuire's cream. Bonds, not unreasonably, decided he could do what they were being lauded for.

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

So for me the whole steroid thing boils down to this: There is a rule that any player banned from MLB is not eligible for the HOF - think Rose or Shoeless Joe. Bonds, Clemens and Palmiero are not banned from MLB and could in theory play again next year if they could make a roster. If MLB has a problem with them, then make a statement and ban them from the game.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

Couldn't agree more, aside from my feeling that Schilling is the only deserving candidate of the lot. Having polarizing opinions is completely separate from your achievements in your career.

How does Ortiz just get in so effortlessly? It pisses me off. I never liked the guy, not that my opinion matters in the equation of his being inducted when all the other users aren't. None of them or all of them. You can't have it both ways. If Ortiz could be revoked, I would be a happy guy.

There is no longer even a pretense of objectivity. A political enemy is to be kept out for that reason, a steroid user who failed tests is to be kept out only if the media doesn’t like them or doesn’t care about them. A user who they salivate over is to be forgiven. Actually not even forgiven, the crime (treated as such for everyone else) is simply ignored. The blatant corruption and cronyism of the writers today is as bad as the Frisch days VC’s.

I am agnostic on if roiders should go in, I think it just be, ya know, logically consistent. Yes for Ortiz and no for Bonds and Clemens is nothing but an absolute joke.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

There is no longer even a pretense of objectivity. A political enemy is to be kept out for that reason, a steroid user who failed tests is to be kept out only if the media doesn’t like them or doesn’t care about them. A user who they salivate over is to be forgiven. Actually not even forgiven, the crime (treated as such for everyone else) is simply ignored. The blatant corruption and cronyism of the writers today is as bad as the Frisch days VC’s.

I am agnostic on if roiders should go in, I think it just be, ya know, logically consistent. Yes for Ortiz and no for Bonds and Clemens is nothing but an absolute joke.

Is Ortiz the only one who is in who had some chemical enhancement?

I thought Rickey was accused of also being on the sauce. And probably my paisan Piazza too.

But maybe the case for Ortiz being on something is a bit more obvious?

[cammb]

Originally Posted by G1911

How are these eight like Baines?

3 are obviously statistically HOFers, but have the David Ortiz problem that was just ignored.

2 are punished for personality and/or politics.

2 are questionable but are the opposite of Baines; Mattingly and Murphy are peak players not accumulators.

McGriff comes the closest, but he hardly seems to be a Baines type choice at all.

Schilling, if elected, will be elected for his 79.5 WAR and statistical performance, not for being an “all-time moron”.

What did he do that you labeled him a "moron" ?

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by cammb

What did he do that you labeled him a "moron" ?

He went on anti-Semitic public rants, plural, that made him appear to be a classic "moron" in every sense of the word. Go look it up...

[cammb]

Originally Posted by jingram058

He went on anti-Semitic public rants, plural, that made him appear to be a classic "moron" in every sense of the word. Go look it up...

I di look it up. It seemed he was labeled an anti semite for asking why Jews vote demoncrat in elections. Now a days, labels have become cheapened..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cammb

What did he do that you labeled him a "moron" ?

I did not. Do you not know what quotation marks signify?

[cammb]

Originally Posted by G1911

I did not. Do you not know what quotation marks signify?

No, enlighten me.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I don't see any of them as HOFers. Want another Harold Baines fiasco? The HOF is suffering from credibility as it is. Especially Schilling. He shouldn't get in on the strength of being an all-time moron. Right or wrong, that's how I feel.

LOL. What absurdity. This is ridiculous. Pretending baines was the first going a friend a favor moment with the hall is hysterical.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

McGriff's association with Halle Berry should be worth something.

I thought that was Dave Justice.

[darwinbulldog]

Yes for Bonds (best player since Ruth)
Yes for Clemens (best pitcher since WaJo)
Yes for Schilling (top 25 pitcher)

I'm basically neutral on everybody else in that group.

[shagrotn77]

I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be in, but where is Sammy Sosa? If other (suspected) PED users are on the ballot, where is Sammy? Or McGwire?

[fkm_bky]

I know it will never happen, but I would love to see Dale Murphy get in. He was hands down my favorite player growing up (even over Kent Hrbek and Kirby Puckett!). I collected as many of his cards as I could. Just an all around great guy, and an above average player. I don't think his stats will get him in, but I'm happy he's on the ballot.

Bill

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought that was Dave Justice.

And now Fred McGriff is getting robbed of being wrongly accused of being Halle Berry's partner in crime, dog. There's no Justice in that.

Brian

[dealme]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

And now Fred McGriff is getting robbed of being wrongly accused of being Halle Berry's partner in crime, dog. There's no Justice in that.

Brian

I'm wondering if McGriff's chances haven't been hurt due to his fully endorsing Tom Emanski's defensive drills video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_LGZUmD2Hk

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought that was Dave Justice.

Oh, Peter, you are so right. My deepest apologies to Halle.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Yoda

McGriff's association with Halle Berry should be worth something.

You're thinking of Dave Justice.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

You're thinking of Dave Justice.

The Crime Dog would have kept it on the downlow.

[Jason19th]

I admit that I usually love the WAR stat and by WAR Shilling is a no question Hofer. I just don’t really understand how his WAR is so high vs some players who seem to have pretty comparable stats. Consider below

Curt Shilling. 216-146 3.46ERA. 15-10 per 162 WAR 79
Lew Burdette. 203-144 3.66 ERA 14-10 per 162. WAR 28

Is it all era adjustment, strike outs, does Shilling get a big bump because of his defensive stats? Shillings stats are clearly a tick better, but over 50 wins better

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

I admit that I usually love the WAR stat and by WAR Shilling is a no question Hofer. I just don’t really understand how his WAR is so high vs some players who seem to have pretty comparable stats. Consider below

Curt Shilling. 216-146 3.46ERA. 15-10 per 162 WAR 79
Lew Burdette. 203-144 3.66 ERA 14-10 per 162. WAR 28

Is it all era adjustment, strike outs, does Shilling get a big bump because of his defensive stats? Shillings stats are clearly a tick better, but over 50 wins better

Lou Burdette posted an ERA below the league average over his career. He was a league average rate player on a good team who pitched a lot. Schilling's ERA is 27% better than the league, for one example.

WAR heavily weighs context to baseball at the time. The Gap in FIP, which WAR uses, is even bigger than their ERA+'s. Schilling get's a lot of points for K and BB ratio's too, while Burdette's were marginal.

[Keith H. Thompson]

I think of an article that Dick Young of the New York Daily News wrote about the consideration of Lefty Gomez in 1974. "Election to the Hall of Fame is largely a popularity contest."
There are some players that simply cannot be left off -- or maybe they can and have been because it's a voting process, and each voter has his conscience.
The art of lobbying for a particular player's election is a delicate one. Around 1970 a very knowledgeable fan (Dr. V. M.) compiled statistics for Sam Thompson and Roger Connors that were compelling and badgered the Veterans Committee unmercifully for several years with documentation. At one point he threatened them with court action for a full disclosure of the vote. When Sam was elected in 1974, I asked Paul Kerr what had changed their minds? He looked me straight in the eye, and with a voice dripping icicles said "Sam Thompson was elected to the Hall of Fame in spite of V. M. I know also from other sources (Charlie Gehringer) that the members of the Veterans Committee did not like being told their business and reacted accordingly.