2024 Classic HOF election

[Peter_Spaeth]

Dave Parker 40.1 WAR. Not exactly overwhelming. Barely north of Harold Baines.

Ken Boyer? 62.8. Who the hell is voting?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dave Parker 40.1 WAR. Not exactly overwhelming. Barely north of Harold Baines.

Ken Boyer? 62.8. Who the hell is voting?

People that don't care about WAR, such as Paul Molitor, Eddie Murray, Tony Perez, Ozzie Smith, Lee Smith and Joe Torre.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

People that don't care about WAR, such as Paul Molitor, Eddie Murray, Tony Perez, Ozzie Smith, Lee Smith and Joe Torre.

Yup. Found the full list.

The 16-member Hall of Fame Board-appointed electorate charged with the review of the Classic Baseball Era Ballot was comprised of Hall of Fame members Paul Molitor, Eddie Murray, Tony Pérez, Lee Smith, Ozzie Smith and Joe Torre; major league executives Sandy Alderson, Terry McGuirk, Dayton Moore, Arte Moreno and Brian Sabean; and veteran media members/historians Bob Elliott, Leslie Heaphy, Steve Hirdt, Dick Kaegel and Larry Lester. Hall of Fame Chairman of the Board Jane Forbes Clark served as the non-voting chairman of the Classic Baseball Era Committee.

[G1911]

Feeding the same list of favored names over and over and over again to a small committee of insiders for a closed door discussion and non-public vote pretty much ensures that the selections will not be objectively good or reasonable and that an almost random (or corrupt based on who has the most friends on the committee as appears to have happened for Baines) sub-selection will get chosen each time, with most of the recurring names eventually chosen since its the same names put forth again and again. After decades of this same basic formulation being instituted despite blatantly obvious corruption only adding to the problem, it is clear there is not soon going to be any kind of reasonable or rational method adopted to pick people for logical reasons. This is a silly farce each year.

[Rich Klein]

Anyone on the ballot this year was fine for the HOF and I just wish if they put in Dick Allen when he was still with us.

But no objections to them getting their plaques in Cooperstown next summer

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by G1911

Feeding the same list of favored names over and over and over again to a small committee of insiders for a closed door discussion and non-public vote pretty much ensures that the selections will not be objectively good or reasonable and that an almost random (or corrupt based on who has the most friends on the committee as appears to have happened for Baines) sub-selection will get chosen each time, with most of the recurring names eventually chosen since its the same names put forth again and again. After decades of this same basic formulation being instituted despite blatantly obvious corruption only adding to the problem, it is clear there is not soon going to be any kind of reasonable or rational method adopted to pick people for logical reasons. This is a silly farce each year.

We need to stop taking the HOF so seriously because they themselves don’t take it seriously. This year is really a joke.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by calvindog

We need to stop taking the HOF so seriously because they themselves don’t take it seriously. This year is really a joke.

It’s good to fun to argue who should or shouldn’t be and rankings, but the actual choices are barely even worth indignation. Drug test failing steroid user Ortiz is in, but the rest get an inconsistent punishment. Schilling is out for partisan politics incompatible with the electorate media and largely demonstrably false related stories. Parker, Morris, Baines, Frisch and his cronies making it a complete joke, the litany of ridiculous choices from these small insider committees with private ballots go back over half a century. They obviously have no desire to clean it up and adopt any reasonable method of election. The museum is cool but the plaques are less and less worth seeing as it has turned into a Hall of Voting Practices That Are Designed To Ensure A Dishonest Outcome

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s good to fun to argue who should or shouldn’t be and rankings, but the actual choices are barely even worth indignation. Drug test failing steroid user Ortiz is in, but the rest get an inconsistent punishment. Schilling is out for partisan politics incompatible with the electorate media and largely demonstrably false related stories. Parker, Morris, Baines, Frisch and his cronies making it a complete joke, the litany of ridiculous choices from these small insider committees with private ballots go back over half a century. They obviously have no desire to clean it up and adopt any reasonable method of election. The museum is cool but the plaques are less and less worth seeing as it has turned into a Hall of Voting Practices That Are Designed To Ensure A Dishonest Outcome

Certainly a different evaluation of Parker today than in prior years, including two veterans' committee votes where he received zero votes.
1997 BBWAA (17.5%)
1998 BBWAA (24.5%)
1999 BBWAA (16.1%)
2000 BBWAA (20.8%)
2001 BBWAA (16.3%)
2002 BBWAA (14.0%)
2003 BBWAA (10.3%)
2004 BBWAA (10.5%)
2005 BBWAA (12.6%)
2006 BBWAA (14.6%)
2007 BBWAA (11.4%)
2008 BBWAA (15.1%)
2009 BBWAA (15.0%)
2010 BBWAA (15.2%)
2011 BBWAA (15.3%)
2014 Veterans ()
2018 Veterans ()
2020 Veterans (43.8%)

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Certainly a different evaluation of Parker today than in prior years, including two veterans' committee votes where he received zero votes.
1997 BBWAA (17.5%)
1998 BBWAA (24.5%)
1999 BBWAA (16.1%)
2000 BBWAA (20.8%)
2001 BBWAA (16.3%)
2002 BBWAA (14.0%)
2003 BBWAA (10.3%)
2004 BBWAA (10.5%)
2005 BBWAA (12.6%)
2006 BBWAA (14.6%)
2007 BBWAA (11.4%)
2008 BBWAA (15.1%)
2009 BBWAA (15.0%)
2010 BBWAA (15.2%)
2011 BBWAA (15.3%)
2014 Veterans ()
2018 Veterans ()
2020 Veterans (43.8%)

I don't think he definitely received 0 votes in 2014 and 2018. I think if someone gets less than 3 votes, they don't report the total so he could have received a few, but still was nowhere close to election.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Delgado's OPS is 100 points higher than Parker's and he hit 140 more HR in 2000 fewer AB. Just saying.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s good to fun to argue who should or shouldn’t be and rankings, but the actual choices are barely even worth indignation. Drug test failing steroid user Ortiz is in, but the rest get an inconsistent punishment. Schilling is out for partisan politics incompatible with the electorate media and largely demonstrably false related stories. Parker, Morris, Baines, Frisch and his cronies making it a complete joke, the litany of ridiculous choices from these small insider committees with private ballots go back over half a century. They obviously have no desire to clean it up and adopt any reasonable method of election. The museum is cool but the plaques are less and less worth seeing as it has turned into a Hall of Voting Practices That Are Designed To Ensure A Dishonest Outcome

It's clearly a mess. I think that the fans are much more concerned about the integrity of the game than the actual stewards of the game, i.e. the commissioner's office which presumably impacts all of this. After all, we're now discussing this "golden at bat" bullshit. The extra inning ghost runner at least made some sense due to the decreased innings per starter as the game has evolved. But the golden at bat is just a slap in the face of any purist or quasi-purist. If they care this little about the integrity of the game, why should they pretend to care who gets into the HOF and why?

[Fred]

Originally Posted by calvindog

It's clearly a mess. I think that the fans are much more concerned about the integrity of the game than the actual stewards of the game, i.e. the commissioner's office which presumably impacts all of this. After all, we're now discussing this "golden at bat" bullshit. The extra inning ghost runner at least made some sense due to the decreased innings per starter as the game has evolved. But the golden at bat is just a slap in the face of any purist or quasi-purist. If they care this little about the integrity of the game, why should they pretend to care who gets into the HOF and why?

That golden at bat idea was probably brought up after a long night of drinking and smoking whatever it is that causes thoughts like this to be even mentioned out loud after the alcohol bottles and bong bowls have been emptied.

That idea is a golden turd... if there's any serious consideration to it, I think I'll look for another favorite sport.

[packs]

I would be in favor of a golden at bat if the golden at bat was a random drawing once a year for a fan to get an at bat. MLB could donate to charity for every fan who manages a major league hit.

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dave Parker 40.1 WAR. Not exactly overwhelming. Barely north of Harold Baines.

Ken Boyer? 62.8. Who the hell is voting?

It could be because I was born in '72 and Parker was larger than life during my childhood, but I would put Parker up against anyone as the best player in baseball 76-79. Perhaps Carew, Brett, Rice, Lynn, Foster (for a minute) and Morgan (on the backend), but Parker was awesome. I am actually surprised he only had 40.1 war because he had that incredible arm that made the great throw in the 79 all star game. To 7 year old me, I would guess that he had 40.1 defensive war.

I was a Reds fan growing up and 84-86 Parker was appointment TV/Radio. I still think he should have won the MVP over McGee in '85. The drug years of 80-83 killed his career numbers. I often think about what his career numbers would have been without the locker room cocaine influence of 80-83. I would guess 3000+ hits, 400+ HR's and another MVP. Kinda like the Ted Williams math of the early 40's but because of drug use instead of the nobility of going to war. .

A decade or so ago, I was at Pirate fest with the boys. My boys were around 15 and 12 at the time. My oldest brought baseballs in case he ran into anyone. He immediately walked up to Parker and asked him to sign his baseball. He smiled and signed. I then pushed my shy 12 year old to him. Parker said - I am actually walking over to sign (there was a line about 2-300 deep at that point - probably an hour wait or so). but he signed for my middle one anyway.

I watched a special on him a couple of years ago where he is struggling with Parkinson's. He is not in great shape - so I am glad that he is getting in. Years ago they ran a fake trial for Pete Rose and if he should be in the HOF. I cannot remember what channel it was on and I have never seen it on anything since. But they asked Parker as a witness if Rose should be in the HOF. Parker's response was "I think I should be in the HOF."

It is crazy to think that Baines WAR was similar because there was never a time when I thought that Harold Baines was anywhere close to the best player in baseball - or even top 5. But, I was certain of that with Dave Parker!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Weird career for sure. FIVE year period right in the middle with a total WAR of 3.4. Up until today, the consensus was that that killed his chances.

I can't quite figure out 1986 though. 31/116/.273, leads the league in total bases, and his WAR is 0.3 LOL.

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Weird career for sure. FIVE year period right in the middle with a total WAR of 3.4. Up until today, the consensus was that that killed his chances.

I can't quite figure out 1986 though. 31/116/.273, leads the league in total bases, and his WAR is 0.3 LOL.

Crazy to thing that he was basically a replacement level player in '86. It wasn't as good as his '85, but I thought he should be MVP in '86 as well. I'll never quite understand advanced stats...

[Mountaineer1999]

You guys sure know how to let the air out of the room.

Congratulations to Richie Allen and Dave Parker! Well deserved.