2011 HOF Ballot

[calvindog]

Blyleven will surely get in this year. Alomar should as well.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Blyleven will surely get in this year. Alomar should as well.

I agree, those are the 2 guys that I voted for.

[Vol]

I guess Dale Murphy and Fred McGriff are not going to make it. Too bad.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Blyleven will surely get in this year. Alomar should as well.

Honestly, I didn't do any research, and have admittedly not kept up with very much "new" baseball in the last 25 yrs, but Blyleven was my only vote.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Average season: 14-12, 3.31. He never won a Cy Young or even came in second. He made two all star teams. He is not blowing me away as a Hall of Fame pick.

[timber63401]

Blyleven 287 Wins, 242 Complete games, 3701 Strikeouts, 60 Shutouts. Im not saying hes a top ten all time pitcher but he wouldnt be near the worst pitcher in there. Also anyone who doesnt think Alamor deserves in needs to compare his stats to other 2nd baseman that are in, he compares favorably to almost all of them.

[Robextend]

Some arguments for Bert.

Blyleven is 5th all time in strikeouts (3701)...the top 14 in strikeouts are all in the HOF except:

Randy Johnson (Future 1st ballot HOF)
Roger Clemens (1st Ballot if not for cheating)
Greg Maddux (Future 1st ballot HOF)
Pedro Martinez (Future 1st ballot HOF)

He is 27th all time in Wins (287) playing on some awful teams (20 of the 26 in front are in the HOF and 3 are mentioned above).

He is 9th all time in shutouts with an amazing 60, everyone else in the top 20 is in the HOF.

Postseason record 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA and a key part of two WS teams.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't think someone should get in for longevity stats alone unless maybe for cracking a magic barrier like 3000 hits or 300 wins. To me a HOFer not only should have great career stats but should, for a reasonable number of years (say 5-7 minimum), have been one of the best players at his position or pitchers in the game. Two all star teams does not say that to me about Blyleven. His status suggest longevity only.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Alomar a definite, Blyleven, best of the rest IMHO

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think someone should get in for longevity stats alone unless maybe for cracking a magic barrier like 3000 hits or 300 wins. To me a HOFer not only should have great career stats but should, for a reasonable number of years (say 5-7 minimum), have been one of the best players at his position or pitchers in the game. Two all star teams does not say that to me about Blyleven. His status suggest longevity only.

I understand your point, but I think All Star game appearances are an overrated factor. Often great players on bad teams won't have many all star appearances.

And do you think Nolan Ryan should be in the HOF? If he only played 23 seasons instead of 27 he wouldn't have 300 wins, and besides strikeouts he never had a dominating stretch of years for any other stat. He never led the league in wins, only led in ERA twice

[celoknob]

If Blyleven had played for the Yankees he would have been in long, long ago. Larkin would make it this year or next if he had been a Yankee or could do backflips like Ozzie Smith. Injuries certainly did have a negative effect on Larkin's career and total numbers; I still have no reservations saying he belongs.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Average season: 14-12, 3.31. He never won a Cy Young or even came in second. He made two all star teams. He is not blowing me away as a Hall of Fame pick.

Nolan Ryan never won a Cy Young award or came in 2nd and his average season was 14-13 with a 3.19 ERA.

[Chris-Counts]

For those who don't consider Barry Larkin worthy of the Hall of Fame, can you come up with 10 shortstops who were better? Also, is the Hall of Fame big enough for one of the best 10 shortstops in history? Bill James ranks him sixth and he's the best baseball numbers guy of all. So to all of Larkin's detractors, I challenge you to prove to me ... with a comparative statistical analysis and not simply opinions ... why Larkin isn't worthy of the Hall of Fame.

Induction into the Hall of Fame should be based not on perceptions, allegiances and myths, but on hard numbers that take into account all the factors (dead ball vs. live ball, size of ballparks, etc.) that skew statistics. Sadly, while James and others have done the work, only a small percentage of baseball fans have even noticed. As a result, the debate goes on, but at the same time, it goes nowhere ...

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

For those who don't consider Barry Larkin worthy of the Hall of Fame, can you come up with 10 shortstops who were better? Also, is the Hall of Fame big enough for one of the best 10 shortstops in history? Bill James ranks him sixth and he's the best baseball numbers guy of all. So to all of Larkin's detractors, I challenge you to prove to me ... with a comparative statistical analysis and not simply opinions ... why Larkin isn't worthy of the Hall of Fame.

Induction into the Hall of Fame should be based not on perceptions, allegiances and myths, but on hard numbers that take into account all the factors (dead ball vs. live ball, size of ballparks, etc.) that skew statistics. Sadly, while James and others have done the work, only a small percentage of baseball fans have even noticed. As a result, the debate goes on, but at the same time, it goes nowhere ...

Chris,

I always respect your arguments and your passion for the Larkin argument. I just don't think of him as a HOFer, and here are some reasons why:

He had an injury riddled career...he only played 140 games or more in a season 7 times. If he was able to stay on the field more, his stats would probably look much better but we can't factor those lost stats in.

Only hit more than 20HR twice, 100runs twice, never had a 100RBI season.

2340 career hits is excellent, but for a non-power guy doesn't strike me as HOF material.

379 SB and 3 Gold Gloves is good but not enough of a factor IMO to add with his offense to get him in.

I am sure you have many arguments for and I respect them, and that is why I love these kind of debates.

Rob

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

For those who don't consider Barry Larkin worthy of the Hall of Fame, can you come up with 10 shortstops who were better? Also, is the Hall of Fame big enough for one of the best 10 shortstops in history? Bill James ranks him sixth and he's the best baseball numbers guy of all. So to all of Larkin's detractors, I challenge you to prove to me ... with a comparative statistical analysis and not simply opinions ... why Larkin isn't worthy of the Hall of Fame.

Induction into the Hall of Fame should be based not on perceptions, allegiances and myths, but on hard numbers that take into account all the factors (dead ball vs. live ball, size of ballparks, etc.) that skew statistics. Sadly, while James and others have done the work, only a small percentage of baseball fans have even noticed. As a result, the debate goes on, but at the same time, it goes nowhere ...

Who are the top 10 Shortstops according to James? It would be interesting to see this list.

Also, before Larkin & Ripken, SS was primarily a defensive position where teams carried players on their roster for their glove, not their bat. That is probably the main reason that James has him as high as he does.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think he is overrated by those who count him among the few greatest pitchers ever, but he has to be in the Hall given the sheer outrageousness of the strikeout totals, plus the 7 no hitters, not to mention the 324 wins. His ERA was 10 or so points better than Blyleven, and he had many more all star appearances.

[Chris-Counts]

Phil, here's James' list. He didn't include active players. If he did, A-Rod and Jeter would obviously be high on the list ...

1. Honus Wagner
2. Arky Vaughan
3. Cal Ripken
4. Robin Yount
5. Ernie Banks
6. Barry Larkin
7. Ozzie Smith
8. Joe Cronin
9. Alan Trammell
10. Pee Wee Reese

Also, Larkin's various injuries, and the time he lost as a result, often come up in Hall of Fame discussions. I did a quick survey, and for what it's worth, he played more games at shortstop in his career than roughly half the shortstops in the Hall of Fame ...

How many Gold Glove shortstops can you name with a ton of steals, an MVP award, a World Series ring and a .370 career on-base average? If they gave out Gold Gloves in 1910, certainly Honus Wagner would quailify, but who else?

[Robextend]

I wonder if Concepcion would be #11,

2300+ Hits, 9 AS Games, 5 Gold Gloves, 300+ SB

[Chris-Counts]

Rob, I'm a huge fan of both the Reds and Concepcion, but his on-base average is 50 points lower than Larkin's. That a deal breaker for me ...

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

Phil, here's James' list. He didn't include active players. If he did, A-Rod and Jeter would obviously be high on the list ...

1. Honus Wagner
2. Arky Vaughan
3. Cal Ripken
4. Robin Yount
5. Ernie Banks
6. Barry Larkin
7. Ozzie Smith
8. Joe Cronin
9. Alan Trammell
10. Pee Wee Reese

Also, Larkin's various injuries, and the time he lost as a result, often come up in Hall of Fame discussions. I did a quick survey, and for what it's worth, he played more games at shortstop in his career than roughly half the shortstops in the Hall of Fame ...

How many Gold Glove shortstops can you name with a ton of steals, an MVP award, a World Series ring and a .370 career on-base average? If they gave out Gold Gloves in 1910, certainly Honus Wagner would quailify, but who else?

That list goes to strengthen my argument that before Larkin's time, SS was just a defensive position, since 7 of Bill James' top 10 SS are "modern" SS.

There's some great names there, but that has to be "the weakest" Top 10 list for any position in the Hall of Fame. Just an indication of what the position used to be.