Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board
Sign in to follow this  
OSJ

MLB HOF 2019 Ballot

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, RIPPA said:

Jon Heyman's is up there - not as bad as that one but still

BTW - if you haven't been following the HOF tracker

There are only 22 public ballots so far but amazingly there are still 2 100% candidates - Mariano and Edgar

Now as a reminder they were the only two names on the one gimmick ballot that has been revealed so far

What I want to know is who is the douche that keeps voting for Clemens but not Bonds? Far be it for me to play the racism card, but when you have two of the greatest talents in baseball history, one, arguably the most surly and unpleasant black man to ever play the game and arguably the most surly and unpleasant white man to do so (and boy oh boy does that cover a lot of ground), you have to go "hmmmmm" when just the white dude catches a vote. I suspect either a Texan or Bostonian. 

It saddens me to see that Fred McGriff may have to wait for the Oversight Committee to put him in, but it took me with my understanding of advanced metrics to come around on McGriff until last year and I guarantee you I understand more about what the numbers mean and how that meaning has changed more than most beat writers will ever dream of. If McGriff had been two years younger, he'd have started two years later and thus had two more seasons in the offense-explosion era. He'd easily have over 500HRs and we wouldn't even need to  talk about it, he'd already be in. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2018 at 3:34 PM, supremebve said:

For what its worth, Rafael Palmeiro is the only person who has 500 HRs who I don't believe is a hall of famer.  He was really good, but his career spanned the period of time when I was obsessed with baseball, and there wasn't a moment where I thought to myself that Rafael Palmeiro was a hall of famer.  He compiled a lot of huge numbers, but I can't think of a single memorable moment.

I got back into baseball cards in 1987, with Fleer and Donruss being my preferred sets, I don't recall any sense of excitement that I had four or five extra RCs of Raffy. Ten years later, still nothing.... 15 years later, nope, nada, throw 'em in the commons box or put one on front of a grab bag so some kid thinks he's got something until he gets home and sees the bad news in Beckett's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Clemens is on the medal stand for most surly white guys; maybe in the live ball era, but he's not above either Hornsby or Cobb(who wasn't as bad as he was made out to be). Add in some notorious racists like Cap anson, and Joe Dimaggio, the preening ass who ruined Mantle's career. 

It is weird someone wouldn't vote for both, Bonds is a no brainer, and if you vote for roids guys, there's no excuse. Fuck racism(in general and in this case). . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RIPPA said:

It happened so long ago I think it was mentioned in last year's thread

Yeah, I recall we were all on the side of "If you won't put your name on you shouldn't have one". Despite the tendency for a few idiots to do protest ballots to get their names out there, I think it would vastly cut down the tomfoolery that goes on.  The thing that the BBWA fail to realize is that voting on the HOF is not their God-given right, it is a privilege currently offered by the HOF (who let's face it is too lazy and understaffed to implement a more logical system.) But when a guy that covers the Red Sawx for some second string paper in Pawtuckett or some damn place gets a vote and guys that actually know their shit like Bill James, Keith Olberman, etc. don't there's something seriously amiss. And yeah, I know Olberman is an insufferable ass, but the guy does know his baseball. The difference is that you currently have many insufferable asses who DON'T know shit about the finer points of the game that are casting votes. 

The system would be improved immeasurably by the adding of oh, say 100 members of SABRE (and yes, I am one); just pull the names out the hat based on applications (surprisingly not everyone in SABRE would even want to have a ballot), and rotate a new group in evry two or three years not to make so unwieldy as changing every frigging year. 

We have lots of advanced tools for measuring players available to us today, some are better for some things than others, it depends a lot on what a player's primary responsibility is. The Keltner List is a good tool to organize your thoughts about a player, not a matter of checking a certain number of boxes to see if he rates in or out. 

Someone touted RBIs as a good tool, well it is, if the player's job was specifically to drive in runs. Let's look at my favorite 3-4-5 hitters in the history of the game that would be the Milwaukee Braves killer line-up of Eddie Mathews, Hank Aaron, and Bazooka Joe Adcock.  Now Mathews was certainly no slouch when it came to hitting the long ball which he did over 500 times, he batted in the 3-hole and his job was to drive in the 1 and two hitters who had presumably gotten on base. Well, even Eddie wasn't going to hit a double off the wall or a HR everytime out, so who comes up but the man who would become the all-time RBI King, Hammerin' Hank Aaron. Now I've mentioned that Joe Adcock was my favorite player as a very young lad, his RBI total isn't that huge especially when you consider he banged in over 335 HRs he had just over 1100 RBIs. Well really, just what do you expect he was going to see on base after Eddie Fucking Mathews and Hank Fucking Aaron had batted? Poor Joe probably looked at  empty bases more than any other #5 hitter in history. So his job, pretty much came down to solo HRs to pad a lead as his RBI opportunities were simply not all that great. 

Hank Aaron was a great, great player there is absolutely no arguing that, but his RBI total is helped in large measure by batting behind Eddie Mathews? What were you going to do, walk Mathews to pitch to Aaron? Not bloody likely, walk both of them to pitch to Bazooka Joe? A man that hit 336 career HRs? Statistically,  that would have made sense, but you're not going to find a manager in the majors at that time that would risk loading up the bases to pitch to a guy that was just as likely to knock the ball out of the park as he was to ground into a double-play or strike out. It was really a no-win situation for opposing pitchers, their best option was to keep the #1 and #2 hitters off the basepaths and then have some options when facing Mathews. So, what then should those #1 & #2 hitters be evaluated on? RBIs is silly, who exactly were they going to drive in? The pitcher? No, their job was entirely different and Runs Created is a very good way to evaluate a #1 or #2 hitter as that's the essence of their job description.

Okay, I'm thinking of a man with under 100 HRs and barely 1000 RBIs, who is in every possible way a no-brainer choice for the HOF? "What, with such measley power numbers? Are you joking?" No, I'm not joking and anyone that suggests that Rod Carew belongs anywhere but the HOF doesn't know jackshit about baseball. Carew's job was never to be an RBI guy or a longball hitter, though he was quite competent at driving in runs when he had the opportunity to do so, which simply wasn't all that often. Carew's job was to hit safely, be a disruptive fuck threatening to steal on every pitch and in short give the opposing pitcher fits. He did that as well as anyone ever has. If we look at his Runs Created, we start to see the big picture of what made Carew a HOFr. He set the table and did it very, very consistently.  Different spots in the line-up, different ways to evaluate performance... Anyone else want to play?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Kuetsar said:

I'm not sure Clemens is on the medal stand for most surly white guys; maybe in the live ball era, but he's not above either Hornsby or Cobb(who wasn't as bad as he was made out to be). Add in some notorious racists like Cap anson, and Joe Dimaggio, the preening ass who ruined Mantle's career. 

It is weird someone wouldn't vote for both, Bonds is a no brainer, and if you vote for roids guys, there's no excuse. Fuck racism(in general and in this case). . .

Cobb wasn't near as bad as he was made out to be by his biographer and Rogers Hornsby finished his baseball career as a manager for the Seattle Rainiers and by all accounts had mellowed to a "pretty nice old guy". A far cry from the days that a team that he led to the World Series didn't want to give him a cut because they all hated his guts. Cap Anson was a chicken-shit from the word go, his main concern was that superior black players would reduce his team to irrelevancy (and they would have). Dimaggio is the coldest fish of a human being I have ever met. The guy was just reptilian in his demeanor. There's a few people that you can spot right off and just know they are basically a sociopathic creep, Dimaggio was one of those people. 

Clemens is one of the most joyless pricks I have ever had the displeasure of meeting, I only hope that his eventual induction to the HOF gives him as little pleasure as everything else seems to. Clemens is the guy that on being informed he won an all-expenses paid trip to Hawaii would bitch because he had to pack. Fuck him. Barry Bonds was certainly not "Mr. Warmth" when I met him, but he was polite, somewhat distant, and only as pleasant as he felt he had to be, but no more was expected. No one goes to a Barry Bonds signing expecting that he's going to pose for pictures with your runny-nosed rugrats climbing all over him. He's the greatest fucking baseball player who has ever lived and if that doesn't entitle you to be somewhat arrogant and aloof, I don't know what does.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is John's "Throw them Out" thread again so we can discuss Harold Baines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also - with Smith getting in, the Expos get one last Hall of Famer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RIPPA said:

Where is John's "Throw them Out" thread again so we can discuss Harold Baines?

His stats are borderline but I'm pretty sure the fact that he was the defining figure for a team for close to two decades probably is what got him in. Also the first baseball bat I ever owned was a Haold Baines one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have opinions on this that are not positive. Good on Baines who seems like a great dude, but oof. Will give a more advanced post on my problems shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are both terrible selections. Good grief. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna come up with a list of players who fell off the ballot in there 1st year since Baines first came on the ballot that I think you could make a case for over Harold Baines. Let it be said I value upside a lot more over consistently average

2017: Jorge Posada (17 votes), Magglio Ordonez (3 votes), Edgar Renteria (1 vote), Mike Cameron (0 votes), Derrek Lee (0 votes), J.D. Drew (0 votes)

2016: Jim Edmonds (11 votes, you fucking idiots),  Jason Kendall (2 votes),  Troy Glaus (0 votes)

2015: Carlos Delgado (21 votes), Brian Giles (0 Votes), Jason Schmidt (0 votes)

2014:  Moises Alou (6 votes), Luis Gonzalez (5 votes), 

2013: Kenny Lofton (18 votes, you stupid idiots), David Wells (5 votes), Steve Finley (4 votes), Shawn Green (2 votes), Julio Franco (6 votes)

2012: Brad Radke (2 votes) Tim Salmon (5 votes)

2011: Kevin Brown (12 votes, once more, you guys are silly), John Olerud (4 votes)

2010: Robin Ventura (7 votes), Kevin Appier (1 vote), Ray Lankford (0 votes)

2009: David Cone (21 votes), Matt Williams (7 votes), Mark Grace (22 votes)

2008: Chuck Finley (1 vote), Chuck Knobloch (1 vote)

2007: Bret Saberhagen (7 votes)

This... was a really not good election on Baines. Smith is a whatever choice. He's a closer and figuring out value on closers is hard, and if Sutter is in Smith getting in seems fine. But Baines? Ooh boy Baines is on the short list of worst HOF picks ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2018 at 12:46 PM, OSJ said:

That's just grotesque; really, no other word at my command fits so perfectly. Is the one logical and perfectly correct pick supposed to make up for the four brain-dead absurdities? Well, it doesn't... The writer that submitted this needs to cover nothing more serious than Roller Derby from now on. 

This is why I'm a firm believer in adding a BBWAA rule:

If you are a BBWAA writer, and you make a ballot this absurd, you must be required to write an article DEFENDING that choice and why you think this guy was a Hall of Famer. 

Because seriously, Placido Polanco is no HOFer...but tell the truth, who wouldn't love to hear that person's argument? THAT is what the discussion should be about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Baines's election- it's a weird one, but again, the bigger point is less the "did Baines deserve it" and more the "it's finally broken the seal" factor.

Whether or not Baines is a HOFer isn't as important as finally, a pure DH is now a Hall of Famer, and given the BBWAA bullshit over "I know it's nearly been 50 years, but we can't have Edgar Martinez in because the DH rule still rustles my jimmies!", it's time. There is no excuses anymore to not put a top-tier DH into the Hall of Fame. That'll do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SorceressKnight said:

For Baines's election- it's a weird one, but again, the bigger point is less the "did Baines deserve it" and more the "it's finally broken the seal" factor.

Whether or not Baines is a HOFer isn't as important as finally, a pure DH is now a Hall of Famer, and given the BBWAA bullshit over "I know it's nearly been 50 years, but we can't have Edgar Martinez in because the DH rule still rustles my jimmies!", it's time. There is no excuses anymore to not put a top-tier DH into the Hall of Fame. That'll do. 

Martinez was gonna get in this year regardless, and the voting had already been cast. And Martinez's name would have been on this commitee in 5 years anyway, and if they wanted to put in a DH that bad he would have been in.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, El Dragon said:

Martinez was gonna get in this year regardless, and the voting had already been cast. And Martinez's name would have been on this commitee in 5 years anyway, and if they wanted to put in a DH that bad he would have been in.

 

That's the point though, even if Martinez somehow doesn't get in, the big point is that if Martinez didn't get it, it'd be painfully clear: We're not going to see a DH elected through the votes until that generation of voters dies out and you're left with, by and large, people young enough to accept the DH rule for what it is. 

It might have been the same for Lee Smith, but at least the voters were dragged kicking and screaming into realizing "maybe 'Closer' is a viable position in the sport", and even THAT is still a question. Look at the discussion about "there's certain guaranteed numbers that make you a Hall of Famer", and yet for pitchers, "300 wins" (a number that is nigh-impossible in the era of 5-man rotations) is still seen as a guaranteed HOF "number"...but for relievers, you HAVE to have been the all-time leader in saves at some point in your career to even be in the discussion (not even "there's a certain amount of saves before consideration- with Smith's HOF induction and since we all kind of know Mariano's a lock, since the save became a bonafide stat, Jeff Reardon is the only person to be all-time leader in saves to NOT be in the Hall of Fame. Not saying he deserved it in the least, but it represents the problem: You have to have been THE BEST closer of all time, at one point, to even get in the discussion.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poz pointed out that Baines was 134 hits short of 3,000 and was someone effected by the 81, 94 and 95 work stoppages. 

I don’t think he belongs, but I do have a soft spot for someone from the MD eastern shore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tabe said:

These are both terrible selections. Good grief. 

Bite your tongue, you sour old bastard. 😉 Lee Smith is a fabulous choice, he was a pioneer of the closer position. 

My guess is that they are trying to make the "pioneer" statement about the DH position as well, I'd much rather that they would have waited for Edgar Martinez, who was actually great at the position instead of sticking in Baines who was merely very good for a longass time. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RIPPA said:

Where is John's "Throw them Out" thread again so we can discuss Harold Baines?

That would be the quickest transition ever from induction to outrage. I liked Harold Baines, I have a file of every one of his cards (something I did for players I liked back when owning 1/2 of a cardstore), but then I have files for Graig Nettles and Matt Williams too. The fact that I liked a player has little bearing on whether or not they are a HOFr. 

Baines is a horrible choice, he's not quite Rick Ferrell bad, but more along the lines of Chuck Klein / George Kell level bad. I know Harold Baines is touted as a really nice man, and is well beloved by the city of Chicago, but that's no reason to stick him in the HOF.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

Poz pointed out that Baines was 134 hits short of 3,000 and was someone effected by the 81, 94 and 95 work stoppages. 

I don’t think he belongs, but I do have a soft spot for someone from the MD eastern shore.

Yeah, he was affected by work stoppages that weren't his fault; but we have to evaluate a player on what he did, not what we think he might have done. Maybe in '81 he gets one of those phantom hits and suffers a career-ending knee injury trying to slide into second. What then?

I'll tell you all exactly why Baines went in this year, it because the Oversight Committee didn't want to get all butt-hurt by the BBWA recognising the DH position before they did. It's obvious that Edgar is going in this year and we have some cranky old bastards that don't want to be upstaged by the "controversy" of the DH position. There is not, nor to my mind has there ever been any controversy about the position, 50% of the teams use it, therefore it is a valid position, end of story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, odessasteps said:

Poz pointed out that Baines was 134 hits short of 3,000 and was someone effected by the 81, 94 and 95 work stoppages. 

I don’t think he belongs, but I do have a soft spot for someone from the MD eastern shore.

Perhaps it should be renamed The Hall of Nice Guys from the MD Shore who Played for the Chicago White Sox? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, OSJ said:

That would be the quickest transition ever from induction to outrage. I liked Harold Baines, I have a file of every one of his cards (something I did for players I liked back when owning 1/2 of a cardstore), but then I have files for Graig Nettles and Matt Williams too. The fact that I liked a player has little bearing on whether or not they are a HOFr. 

Baines is a horrible choice, he's not quite Rick Ferrell bad, but more along the lines of Chuck Klein / George Kell level bad. I know Harold Baines is touted as a really nice man, and is well beloved by the city of Chicago, but that's no reason to stick him in the HOF.

I'm pretty sure at least a couple of us said the same thing about Jack Morris last year. Baines numbers aren't terrible; I wouldn't have put him in, but I think being good for a very long time isn't the worst thing in the world. His BA is a bit low, but nearly 2800 hits and 1600 RBI's is pretty good production. . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, El Dragon said:

I'm gonna come up with a list of players who fell off the ballot in there 1st year since Baines first came on the ballot that I think you could make a case for over Harold Baines. Let it be said I value upside a lot more over consistently average

2017: Jorge Posada (17 votes), Magglio Ordonez (3 votes), Edgar Renteria (1 vote), Mike Cameron (0 votes), Derrek Lee (0 votes), J.D. Drew (0 votes)

2016: Jim Edmonds (11 votes, you fucking idiots),  Jason Kendall (2 votes),  Troy Glaus (0 votes)

2015: Carlos Delgado (21 votes), Brian Giles (0 Votes), Jason Schmidt (0 votes)

2014:  Moises Alou (6 votes), Luis Gonzalez (5 votes), 

2013: Kenny Lofton (18 votes, you stupid idiots), David Wells (5 votes), Steve Finley (4 votes), Shawn Green (2 votes), Julio Franco (6 votes)

2012: Brad Radke (2 votes) Tim Salmon (5 votes)

2011: Kevin Brown (12 votes, once more, you guys are silly), John Olerud (4 votes)

2010: Robin Ventura (7 votes), Kevin Appier (1 vote), Ray Lankford (0 votes)

2009: David Cone (21 votes), Matt Williams (7 votes), Mark Grace (22 votes)

2008: Chuck Finley (1 vote), Chuck Knobloch (1 vote)

2007: Bret Saberhagen (7 votes)

This... was a really not good election on Baines. Smith is a whatever choice. He's a closer and figuring out value on closers is hard, and if Sutter is in Smith getting in seems fine. But Baines? Ooh boy Baines is on the short list of worst HOF picks ever. 

Oh please do, but some of those I might buy, but many are laughable. . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...