The W
Views: 98634338
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
2.9.07 1854
The 7 - Baseball - 2006 Hall of Fame Ballot
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(220 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (36 total)
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 891/1091
EXP: 2189893
For next: 24216

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2790 days
Last activity: 2519 days
#1 Posted on 30.11.05 1633.14
Reposted on: 30.11.12 1633.25
The released the writers' 2006 HOF ballot (sportsillustrated.cnn.com) the other day and it includes


    Rick Aguilera, Albert Belle, Bert Blyleven, Will Clark, Dave Concepcion, Andre Dawson, Gary DiSarcina, Alex Fernandez, Gary Gaetti, Steve Garvey, Dwight Gooden, Rich Gossage, Ozzie Guillen, Orel Hershiser, Gregg Jefferies, Tommy John, Doug Jones, Don Mattingly, Willie McGee, Hal Morris, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Jim Rice, Lee Smith, Bruce Sutter, Alan Trammell, Walt Weiss, John Wetteland.


Not a very strong ballot, and the new guys (Hershiser, Gooden, and Guillen among others) will be lucky to get the required amount to stay on another year.

I don't think anyone on this list is worthy, but I've seen many a good arguments for Blyleven. He's in an odd position because he's clearly more deserving than the "very good" type pitchers from his era like Sutton, Kaat, and Tommy John, but he's also clearly a level below the greats from his time like Palmer, Seaver, Carlton, and the rest of that group. I never saw Blyleven pitch so I can only go on his numbers, but to me he just doesn't "feel" like a HOFer.

You could make a case for Belle, but he'll be hurt by his attitude. Clark is close but not quite there. I wouldn't be mortified if Dale Murphy got in there or anything. Sutter and Gossage are locks if you look favorably on closers. I don't so I wouldn't vote for them.

Anyone here feel strongly (in a positive way) about anyone on this list? I just hope the writers don't feel obligated to vote for someone.
Promote this thread!
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 140

Posts: 2827/6265
EXP: 32713746
For next: 572741

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#2 Posted on 30.11.05 1713.45
Reposted on: 30.11.12 1714.32
OF those on the list, I would have no trouble with Will Clark, Steve Garvey, Goose Gossage, Orel Herchiser, Mattingly and Morris getting in.
Brian P. Dermody
Liverwurst
Moderator
Level: 69

Posts: 872/1205
EXP: 2763625
For next: 106133

Since: 20.9.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 886 days
Last activity: 309 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on 30.11.05 1801.59
Reposted on: 30.11.12 1802.02
I pull for Mattingly every year, but I know his back won't let it happen.

I don't know what about Hal Morris makes Stagger think he's a Hall of Famer...

Gossage is really overdue, IMHO.

And as I mentioned on my crappy blog, I'd love to see the writers vote in Walt Weiss as a gag.

And Garvey has to stay out owing to character. Between paternity suits and celebrity billfishing tournaments... leave him OUT.
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 125

Posts: 2432/4718
EXP: 22042375
For next: 411852

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on 30.11.05 1805.25
Reposted on: 30.11.12 1806.07
    Originally posted by Brian P. Dermody
    I don't know what about Hal Morris makes Stagger think he's a Hall of Famer...


(You may have been being sarcastic, but) I'm pretty sure Stagger was referring to JACK Morris.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1336/2182
EXP: 6948763
For next: 239873

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 283 days
Last activity: 277 days
#5 Posted on 30.11.05 1832.23
Reposted on: 30.11.12 1832.42
Gossage and Sutter absolutely.

Jim Rice also.

Andre Dawson not being in already is a crime.

I wouldn't think too badly about Blyleven getting in on the Don Sutton coattails.

Anyone who votes for Garvey or Concepcion should never be allowed to vote again.
TheOldMan
Landjager
Level: 61

Posts: 37/932
EXP: 1848130
For next: 28477

Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 64 days
Last activity: 1 day
#6 Posted on 30.11.05 2229.14
Reposted on: 30.11.12 2230.01
Have to admit, I made the "Hal Morris - WTF?" mistake on StaggerLee's post myself, heh. Seems like there are always a few placed on the ballot because they called in a favor.

My philosophy on the Hall is more to consider the greats at their positions for a sustained period, and to give defense more consideration than the sportswriters seem to. Accordingly, I tend to devalue first basemen, give extra credit to middle infielders, and absolutely think relief pitchers need more representation.

And you get bonus points with me for having historic memories, a la Carlton Fisk in the '75 series.

- - - - - - - - - -

So my ballot would have:

Andre Dawson (power, speed, cannon arm)
Rich Gossage (intimidation factor)
Jack Morris (bonus for winning Game 7 in '91)
Dave Parker (feared at plate and in RF)
Jim Rice (6 top 10 MVPs in 12 seasons, most deserving on my list)
Lee Smith (All time saves leader)
Bruce Sutter (bonus for bridging the era of the Mike Marshall reliever to the Eckersley one-inning guy. And image of closing out the series in '82)
Alan Trammell (don't penalize him for playing behind Cal Ripken Jr.)

- - - - - - - - - -

Mattingly and Garvey are above average first basemen, in the Hall's deepest position - Dale Murphy just hit a wall too soon to pile up the numbers to counter a low average - Dave Conception was very good, but on a team that gave him the best chance to shine, and ranks behind Trammell in my view.

Albert Belle's lasting image for me is him pointing at his bicep from the dugout. In light of recent events, I say no on suspicion of doping. And I am currently of the opinion that I would not vote for McGwire or Sosa either. Bonds is tough to dismiss out of hand on the sheer magnitude of his numbers. (And I didn't think Palmiero was ever a dominant enough player before recent events.)

I have Blyleven and Tommy John in the "very good for very long" category (Bert was my last 'cut'). Hershiser had a very nice career, and one magical season - not enough in my view.

I don't see a serious case for anyone else on the ballot.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 361/1598
EXP: 4150564
For next: 40584

Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#7 Posted on 1.12.05 0452.39
Reposted on: 1.12.12 0453.09
Dawson and Rice as two of the top offensive players of a low-offense era; Sutter and possibly Gossage as being among the best closers ever. No one else would be on my ballot.

Well maybe Pete Rose. He's not helping himself with his behavior, but I'd like to see him in for his accomplishments nonetheless, so I might write his name down just as a protest.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 451/810
EXP: 1514675
For next: 62880

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 56 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#8 Posted on 1.12.05 0849.49
Reposted on: 1.12.12 0849.58
I feel strongly about Dawson and Blyleven and think it's a travesty that they're not already in.

I'd love to see Trammell get in, but I don't think it's going to happen.

I think Gossage is worthy and don't have too much of a problem with Rice (but he's certainly not high on the list for me--he'd be borderline if I actually had a vote).

If you're going to put Mattingly in, you may as well put in Cecil Cooper as well.

I can see why someone would support Morris (Jack that is), although I think his statistics simply don't stack up and don't find arguments for him compelling. Belle's career was cut short and his personality doesn't help. The rest don't merit serious consideration, IMHO.
pieman
As young as
he feels
Level: 111

Posts: 2102/3563
EXP: 14499818
For next: 368588

Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on 1.12.05 0919.48
Reposted on: 1.12.12 0919.55
I think it's a crime that Blyleven isn't in. Gossage should get in, too. And that's it.

I don't buy the lowest common denominator theory, either. Just because Rabbit Maranville is in doesn't mean we ought to elect every light hitting good fielding shortstop.

As for Andre Dawson - I think he falls short. .279/.323/.482 is pretty low even given the adjustment for era. .323 is just awful for an on-base percentage. As for his homerun prowess - he hit 49 in 1987, 32 in 1983 and 31 in 1991. Other than that, his highest total is 27 in one season. I am not seeing it.

Jim Rice is at .298/.352/.502. All significantly better than Dawson. And I don't think he gets in, either, though I think he's better than Dawson.



(edited by pieman on 1.12.05 1534)
Wpob
Lap cheong
Level: 80

Posts: 545/1717
EXP: 4667206
For next: 115783

Since: 21.11.02
From: Williston Park, NY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
#10 Posted on 1.12.05 0943.18
Reposted on: 1.12.12 0943.19
I honestly believe that no one is getting in this year. I think Blyleven will fall short again and Gossage willbe second but a far cry for the required amount to get in. All others will not even be close.

It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good. And all of these players are either Very Good or teetering between Very Good and Hall of Fame. And teetering is not good enouhg to get in.

But if they need to vote someone in so they can have all the pomp and circumstance of a party, then I say go with Jim Rice.
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese
Level: 40

Posts: 193/332
EXP: 408056
For next: 33257

Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1148 days
Last activity: 681 days
#11 Posted on 1.12.05 1245.54
Reposted on: 1.12.12 1246.34
Poor Will Clark has only received 15.8% of the votes thus far from ESPN readers!!! That's saddening. Sad face.

Will The Thrill in the Hall would make a great start to 2006. Especially seeing as how he's the greatest player of all time.

Of course roughly 85% of the 44k votes must have come from New Yorkers, cause Donnie Baseball's got over 50% approval, and it's been scientifically proven on more than one occassion that he's just a poor man's Clark. Right?!?!

I'm gonna call in sick and grieve.
jfkfc
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 637/1177
EXP: 2735071
For next: 134687

Since: 9.2.02

Since last post: 48 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#12 Posted on 1.12.05 1328.22
Reposted on: 1.12.12 1329.01
    Originally posted by Wpob
    And all of these players are either Very Good or teetering between Very Good and Hall of Fame.
I don't know if I would put Gary DiSarcina, Alex Fernandez, Gary Gaetti, Ozzie Guillen, Gregg Jefferies, Doug Jones, Hal Morris, Walt Weiss into the "Very Good" catagory. It is laughable that any of these eight guys is on a list to even be considered for the HOF. The other guys on this list, one could make a case, however weak or strong. These eight? Puhleeze.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 452/810
EXP: 1514675
For next: 62880

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 56 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#13 Posted on 1.12.05 1413.19
Reposted on: 1.12.12 1413.21
As for Andre Dawson - I think he falls short. .279/.323/.482 is pretty low even given the adjustment for era. .323 is just awful for an on-base percentage. As for his homerun prowess - he hit 49 in 1987, 32 in 1983 and 21 in 1991. Other than that, his highest total is 27 in one season. I am not seeing it.

Point well taken; I was going off of memory and should have checked his numbers before using the word travesty. Still, I think that he was the best player at his position for a number of years. His defense was sublime and he ran the bases magnificently (before his knees gave out).

If you're looking at his HR totals, at that time 25ish HRs would put you in the top 10. And, don't forget 1981 when he had 24 in a season with a major work stoppage.

Regardless, I'm thinking I spoke/typed too hastily and should downgrade him on my list.

Also, if the lowest common denominator comment was aimed at the Mattingly-Cooper comparision, my only point is that it would be as absurd to put Mattingly in the HOF as it would be to put Cooper in the HOF. Neither belong, unless they're buying tickets the same as the rest of us.
pieman
As young as
he feels
Level: 111

Posts: 2104/3563
EXP: 14499818
For next: 368588

Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on 1.12.05 1439.58
Reposted on: 1.12.12 1440.11
    Originally posted by Corajudo
    Also, if the lowest common denominator comment was aimed at the Mattingly-Cooper comparision, my only point is that it would be as absurd to put Mattingly in the HOF as it would be to put Cooper in the HOF. Neither belong, unless they're buying tickets the same as the rest of us.

Nope, that wasn't directed at that comment specifically. Just a general comment that lots of people use the "Well, if Tony Perez is in the Hall, then Don Mattingly should be in the Hall" argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. (I wonder how many cliches I can get in before the cliche police confiscate my keyboard?)

As for Dawson, he was a terrific player. He had a lot of skills including power, speed, defense and a wonderful arm. But he was not particularly adept at getting on base and he made a boatload of outs.

As for the power, I will concur that his power got him into the Top 10 in HR in his league 8 times in his career, but it was usually in the 7-10 spots. He was in the top 3 three times.

As said earlier, I think he easily qualifies for The Hall of the Very Good, top tier even. But just not quite there in my book. Your mileage may vary. (Here come the cliche police, hey, let go of my keyb......
Brian P. Dermody
Liverwurst
Moderator
Level: 69

Posts: 874/1205
EXP: 2763625
For next: 106133

Since: 20.9.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 886 days
Last activity: 309 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on 1.12.05 1449.46
Reposted on: 1.12.12 1449.50
(I *was* being sarcastic. See also: Pretty much everything I've ever posted here.)

The nice thing about DiSarcina is that he'd be the first to admit he has no business in the Hall.

I really do wish someone would announce a Hall of Pretty Good, for the Mattinglys, the Vida Blues and the Dewey Evanses of the world.
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 893/1091
EXP: 2189893
For next: 24216

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2790 days
Last activity: 2519 days
#16 Posted on 1.12.05 1504.14
Reposted on: 1.12.12 1505.24
    Originally posted by TheOldMan
    Jack Morris (bonus for winning Game 7 in '91)


This is the only one you listed that I strongly feel shouldn't be in the Hall. Jack Morris gets remembered because he pitched one of the greatest games in baseball history and because he was the winningest pitcher in the 1980s.

The fact that he has the most wins of the 1980s is one of those weird things that happened because the greats of the seventies that pitched into the eighties had sen their best years, and the one truly great pitcher of the 1980s - Roger Clemens - didn't come up until 1984.

Morris had a career ERA+ of 105 meaning he was about 5% better than the league average pitcher during his career. He never had an ERA under three and wasn't much of strikeout pitcher (topped 200 only three times despite pitching a lot of innings). He doesn't have a single eye-popping season thought to be fair his '81 was pretty damned good despite making only 25 starts in a strike shortened season. Jack Morris was a good pitcher, but nothing more.

(edited by BigSteve on 1.12.05 1610)
too-old-now
Bockwurst
Level: 48

Posts: 395/545
EXP: 793651
For next: 29897

Since: 7.1.04

Since last post: 1248 days
Last activity: 173 days
#17 Posted on 1.12.05 1526.01
Reposted on: 1.12.12 1526.01
The more I think about Rice, I think he gets in this year. Yes, he's been on the ballot a number of years and didn't deserve it more than the guys who've gone in already, but he's a good bit ahead of the others on this year's list.

His problems with the media over the years he played have hurt him, but most of the other candidates this year fall at best into the very-good-not-great category. Considering the numbers Rice put up were in an era before steroids, not to mention his outstanding glove and arm, he finally should make it in.

In other words, I don't see too many writers having the guts to not write anyone in, so it's possible a few guys get the minimum amount needed to stay on the ballot just because the field is so par.

As far as relievers, I think they have to be really really special to offset the fact that they are in such a small fraction of the game. Most often, only one-eighteenth of any game, and they don't appear in enough games to offset it. So, sorry to Gossage and Sutter.

Lee Smith, on the other hand, all time saves leader should count for something, and I have a hard time saying no, but I counter with if we only look at all time stats, then we'll have to vote for Jesse Orosco in a few years when he's eligible, as he leads in games (and maybe innings?) pitched...

That being said, Mariano Rivera should be a lock for first ballot induction when he finally hangs up the cleats.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1337/2182
EXP: 6948763
For next: 239873

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 283 days
Last activity: 277 days
#18 Posted on 1.12.05 1720.46
Reposted on: 1.12.12 1722.18
Andre Dawson should be in because he was the top combined power/speed man of his time. He was also a very very good centerfielder pre-injuries.

About Jim Rice:
"In the history of baseball, a total of twelve men have hit at least .295, with 375 homers and 1400 RBI. They are Aaron, Mays, Ruth, Ott, Bonds, Foxx and Williams...plus Stan Musial, Al Kaline, Mickey Mantle, Lou Gehrig and Jim Rice."

That statement was written a while ago on this site:
http://www.lostinleftfield.com
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 130

Posts: 1516/5158
EXP: 25258493
For next: 472153

Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 14 min.
#19 Posted on 1.12.05 2132.05
Reposted on: 1.12.12 2132.06
Is Jim Rice in the middle of the group? The top of the group? The bottom of the group?

It's not too tricky to make groups including HOF players and a spotlighted player, especially when you choose specific end points (why .295? why 375? why 1400?) which only exist to make the spotlighted guy look good.


AVG HR RBI
Aaron 305 755 2297
Mays 302 660 1903
Ruth 342 714 2213
Ott 304 511 1860
Bonds 300 708 1853
Foxx 325 534 1922
Williams 334 521 1839
Musial 331 475 1951
Kaline 297 399 1589
Mantle 298 536 1509
Gehrig 340 534 1995
Rice 298 382 1451


Last. Everyone but Kaline is ahead of him in every single category, and that's one small batting average point we're talking about.

I know you didn't make this list, but I hate that type of case for Hall of Fame candidates. I'm not even saying Rice doesn't belong in - I haven't thought about it much.

As for who WILL get in, Sutter may, but otherwise no one.
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 4948/7534
EXP: 43492518
For next: 809244

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 428 days
Last activity: 428 days
#20 Posted on 1.12.05 2153.24
Reposted on: 1.12.12 2153.48
Sutter due to his dominance at closer as that position began to take importance.
Rice as he was a consistently dominant hitter for over a decade. If he had been mediocre rather than awful his last two seasons, or retired two seasons earlier, he probably would already be in.
I'd probably lean against Andre Dawson, but he's close.
And, I'll take Jack Morris due to his being a big pitcher in a big spot. If he pitched in New York and had three World Series rings and pitched a classic Game 7, he'd be the right handed Whitey Ford.
Alex Fernandez actually was around 10 years in the majors? Was about 7 of those years spent on the DL?



(edited by redsoxnation on 1.12.05 2258)
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Furcal signs with Dodgers
Next thread: The Jays continue with the "J" theme
Previous thread: Bonds to play for Team USA
(220 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Related threads: Holy crap; Bud won! - MLB Rookies of the Year - NLCS - More...
The 7 - Baseball - 2006 Hall of Fame BallotRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.344 seconds.