The W
Views: 97658900
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.7.14 0149
The W - Baseball - HOF Ballots Mailed (Page 2)
This thread has 6 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.64
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(334 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (45 total)
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 3 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.02
    Originally posted by Joseph Ryder

    Jim Rice's bat compares poorly to Will Clark's,



Um...what? Rice had about 100 more career HR and about 250 more RBIs. Their batting average and slugging were almost identical. Rice had 7 25 HR seasons and 9 100 RBI seasons; Clark had 3 and 4. Clark had a better OBP, but that's about it. And Rice played in a FAR tougher era for sluggers. Let's look at how often they led their leagues:

Rice Clark
HR 3 0
RBI 2 1
OPS 1 0
Slg% 2 1
TB 4 1
Hits 1 0
3B 1 0

Granted Clark had a very good record in the postseason, and Rice did not, but that's mostly because Rice didn't get there until he was past his prime. Rice was one of the very best hitters of his era; Clark can't say the same thing.
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.35
Ricky Henderson and Jack Morris. Morris was the big game ace of his time while Blyleven was a good #2
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese








Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1108 days
Last activity: 641 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.15
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
      Originally posted by Joseph Ryder

      Jim Rice's bat compares poorly to Will Clark's,



    Um...what? Rice had about 100 more career HR and about 250 more RBIs. Their batting average and slugging were almost identical. Rice had 7 25 HR seasons and 9 100 RBI seasons; Clark had 3 and 4. Clark had a better OBP, but that's about it. And Rice played in a FAR tougher era for sluggers. Let's look at how often they led their leagues:

    Rice Clark
    HR 3 0
    RBI 2 1
    OPS 1 0
    Slg% 2 1
    TB 4 1
    Hits 1 0
    3B 1 0

    Granted Clark had a very good record in the postseason, and Rice did not, but that's mostly because Rice didn't get there until he was past his prime. Rice was one of the very best hitters of his era; Clark can't say the same thing.

I'm just saying, look beyond HRs and RBIs (and triples) for a moment.

As far as "best hitters of his era", Rice's OPS+ (OPS compared to his peers) was 127. Clark's was 137. As for who had the tougher hitting conditions, according to baseball-reference's AIR stat, which takes into account the years they played and parks in which they played, Jim Rice's career mark is 102, or slightly higher offensive environment than usual. Will Clark's is 101. For context, ARod's is 110 so far. Todd Helton, 125. Babe Ruth's was 105. Mickey Mantle clocked a 95. Rice only had three "below average" season environments. Clark's entire prime (his woefully underrated SF years) was in Candlestick, a TERRIBLE hitters park. His later years in the AL brought his career mark slightly above avg, but still not above Rice.

Also, baseball-reference has a nice little tool where you can actually put players into a neutral environment and compare their stats. So for simplicity, I put Clark and Rice into a basic, 715-run avg per team environment.

HR RBI Avg OBP SLG
Rice 378 1474 .290 .343 .489
Clark 303 1275 .311 .392 .509

Will Clark created 43 more runs in about 750 fewer plate appearances. His adjusted batting runs (similar to runs created) easily bests Rice, 404.6 to 294.7. His WPA/LI is over 13 pts higher (42.76 to 29.05...if you prefer WPA only, Clark more than doubles Rice). His WARP3 is 24 higher (104-80). He was intentionally walked more than twice as often. He grounded into 215 fewer DPs (100 vs 315). A lineup of 9 Jim Rices would finish with a .627 mark (peak season of .756, three seasons over .700). A lineup of 9 Will Clarks would finish with a .685 winning % (peak season of .811, 6 seasons over .700). If others want to provide me with VORP totals and whatnot, feel free. I don't have access to everything at the moment. Or fielding stats...if someone wants to include those.

I'm by no means saying Will Clark is a hall of famer. He was one of my favs when I was a kid, and I would have rejoiced if he snuck in, but I was ready for him to be rejected. I was a little surprised he didn't get even a sniff last year at all, considering that by so many comparisons his bat ranks ahead of Rice, who's got a good shot of actually making it in this year.

(edited by Joseph Ryder on 4.12.08 1456)


I run
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 3 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.02
I'm sorry, but those aren't real stats. They may be interesting, but they're not the sort of thing anyone actually considers when voting for the Hall.

But if we're going to put faith in baseball-reference.com, consider this: its three closest matches for Rice's career are Orlando Cepeda, Andres Galarraga, and Duke Snider--two of the three are HoFers. For Clark, it's Edgar Martinez, Cecil Cooper, and Moises Alou. Not in the same league.
odessasteps
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: MD, USA

Since last post: 37 days
Last activity: 4 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.23
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    I'm sorry, but those aren't real stats. They may be interesting, but they're not the sort of thing anyone actually considers when voting for the Hall.



As the voters (presumably) start skewing younger, more of them will use sabermetric numbers over "counting numbers."

Edit: Joe Posnanski's column today on the HOF.

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/12/04/a-hall-of-fame-manifesto/

(edited by odessasteps on 5.12.08 0016)


Mark Coale
Odessa Steps Magazine
The Affirmation, Baby Blog
cfgb
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Ottawa, Ontario

Since last post: 44 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.40
Harold Baines: More debate on this one than you might think. 2866 career hits certainly merits consideration. The problem with Baines was that after 1986, he never spent more than 20 some odd games in the field per season ever again. At 384 homers while playing a position where we ONLY have numbers to look at as opposed to the objective world of glove-work. NO.

Jay Bell: One of the most ignored figures of the steroid era? How does one go from 5 homers a year to 40? NO.

Bert Blyleven: Iím sold. #5 all time in strikeouts, behind Ryan, Johnson, Clemens, and Carlton. 287 career wins while playing for some of the crappiest teams in history. 242 complete games in an era which was introducing the bullpen specialists. Set the all time record when allowing 50 homers in a single season Ė a feat so great that many pitchers in Cincinnati look at in awe while trying their hardest to catch him. YES.

David Cone: His appearance on SNL in drag notwithstanding, 194 wins while playing for some bigtime winners simply isnít enough. NO.

Andre Dawson: This oneís so difficult, and remains a quandary year in and year out. 438 home runs in the not-so-homer-happy 80ís. 314 stolen bases. 2774 hits. An MVP award (albeit undeserving). Oldest player in 1995. Thereís nothing here to hate. So why am I having such a hard time saying yes to Dawson? The same reason as most of the voters I guess. He was never the best player on any team he played for. His 49 home runs in 1987 was the only season in which he topped 32. And even fewer career RBI and hits than Harold Baines. And I think if you have to spend any serious amount of time straining your brain to ask if the guy is a hall of famer, youíre stretching, and itís a NO.

Ron Gant: I wish! I loved using him as the 3rd batter for the Braves in Ken Griffey Jr. Presents Major League Baseball. But thatís it really. NO.

Mark Grace: Cub fans say yes, but Cub fans do not make up the entire MLB fanbase. Seemingly good guy, said all the right things, and even hit .303. He also had no power, and with only 2445 career hits, itís a NO.

Rickey Henderson: Any voter who doesnít give him the nod deserves to have their ballot revoked. His hall of fame speech should be one for the ages. Why isnít he still playing? YES YES YES.

Tommy John: Shouldnít there be a rule that anyone with a surgery named after them deserves admittance to the hall? 288 wins, pitched until he was 46, 3.34 career ERA, Iím sold! YES

Don Mattingly: For all the same reasons as Mark Grace. NO.

Mark McGwire: Shouldnít there be a rule that anyone with a hamburger named after them deserves admittance to the hall? Another one Iím torn on. The Sports Guy made a strong argument that has swayed me sort of towards a yes, when discussing the Hall Of Fame. He asked that isnít the point of the hall to highlight the biggest stars and most recognizable faces from any given era? And that was Mark McGwire not one of the faces of the 1990ís? I can overlook the juice factor (I would overwhelmingly say yes on Bonds in 2012), but McGwire has always had one things that stands out against him in my book: Just 1626 career hits. Fewer than Orlando Cabrera, Shannon Stewart, Mark Loretta, and Ichiro Suzuki (who has only been playing since 2001). BUT Ö You know whoís just ahead of him on the hits list? Hank Greenberg, the slugging Jew from the 1930ís with 1628 hits. His numbers are nearly a replica of McGwire. And furthermore, nobody with as many homers as Mark (586) has been denied hall access. So what do we do? The evidence to me has overwhelmed the negatives, and despite my personal dislike for the man, Iíll say YES this year, but Iím allowed to change my opinion next year.

Jack Morris: The man a lot of people deem the best post-season pitcher of all time. Heís been riding that nametag ever since outdueling John Smoltz in the 1991 World Series game 7, giving the world 10 solid innings on pure adrenaline. But the reputation is a myth. His career postseason record is 7-4 with a 3.80 ERA. He nearly cost Toronto the title against Atlanta in 1992 with 2 awful outings, including the grand slam to Lonnie Smith in Game 5. Yes, LONNIE SMITH! A 3.90 career ERA is hardly impressive, considering the league average during his career was 4.08. The 254 wins does nothing to convince me otherwise. A definite ace, great pitcher at times, but too questionable for entry. But he and Mattingly can high five each other when theyíre admitted to the Moustache Hall Of Fame later this year. NO.

Dale Murphy: Iím biased, for obvious reasons. He seemed to be on the fast track after a pair of MVP seasons in his mid 20ís. Sweet glovework in the field. But the Murf plummeted fast, peaking before the age of 30, and never again hitting over .245 after his 31st birthday, including a pair of stinkers at age 32 and 33 (.226 and .228 respectfully). NO.

Jesse Orosco: Well, heís the all time leader in games pitched, but #2 is Mike Stanton for god sakes so that canít count for much. He made a career out of being a Really Old Man, and uhhh Ö I guess he had some nice numbers. NO.

Dave Parker: Well, he makes the All-Cocaine team, and the picture below still kills me. But NO.



Dan Plesac: The quest begins Ö Can he get just 1 vote? NO!

Tim Raines: I made my argument about Raines last year and I stand by it. He was the NL version of Rickey Henderson. Career OBP of .385 showed he understood that just getting on base scored runs. OPS+? He had 8 years of 125 and up, 10 if you bend it back to 124. 125 is considered a very good year, 150 is amazing. He had 1 amazing season and another at 149. Thatís better than Ripken and Sandberg. In 12 straight seasons he had no fewer than 33 stolen bases. His career average for SBs was 84.6%, so he wasnít wasting outs Ė thatís one of the highest ever. In his prime years, a full lineup of Tim Rainesí would score over 7 runs a game. He was also the biggest victim of collusion. YES.

Jim Rice: The Jim Rice war wages on. The camps seem to be torn 3-ways between people who saw him play and remember that he was probably the strongest man in the majors, who could crush a ball 500 feet without breaking a sweat. Then thereís the sports writers who had to deal with his surly, and outright mean behaviour. And then thereís people who just look at the numbers and see 382 homers, and just 2452 hits. I fall into the third camp. I know this is his last shot, but I canít see it happening. Jim Rice is simply not a hall of fame player. NO.

Lee Smith: Saves are nice. Doing it with style is better. Iím glad you were employed for a long time and made lots of money, and you should be too. Your numbers otherwise werenít that great. NO.

Alan Trammell: Nice defence, but yeah, NO.

Greg Vaughn: Even the Tampa Bay Rays are laughing at this one. Hitting 50 home runs while having to play in San Diego is a very impressive feat. Having that on your resume along with seasons in which you hit .220, .228, .224, .216, .233, .163, and .189 is another story. NO.

Mo Vaughn: I think heís still under contract to the Mets for about $18 million per season. Retired at 35, and his fall wasnít pretty. NO.

Matt Williams: The man who couldíve been, never was. He had a very real shot at breaking Marisí record in 1994, but nobody remembers because of the strike. He had 43 home runs with 50 games to go. That would be the peak of a very fine player, and the only man who could pull off the hidden ball trick with regularity. How many rookies would fall for the old ďcould you get off the bag for a sec, I just want to brush it offĒ routine? 20? 30? NO.
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese








Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1108 days
Last activity: 641 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.15
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    I'm sorry, but those aren't real stats. They may be interesting, but they're not the sort of thing anyone actually considers when voting for the Hall.


I understand many voters don't consider those numbers. But maybe they should (and count on it, soon enough they will). Cause you know what...for the most part, they're better. For example, you know what paints a FAR BETTER picture than RBIs (not that Rice was some RBI god)? Runs created. Not that Runs Created is the best, but at least it's relatively simplistic and has a nice, simple sounding name that people can latch onto. Hanley Ramirez had only 67 RBIs in 2008, despite hitting 33 HRs and being on some people's short list of MVP candidates. He did finish 3rd though in the NL in runs created. Why? Because RC takes into account BBs, steals, total bases, etc. RBIs measures who was lucky enough to hit behind Chase Utley.

The similarity scores are not baseball-reference stats. They were put together by Bill James, father of the Win Shares system. And...Clark tops Rice there too, 331-282...in a shorter career too. Again, not saying Will Clark should get a plaque, but for someone with so many supporters (including those with votes that count), Rice sure does fall short of Clark in a lot of measurements. Lucky for Rice, many people don't consider these merely not-super-basic measurements "real stats."

Great post, cfgb. Many don't realize that Blyleven went 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA in the post-season, compared to the mythical Morris' 7-4/3.80 line.



I run
BoromirMark
Potato korv








Since: 8.5.02
From: Milan-Ann Arbor, MI

Since last post: 181 days
Last activity: 181 days
AIM:  
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.50
I'm sorry but ignoring Dawson and Trammell's HOF credentials, and brushing aside Morris with a joke, is doing a complete disservice to their HOF worthy careers.




Michigan against the SEC: 20-5-1 (7-3 in bowl games)

cfgb
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Ottawa, Ontario

Since last post: 44 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.40
    Originally posted by BoromirMark
    I'm sorry but ignoring Dawson and Trammell's HOF credentials, and brushing aside Morris with a joke, is doing a complete disservice to their HOF worthy careers.


I brushed aside Blylevin with a joke but said YES.

I think I covered Morris and Dawson fairly enough. And I apologize for not giving enough space to the "great" Alan Trammell, a .976 fielding percentage is nice and all, but I grew up with these guys. I assure you, at no time in my youth, was anyone clamoring for an Alan Trammell baseball card. An unimpressive hit total, sub 200 homers, on base of .350, BA of .285 ... Am I supposed to be blown away by anything I'm seeing here? Or are we putting him in for managing the Tigers to roughly 400 losses in 2003?
BoromirMark
Potato korv








Since: 8.5.02
From: Milan-Ann Arbor, MI

Since last post: 181 days
Last activity: 181 days
AIM:  
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.50
You're right, as a kid I wasn't clamoring for a Trammell jersey. I wanted Lou Whitaker's, and he's already been screwed as concerns the HOF: Trammell must not be similarly screwed as well.




Michigan against the SEC: 20-5-1 (7-3 in bowl games)

spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
It's funny, Trammell's numbers aren't that far off from Cal Ripken's, and Ripken was a first ballot lock.



2007 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.40
And if you take away the streak from Ripken, does he make it?




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.45
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    And if you take away the streak from Ripken, does he make it?


IMO, borderline. I honestly think his numbers and career would have been better with a little rest once in a while. But his actual numbers + the streak make him very worthy. In the modern era, being able to play that many consecutive games was amazing. But I think the streak meant what happened wasn't always best for his team.



Perception is reality
cfgb
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Ottawa, Ontario

Since last post: 44 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.40
    Originally posted by spf
    It's funny, Trammell's numbers aren't that far off from Cal Ripken's, and Ripken was a first ballot lock.


Sure, what's 800 hits, 250 homers, 400 runs, and 700 RBI. Other than that, they're exactly the same.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by cfgb
      Originally posted by spf
      It's funny, Trammell's numbers aren't that far off from Cal Ripken's, and Ripken was a first ballot lock.


    Sure, what's 800 hits, 250 homers, 400 runs, and 700 RBI. Other than that, they're exactly the same.

Eh, counting stats leave me cold. Ripken played in 3001 games, Trammell in 2293.

Their 162 game average lines:
Ripken: 276/340/447/787 33 2B, 23 HR, 112 OPS+
Trammell: 285/352/415/767 29 2B, 13 HR, 110 OPS+

Is the ten HR over the average year the difference between getting in with 98% of the vote and not being a legit contender? Or the fact that Ripken hung around for 5-6 mostly nondescript years?




2007 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 389 days
Last activity: 389 days
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.89
    Originally posted by spf
      Originally posted by cfgb
        Originally posted by spf
        It's funny, Trammell's numbers aren't that far off from Cal Ripken's, and Ripken was a first ballot lock.


      Sure, what's 800 hits, 250 homers, 400 runs, and 700 RBI. Other than that, they're exactly the same.

    Eh, counting stats leave me cold. Ripken played in 3001 games, Trammell in 2293.

    Their 162 game average lines:
    Ripken: 276/340/447/787 33 2B, 23 HR, 112 OPS+
    Trammell: 285/352/415/767 29 2B, 13 HR, 110 OPS+

    Is the ten HR over the average year the difference between getting in with 98% of the vote and not being a legit contender? Or the fact that Ripken hung around for 5-6 mostly nondescript years?






Ripken did have a ROY and 2 MVP awards. And, being able to stick around the extra years has helped people get in the Hall (Sutton) and possibly kept guys out of the Hall (Rice). If Rice had been mediocre rather than falling off the cliff because of his eyes at the end of his career he probably already is in.
How people will justify leaving Rickey off the ballot: He never has retired. A voter could claim he won't vote for someone who might try to return.
I've probably moved more against Blyleven after listening to him continuously complain that he should be in the Hall of Fame.
Dawson falls into the category of if he gets in I wouldn't complain, and if he gets left out I wouldn't complain.
cfgb
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Ottawa, Ontario

Since last post: 44 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.40
    Originally posted by spf
      Originally posted by cfgb
        Originally posted by spf
        It's funny, Trammell's numbers aren't that far off from Cal Ripken's, and Ripken was a first ballot lock.


      Sure, what's 800 hits, 250 homers, 400 runs, and 700 RBI. Other than that, they're exactly the same.

    Eh, counting stats leave me cold. Ripken played in 3001 games, Trammell in 2293.

    Their 162 game average lines:
    Ripken: 276/340/447/787 33 2B, 23 HR, 112 OPS+
    Trammell: 285/352/415/767 29 2B, 13 HR, 110 OPS+

    Is the ten HR over the average year the difference between getting in with 98% of the vote and not being a legit contender? Or the fact that Ripken hung around for 5-6 mostly nondescript years?



You're seriously asking the difference between 10 homers a year at the SHORTSTOP position?

Look, from a sabermetrics perspective, a lineup of Trammell's is probably not that different from a lineup of Ripken's. I can't even believe I'm spending this much energy defending Cal because I'm not even a fan.

Cal Ripken had 3000 hits, one of the milestones that pretty much guarantee entrance. He was near 500 homers, the other (former) magical mark, at a position which isn't known for its power.

Yes, he hung on forever. His streak was also uber-important to a lot of people. It was the first step in "healing" after the strike, because Cal was still doing his thing day in and day out and people kinda dug that. My personal feelings are irrelevant, what he MEANT to baseball is. The MVP awards, ROY, and aforementioned milestones are plenty.

When the day came, not many voters had to ask "is Ripken a HOFer" which is why he got 98% of the votes.

Trammell turned more DPs with Lou Whitaker than Briana Banks has turned with Team Vivid. Beyond that, I see nothing of substance behind the man that makes him deserving of the hall of fame spot. (Unless he's turned DPs with Briana Banks, in which case I'll consider changing my mind.)
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by cfgb
      Originally posted by spf
        Originally posted by cfgb
          Originally posted by spf
          It's funny, Trammell's numbers aren't that far off from Cal Ripken's, and Ripken was a first ballot lock.


        Sure, what's 800 hits, 250 homers, 400 runs, and 700 RBI. Other than that, they're exactly the same.

      Eh, counting stats leave me cold. Ripken played in 3001 games, Trammell in 2293.

      Their 162 game average lines:
      Ripken: 276/340/447/787 33 2B, 23 HR, 112 OPS+
      Trammell: 285/352/415/767 29 2B, 13 HR, 110 OPS+

      Is the ten HR over the average year the difference between getting in with 98% of the vote and not being a legit contender? Or the fact that Ripken hung around for 5-6 mostly nondescript years?



    You're seriously asking the difference between 10 homers a year at the SHORTSTOP position?

    Look, from a sabermetrics perspective, a lineup of Trammell's is probably not that different from a lineup of Ripken's. I can't even believe I'm spending this much energy defending Cal because I'm not even a fan.

    Cal Ripken had 3000 hits, one of the milestones that pretty much guarantee entrance. He was near 500 homers, the other (former) magical mark, at a position which isn't known for its power.

    Yes, he hung on forever. His streak was also uber-important to a lot of people. It was the first step in "healing" after the strike, because Cal was still doing his thing day in and day out and people kinda dug that. My personal feelings are irrelevant, what he MEANT to baseball is. The MVP awards, ROY, and aforementioned milestones are plenty.

    When the day came, not many voters had to ask "is Ripken a HOFer" which is why he got 98% of the votes.

    Trammell turned more DPs with Lou Whitaker than Briana Banks has turned with Team Vivid. Beyond that, I see nothing of substance behind the man that makes him deserving of the hall of fame spot. (Unless he's turned DPs with Briana Banks, in which case I'll consider changing my mind.)

I think you are spending more energy defending Ripken than need be. I am in no way arguing against him being in the HOF. If I had a vote I would have cast one for him without question.

My issue is the idea that there is a giant gap between the two.

Ripken's power made him a freak of nature at SS. And yes, it was a big part of why he was a first ballot HOF. But I think that judging pre A-Rod era shortstops by Ripken's HR standard is incredibly exclusionary. I mean sure nowadays we can see any shitty hitting SS like Juan Uribe hit 20 HR in a year. But Ripken was something unique. And I don't think that simply because Ripken was an anomaly that Trammell ought to be dismissed in comparison.

Funny thing is I don't think I would vote for him, but I am much more protective of the HOF. That's why I despise the existence of the Veteran's Committee. But as long the BBWAA and old players have the vote, I think Trammell deserves to be very strong in the discussion of who should get in.



2007 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 13 hours
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.25
    Originally posted by spf
    Funny thing is I don't think I would vote for him, but I am much more protective of the HOF. That's why I despise the existence of the Veteran's Committee.


There are some very worthy hall of famers who only got in because of the veterans committee. Johnny Mize, Arky Vaughn, Frank "Home Run" Baker, Pee Wee Reese, Larry Doby, Three Finger Brown and probably a few others were all gigantic oversights by the writers and corrected by the veterans committee.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by spf
      Funny thing is I don't think I would vote for him, but I am much more protective of the HOF. That's why I despise the existence of the Veteran's Committee.


    There are some very worthy hall of famers who only got in because of the veterans committee. Johnny Mize, Arky Vaughn, Frank "Home Run" Baker, Pee Wee Reese, Larry Doby, Three Finger Brown and probably a few others were all gigantic oversights by the writers and corrected by the veterans committee.

I would argue against some of those.

Even accepting that I don't like the idea that the VC is obligated to keep inducting people who had their shot and were rejected. Everyone being considered in the modern group of VC candidates had their shot with the BBWAA and was rejected. Why is there such a need to keep plucking more and more guys? The VC should be there only for major historical mistakes (racism, some sort of newly discovered info, etc.), not just "hey, these are the best of the rejects! Some on down Ron Santo and Gil Hodges! Get your gold watch for living long enough after you were denied entry by those mean writers!"



2007 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 5.64
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: Greg Maddux Retires
Next thread: Francisco Rodriguez signs with Mets
Previous thread: Mike Mussina retires
(334 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24367086/report-yankees-agree-to-three-year-contract-with-carlos-beltran 3 years and $45Million?
- StaggerLee, Yankees sign Carlos Beltran (2013)
Related threads: Post-season awards - Your 2008/2009 Free Agent thread - Scoring question - More...
The W - Baseball - HOF Ballots Mailed (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.121 seconds.