Hall of Fame Ballot

[Elster88]

MFS62 wrote: ="sharpie"] Also, Will Clark didn't make the cut -- he was another one of those anointed very early. How early? He didn't even bat cleanup on his college team. (Neither did teammate Raffy Palmiero.) Later

Before hitting 45+ home runs a year became the norm for the league leader.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I can understand a vote for Hershiser. Very dominant over a short period, like Koufax. Big game pitcher. I wouldn't have voted for him, but I don't think casting a vote for him is as nutty as for some others who probably got votes.

So no HOF for Doc or Darryl. The 1986 Mets will likely end up with only one Hall of Famer.

[MFS62]

Elster88 wrote: ="MFS62"] ="sharpie"] Also, Will Clark didn't make the cut -- he was another one of those anointed very early. How early? He didn't even bat cleanup on his college team. (Neither did teammate Raffy Palmiero.) Later Before hitting 45+ home runs a year became the norm for the league leader.

So, you're not going to ask who the cleanup hitter was on that college team? He made the majors, too.
Or do you know the answer to this classic trivia question?

Later

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I don't know that one.

Did the "Thrill" go to college in New Orleans? I seem to remember something about that.

[G-Fafif]

Way to go, Sutter.

Now let's get Kooz in there. Or Bunning out.

[nymr83]

congrats to Sutter but i still think Blyleven and to a lesser extent Rice are getting the shaft and have been for years.

[MFS62]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I don't know that one. Did the "Thrill" go to college in New Orleans? I seem to remember something about that.

They played at either Southern Miss or Misisisippi State.

Later

[Guest sharpie]

Mississippi State. I looked up and saw that Bobby Thigpen seems to have been the only other contemporaneous teammate. I guess he batted cleanup.

[seawolf17]

Thigpen is the closest I could get also, but that just doesn't seem right.

[MFS62]

Yep, Thigpen batted cleanup on that team. He was your typical "best arm on the squad" and an all-around athlete, playing in the field when he wasn't pitching. He was converted to pitching full time when he became a pro. If he had played in the NL and allowed to bat, who knows how good he would have been? Or if they would have converted him back to a position player.

Later

[Willets Point]

Thigpen's name always reminds me of this guy:

[Guest sharpie]

]Is this one of the years that the Veterans Committee meets? Or will Sutter really be a solo act?

No Vet Committee but a Negro League Committee will be convening.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Bad news for Thigpen, good news for Franklin.

[HahnSolo]

But no hope for Joe Shlabotnick (sp?).

[Vic Sage]

sutter over gossage seems dubious to me, despite goose's MFY taint.
blyleven and rice have some gripe, too, but less so.

[Guest mlbaseballtalk]

How Goose isn't in yet is a disgrace

Put it this way, Goose should go before Mo, and one can make a strong case for Mariano Rivera being "the best there was, best there is, and the best there ever will be"

[Guest mlbaseballtalk]

MFS62 wrote: ="sharpie"] Also, Will Clark didn't make the cut -- he was another one of those anointed very early. How early? He didn't even bat cleanup on his college team. (Neither did teammate Raffy Palmiero.) Later

During the lockout of 1989 an SI writer compared him to Ted Williams though that was more due to his swing looking very natural like.

The part of the piece was intended as a "What if this is the deathneil for baseball" look into the future and the father telling a son about one of the great careers cut short because of players and owners greed

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, the good news for Goose is that his total went up, and the voters are going to hear for a year arguments that it made no sense to send Sutter without Goose. Goose is in like Early Wynn. You can book it.

[smg58]

I think Rice will make it too, and I hope Blyleven does as well. As for the first-timers next year, Gwynn has 3000 hits going for him and Ripken is easy. McGwire... it's not clear that anybody tainted by the steroids issue would have put up Hall-worthy numbers regardless, other than Bonds. I think the smoke needs to settle for McGwire's performance to get a fair hearing, and I'd refrain from selecting him until that happens. It will be interesting to see how the voters feel.

[nymr83]

the career numbers of any hitter who played after the the '94 strike are in serious doubt. Ripken and Gwynn aren't a problem because they played most of their careers before that time and didn't do anything significant (in terms of statistical production, not milestones) afterwards. Bonds was a hall of famer even if his post-strike years had matched his earlier ones. The problem is that there are going to be a TON of guys with very impressive stats (and questions about steroid use) and you can't just let them all in (i hope.)

If i'm voting next year i induct Blyleven, Rice, Gossage, Gwynn, and Ripken. unfortunately the presense of these new guys will probably keep Blyleven and Rice out at least another year (when are they eligible until?)

I have to wait in McGwire and hope to god that some more information on the 'roids comes out, if it doesn't i still don't regret keeping him out on the first ballot. Marris isn't in the hall either, there's no rule that a single-season record holder needs to be inducted.

When is Edgar Martinez up for induction? the DH-debate should be fun.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I thnk you can draw whatever conclusions you want from his refusal to answer questions thrown at him by Congress. Can't you?

[Willets Point]

Nymr83 wrote: I have to wait in McGwire and hope to god that some more information on the 'roids comes out, if it doesn't i still don't regret keeping him out on the first ballot. Marris isn't in the hall either, there's no rule that a single-season record holder needs to be inducted.

This seems to be an over-simplified evaluation of McGwire. There's a vast difference between him and Maris. For starters McGwire hit 583 homeruns for his career. He led the league in homeruns four times in his career, plus the year he was traded he had more homeruns than anyone else in MLB. He hit thirty or more home runs in ten different seasons. He was the first player ever to hit 50 or more home runs in three consecutive seasons and then added a fourth. Also the first player to hit 60 homeruns in consecutive seasons. He helped the A's to three pennants and one World Championship. He was a 12-time All-Star. His similarity scores aren't too shabby including HOF'ers Harmon Killebrew and Willie McCovey. I think the stats make a good case that he was not a one-year phenenemom and would be worthy of HOF consideration. The issue of steroids is important but if ends up excluding McGwire then he'll have plenty of company.

[Guest sharpie]

What Willets said.

To vote for Jim Rice and against Mark McGwire just don't make no sense.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

Does McGwire hold the Rookie Record for home runs at 49?

He gave up his chance at his 50th on the final day of that season in order to be present for the birth of his son.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Really? I don't remember that, but good for him for knowing what's really important.

[Guest Edgy DC]

]To vote for Jim Rice and against Mark McGwire just don't make no sense.

Unless you're hung up on the steroids issue (or even the andro issue) which is a legitimate position.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Really? I don't remember that, but good for him for knowing what's really important.

It's in a biography about him put out by Scholastic several years ago. We actually got McGwire to sign that before a game in 2001.

On Edit - I just checked that book, which was published in 1999. It says that McGwire set the rookie home run record in 1987, surpassing the previous record of 38 home runs by a rookie. And it confirms that he left the team before the final game of the season in order to be present for his son Matthew's birth.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

]Thin argument; thickening plot By Phil Sheridan Inquirer Columnist This year was bad. Unfortunately for baseball and its fans, it's only going to get worse for the next five to 10 years. There is no argument here about Bruce Sutter's credentials for enshrinement in the Baseball Hall of Fame. The problem is with the process, especially the participation of 10-year members of the Baseball Writers Association of America. The BBWAA's stewardship of the Hall has always fallen into an ethical gray area. After writing last fall that it was time for the writers to get out of the business of voting for awards and Halls, I went to cover the World Series. That meant a week in the constant company of baseball writers, and they weren't shy about telling me why I was wrong. It is important to recognize that most of them are deeply committed to the integrity of the Hall and treat the process with a kind of reverence. Their primary argument for continuing to decide who gets in and who doesn't is simple. Baseball writers see more games than anyone else. They are uniquely qualified to pass judgment on the careers of the players they cover. By the time you've had 10 continuous years in the BBWAA, you would have covered at least the final five seasons of the players who come up for consideration. The counter-argument, though, remains more compelling. It goes like this: Objective journalists should have no personal interest in the quality of the Baseball Hall of Fame. That's not our job. While that may have seemed like a boring inside-the-industry argument up until now, it's about to become much more urgent and important. Next year, Mark McGwire becomes eligible for the first time. With that, the Steroid Era officially comes before the BBWAA membership, and there is no way the writers should accept that responsibility. Look, it's hard enough to weigh Sutter against Goose Gossage, Jim Rice vs. Andre Dawson. You're comparing them to players from different eras and guys who played under different circumstances. How many wins would Bert Blyleven have had if he'd pitched for the New York Yankees or the Oakland Athletics his whole career? Are Lee Smith's saves less impressive than Sutter's? What about Gossage's? Does it matter if one guy pitched well in more big games? If not, why not? One of the holes in the BBWAA argument - that the writers do the best possible job - is that they don't really do all that great a job most of the time. That's not an insult. It probably isn't possible to do a perfect job. As it is, the process has built-in flaws. Today, Sutter is a Hall of Famer. When he was first eligible in 1994, he received just 23.9 percent of the vote. It has taken him 12 years, 12 ballots, to get the required 75 percent margin. His career hasn't changed. The membership of the BBWAA changes somewhat over time, with younger members coming along and older ones retiring or passing on, but not that dramatically. By definition, if you check a player's name one year but not another, then you have an agenda other than the integrity of the Hall. It is widely assumed that Rice's personality has hurt his candidacy. He didn't like the media when he played and made no secret of it. To this day, he maintains that he doesn't care if he gets into the Hall. Are there writers who deny Rice a vote because he was difficult to deal with? Yes. Is that wrong? Absolutely. That doesn't totally discredit the process. One problem is that, by having the prefix "Hall of Famer" attached to his name, a player becomes more in-demand to memorabilia collectors. That means Hall voting directly affects former players' income potential, and there's no place for journalists in that process. But it all really turns ugly with McGwire. No doubt, there are already players in the Hall who cheated. No one knows for sure when the Steroid Era truly began and there is still no way to know when or if it will end. What we do know is that McGwire will be the first candidate with certain Hall numbers and the equally certain taint of performance-enhancing substances. Journalists who cover the sport should not be in the position of rubber-stamping some careers as clean and others as dirty. The BBWAA argument, already stretched pretty thin, completely snaps when it comes to this next generation of questionable players. Not too many BBWAA members see it that way, though. They'll continue to vote, and Major League Baseball, which allowed its record books to be rewritten by tainted players, will continue to want them to legitimize the process. Come to think of it, that should be reason enough for the writers to stop. Post a question or comment for columnist Phil Sheridan at http://go.philly.com/asksheridan or by e-mail at psheridan@phillynews.com.

[MFS62]

Tem writers wrote in the name of Pete Rose on their ballot.

Question:
Is it better not to have his name on the ballot, so nobody can (legally?) vote for him?
or
Should he be placed on the ballot, giving writers the opportunity to NOT vote for him, forever putting his try for the Hall to rest?

Laten

[Frayed Knot]

Well of course the ineligible list was concocted for the sole purpose of making sure there was no possiblity that Rose would get in; it was akin to a prison being built for just one man.

Some of the writers at the time objected to it -- even some that agreed he should be kept out. They didn't like the fact (dove-tailing somewhat with the above piece) that they had been the keepers of the flame all this time and now were suddenly being told that the HoF & MLB didn't trust their morals enough to even give them the opportunity to pass judgement on Rose. Some wanted him on the ballot for exactly the option you gave; to vote NO.

I personally agree with the ban but at the same time probably think there were enough of those types to where Rose would NOT have made it even had he been eligible all this time.