Hall of Fame Voting: This Year, Next Year, and Beyond

[stevejrogers]

Edgy DC wrote: ]Even if they did, now it's gone to the other extreme. Who is being screwed?

My guess is Val is talking about Ron Santo, Gil Hodges and others who haven't gotten in over the last couple of rounds.

[Guest Iubitul]

I agree with Yancy - the fewer, the better - I don't want this to become Canton...

I also agree with Vic, that of the holdovers, Blyleven belongs. But I disagree that McGwire is borderline - I think minus the steroids, he's a glorified Dave Kingman. So that would be a big NO from me. As for the new classes, these are the only ones I believe merit induction:

2009:
Rickey Henderson

2010:
Roberto Alomar

2011:
Jeff Bagwell

2012:
Craig Biggio

[Valadius]

Steve, you're absolutely correct. Gil Hodges, Ron Santo, and Jim Kaat all deserve to be in the Hall, in my opinion. Tony Oliva, maybe - only knock against him is that he didn't play long enough, but that didn't keep out Kirby Puckett. Oliva, from 1964 to 1971, was a great player. He just doesn't have the numbers because his career was on the short side. Same thing with Lefty O'Doul - started his career as a barely-used mop-up pitcher, came back as a hitter and finished with a .349 average and a .9451 OPS - better than Cobb, Mays, and Aaron. Only problem is when he came back as a hitter, he was 31. Dick Allen, again, same thing - not long enough of a career. We focus so much on numbers and milestones that we put players with shorter careers at a severe disadvantage.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Valadius wrote: Steve, you're absolutely correct. Gil Hodges, Ron Santo, and Jim Kaat all deserve to be in the Hall, in my opinion.

Fine, that's your opinion. It may be mine also, in some cases. It's always been a part of this process that people who belong in one man's --- or more --- opinion would be left out. You have your favorite candidacies, and I have mine. But you take a large body of observers --- a body of even the most reasonable men and women --- and grant them their favorite candidates, then the door will swing open so large as to make enshrinement meaningless.

So, they create large bodies, and accept only the cases that draw consensus among those bodies, the size of the bodies serving to cancel out individual biases and critical momentum that small groups are more subject to.

I encourage you to read The Politics of Glory. I think it was published in paperback as Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?. It'll put some pepper in your soup.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Stealing from Vic's list of future HOF eligible candidates I would cast my vote, if I had one, for the following players:

2007 holdovers:
Bert Blyleven - Yes
Jim Rice - Yes
Andre Dawson - Close call, I'm still thinking on it.

2008:
Tim Raines - Yes, on a close call. I always liked him as a player. I feel he probably comes up just short, but that's probably in comparison to his contemporary that will be inducted in 2009.

2009:
Rickey Henderson - Yes

2010:
Roberto Alomar - Yes
Barry Larkin - Yes Larkin�s career numbers very closely mirrors those of Alomar.
Edgar Martinez - borderline � Great hitter, but he was a DH because there was nowhere to hide his brutal defense.

2011:
Jeff Bagwell - Yes
Larry Walker - Yes Walker�s offensive numbers rival or surpass those of Edgar Martinez and he was a very good defensive outfielder with 7 Gold Gloves.
Rafael Palmeiro � No His career numbers are worthy of Cooperstown, but he did get using PEDs.

2012:
Craig Biggio - Yes

[MFS62]

="Gwreck"] Compare to Edgar Martinez, who you listed as "borderline:" 2247 career hits, .312 AVG, .418 career OBP. 309 HRs. 2 batting crowns, 1 2nd place. Led league in runs once, RBI once, doubles twice. Over .300 in 10 of the 12 full seasons he had. Of course he also never played the field. I'd probably vote for Martinez and not for Larkin.

Getting up on my soap box here. Nothing against you, wreck, but that comment was as good a place to start as any.
The Hall of Fame rules say that voters can vote for "pitchers" and "players". (Other than execs, umps, etc.)

It does not say "pitchers" and "hitters".

When I think of a "player" wrt the Hall, I think of a complete player. That means that in my mind, a player must exhibit all of the so-called five tools. You all know, they are hit, hit with power, run, field and throw.

So, how can a person who never fields or throws even be considered for the Hall? After all, its not the Hall of Numbers. Just because certain major leaguers had the luck to play in a league where they didn't have to expose their defensive deficiences while at the same time accumulate statistics, it doesn't mean they shold be in the same Hall as players who put it all on the line.

end of rant against that stupid rule.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

Rant against the rule all you want. But Edgar Martinez didn't write it.

And, while playing for team that DH'd him detracts from Martinez's legacy, it doesn't negate it.

Many players --- Babe Ruth and Ted Williams included --- would likely have spent the second half of their careers, or more, at DH, had the option been available to their managers.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

So based on what MFS62 says, do we take down the plaque of Paul Molitor, wo spent the bulk of his career playing DH?

I think there are a number of players who, like Molitor, spent much of their career at DH and will end up in Cooperstown. Frank Thomas is one.

Personally, I think Edgar Martinez falls a little short. And I think Palmiero will get in. When the truth finally gets out about PEDs -- and we know it will -- I think we'll see how widespread it was. I would not be shocked to see Bagwell, Alomar and many others -- except Mike Piazza! -- get named and at that point you either have to wipe out an entire generation of players or look at them in a different light. Palmiero has 3,000+ hits and is in the top 10 in home runs. He's going to go in.

[seawolf17]

There's no way Palmiero gets in... because he actually was found guilty of PEDs. Unless they change the rules, it still takes writers' votes; and I guarantee there's no way you'll ever get 75% of the writers to agree to let him in... and if you think the Veteran's Committee is going to be any better, you got another think coming.

Palmiero might as well buy a season pass, because he's never ever ever ever ever ever ever getting a plaque. Ever.

[MFS62]

You're right, Edgy.
He didn't write the rule.
But in my mind, as you also said, it detracts enough from his career so that I don't feel he should be enshrined.
Same thing with Baines.
I feel he was able to amass a substantial portion of his numbers due to that rule. His knees would have forced him to retire early if he had to play a defensive position. But by only having to hit, his career was artificially prolonged.

Later

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

There's nothing artificial about it. The DH has been a genuine rule for 30some years.

[Frayed Knot]

]... it detracts enough from his career so that I don't feel he should be enshrined.

Detracts from his career to the point where it needs to be taken into consideration sure, but not to the point where it excludes him from being considered.
Just think of it in the same way that you'd judge a 1st baseman's stats differently than similar offensive numbers from a SS. It's a factor, not a death sentence.

[Guest Edgy DC]

While he did have knee surgery at some point, I don't know that he had chronic problems with his knees that would have gradually debilitated him and kept him from playing first or third.

He got a hamstring injury relatively early in his career.

They (1) stuck him there while he recovered, (2) kept him there because it was working, and, when he was healthy, they had other solid guys playing first and third, and (3) eventually kept him there because it continued to work and the team, having warehoused him there, had allowed his defensive skills to deteriorate.

For the average player, the defensive contribution is about 15% of their game He DH'd most of his career, but if you take away 12% of his legacy he still compares to many hall-of-famers who were average defenders and played defense their whole careers. He's a gen-u-ine candidate. Vote against him if you want, but I don't think arguing "guy that DH'd" ≠ "player" is wrestling with his legacy fairly.

[metsmarathon]

i wonder how ozzie smith stacks up on the 5-tool checklist...

ralph kiner had only 22 career stolen bases, and was a below average fielder, apparently, for his career. should we kick him out?

willie stargell had 17 career stolen bases, and was another below average fielder. does he get the boot as well?

when we argue whether or not typical players belong in the hall, do we start with their defense, or do we see how they stack up on their offense? and then, if we need a little extra juice to push a player over the top, is it not only then that we measure out their defense, and typically only then if it helps a player?

if edgar martinez had played an awful first base instead of excellently riding the pine between at bats, would anybody be clamoring too loudly to hold it against him?

[Valadius]

Let me throw this one out at you:

Is Omar Vizquel Hall-worthy?

I think so. Since Ozzie Smith's in, I think you've gotta vote Vizquel, the best-fielding shortstop since Smith, into the Hall of Fame.

[Gwreck]

I will admit that I hate "Because X is in, Y should be in" arguments.

Seems that if the HOF ever makes a mistake the floodgates are opened forever, if you adopt that logic.

[nymr83]

the hall has made mistakes (Phil Rizzuto, Tony Perez, Catfish Hunter, maybe Don Drysdale too). Although it shouldn't lower the standards it kinda has to, because what else can the standard be at this point other than "is this guy as good as the guys who are in"

[Guest Edgy DC]

You really think the standard should be anybody as good as or better than the least?

I don't think so at all.

[Valadius]

No, I really don't think that should be the standard. But if Ozzie Smith is in the Hall mostly because of his superb defense, then Vizquel should have the opportunity to be considered in the same light. The fact is, Vizquel is certainly the best-fielding shortstop since Ozzie Smith. He may even be better defensively than Ozzie Smith. Vizquel has a career .984 fielding percentage, the best all-time among shortstops. He broke Smith's record for double plays by a shortstop this year. And of course, he has 11 Gold Gloves (to Smith's 13). So if the same grading scale that got Ozzie Smith elected applies, Vizquel is nearly equal defensively, perhaps better. And in comparing offensive statistics, Vizquel is better than Smith in virtually every category, the only big exception being stolen bases - Smith stole 580 bases to Vizquel's 377. So I think Vizquel deserves to make it in, not just because Ozzie Smith is in, but because the Hall does allow room for excellent fielders who were decent with a bat.

[Benjamin Grimm]

="Valadius"]So I think Vizquel deserves to make it in, not just because Ozzie Smith is in, but because the Hall does allow room for excellent fielders who were decent with a bat.

HOF voters didn't seem to apply that rule to Keith Hernandez, who was more than decent with a bat.

[seawolf17]

Ozzie also had some postseason success, All-Star Games, MVP votes... tons of stuff that Vizquel doesn't. Vizquel doesn't get in.

[Valadius]

The problem that HOF voters I guess had/have with Keith is that he didn't put up power numbers like most first basemen are called on to do. I think Keith merits inclusion, but I guess the baseball powers-that-be have decreed that you have to hit lots of home runs if you're to be considered a "great" first baseman. That's just stupid, to try to define greatness by trying to fit you into a box statistically. Now in Vizquel's case, as a shortstop, he fits into the pre-Ripken/A-Rod mold that used to characterize the position. So I think he compares favorably to those already in the Hall.

[HahnSolo]

seawolf17 wrote: Ozzie also had some postseason success, All-Star Games, MVP votes... tons of stuff that Vizquel doesn't. Vizquel doesn't get in.

Vizquel actually was the regular SS on 6 postseason teams; Ozzie only three times. Ozzie was on the 96 Cardinal team, but played sparingly.

And yes, Ozzie had many more All Star Game appearances, but there were no NL shortstops at that time who would be on a par with ARod, Jeter, and Garciaparra at least for a few years, who Vizquel had to compete with.

Vizquel will also retire with more than 2600 hits. Is he a HOFer? I'm not sure, but I certainly think Valadius has a valid point that if Ozzie Smith is in, then this guy deserves a closer look.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It's now twice as easy to make the postseason as it was in Ozzie's time. (Eight teams now, four teams then.) So Omar's six can be said to equal Ozzie's three.

[seawolf17]

Exactly... Ozzie was the best shortstop of his generation. (Cal Ripken notwithstanding.) Omar can't even come close to claiming that.

[nymr83]

seawolf17 wrote: Exactly... Ozzie was the best shortstop of his generation. (Cal Ripken notwithstanding.) Omar can't even come close to claiming that.

Ozzie is not better than Alan Trammell.

[HahnSolo]

seawolf17 wrote: Exactly... Ozzie was the best shortstop of his generation. (Cal Ripken notwithstanding.) Omar can't even come close to claiming that.

I realize he can't come close to saying that, but since when do you have to be the best at your position in a given generation to get in the Hall? Is Duke Snider any less of a HOFer because he wasn't the best centerfielder of his generation? Is Jim Palmer any less of a HOFer because he wasn't the best starting pitcher of his time?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Plenty of time to argue about these guys. Let's enjoy their careers while they're happening and argue about Babe Herman.

[metsmarathon]

Nymr83 wrote: ="seawolf17"]Exactly... Ozzie was the best shortstop of his generation. (Cal Ripken notwithstanding.) Omar can't even come close to claiming that. Ozzie is not better than Alan Trammell.

based on...?

[Guest Mendoza Line]

Trammell's OPS+ = 110
Ozzie's is 87
Vizquel's is 84


Trammell is one of the best hitting shortstops in the pre-A-Rod era who isn't in the HOF. He won four Gold Gloves, which doesn't make him Ozzie Smith, but it ain't half bad.

He only played in one World Series, but he hit .450 and was the MVP.

Does 23 points of OPS offset the difference between a very good defensive shortstop and the guy who many people believe was the greatest glove of all time? I'd say "yes", but this may be because I lived in St. Louis for a while, and I used to wince every time Ozzie booted a grounder that was counted as a hit by the Busch Stadium scorer. So I'm not a huge Ozzie fan.

I'll admit that Ozzie was the greatest defensive shortstop of his time and that he probably deserves to be in the HOF, but I also would've put Trammell in there first.