Jump to content
Grand Central Mets
  • Create Account

Baseball Hall of Fame, 2018: Modern Era Ballot  

59 members have voted

  1. 1. Baseball Hall of Fame, 2018: Modern Era Ballot

    • Steve Garvey
      1
    • Tommy John
      0
    • Don Mattingly
      2
    • Marvin Miller
      18
    • Jack Morris
      3
    • Dale Murphy
      6
    • Dave Parker
      3
    • Ted Simmons
      9
    • Luis Tiant
      2
    • Alan Trammell
      15


Recommended Posts

Posted


The ballot for the "Modern Era" (defined as 1970-1987) of what was formerly known as the Veterans Committee has been released. Voting will take place December 10.

The candidates are:

Steve Garvey
Tommy John
Don Mattingly
Marvin Miller
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Ted Simmons
Luis Tiant
Alan Trammell

Who do you think is worthy?


  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted


according to any measure, Trammell and Simmons rank as HOFers at their respective positions. And Miller is way past due.


Guest d'Kong76
Guests
Posted


Only voted for Miller; if you asked me I would have said he was already in...


Posted


The good news is that with the new voting cycle announced last year, players from this era will be voted on again in only two years' time. So there's a chance that Keith or Lou Whitaker could come up for a vote in December 2019.

As for my selections:

Miller - No explanation required. It is a travesty he wasn't voted in while he was still alive.
Morris - The only players who have received the support of 60% of the voting members of the BBWAA and have not yet been enshrined in the Hall are Gil Hodges, Jack Morris, Trevor Hoffman, and Vladimir Guerrero. Hoffman and Guerrero will get in this year, and we all know Gil deserves to be in the Hall.
Simmons - I know that I've raised Simmons' case before in years past. It's not his fault that he played at the same time as Johnny Bench. His numbers are Hall-worthy.
Trammell - He was the prototype for the modern hitting shortstop. His candidacy likely suffered because of crowded ballots and unfair comparisons to shortstops from the '90s and '00s.


Guest SwitchHitter
Guests
Posted


Should have been an option for "none" so that people choosing it could be tallied. Not saying I'm voting that way ... still pondering but ...


Posted


SwitchHitter wrote:
Should have been an option for "none" so that people choosing it could be tallied. Not saying I'm voting that way ... still pondering but ...


thats always the problem with these polls. even with a "none" does a vote for None, A, and B means two people voted (None, A&B) or three (None, A, B)? you need an "i voted" choice that everyone checks off.


Posted


Miller to me is the exact opposite of a hall of famer - he was BAD for the GAME of baseball, even if he was GOOD for its employees. but if commissioners who ban black players are in "bad for the game" becomes hard to use as a standard


Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Guests
Posted


Oh, horseradish.

Without Miller and Curt Flood, these guys are essentially mildly-higher-paid field hands, or football players with fewer head injuries. You'd rather the reserve clause? Does the game honestly seem worse off as a sport to you because free agency exists?


Posted


I think Miller deserves a plaque, though I'd prefer to see him up against other execs/groundbreakers rather than players.

But of this list he's my only absolute YES. I'll have to think about the others.


Guest 41Forever
Guests
Posted (edited)


batmagadanleadoff wrote:
And Heinrich Himmler weighs in. And it figures, because Marvin Miller, I can say with indisputable 100% certainty, belongs in the Hall.


You're seriously comparing Nymr83 to the man responsible for the Holocaust because he disagrees with you about a Hall of Fame vote?

I don't see how that helps advance the discussion, and I don't think it's good for the forum. If I'm the only one who feels this way, I'll stop. But I think someone needs to say that this is just wrong.


Edited by Guest
Posted


HahnSolo wrote:
I think Miller deserves a plaque, though I'd prefer to see him up against other execs/groundbreakers rather than players.


They keep rewriting the rules about how they handle the non-current ballot to the point where I can't keep track of exactly how things work anymore.
One of the reasons Miller isn't in already is due to a lack of votes from HoF players who were part of the process. Many of them seemed unsure at the time about whether it was their place to be
passing judgement on anyone other than former players and so failed to realize that their act of kicking the can on Miller was the equivalent of a 'No' vote and that there wasn't a backup plan to
pick up their slack.

I agree that he deserves recognition but, yeah, you start getting into an apples and oranges thing when it comes to deciding which previously bypassed players he should be ahead of or behind.


Guest sharpie
Guests
Posted


Miller and Trammell. I could be convinced on Simmons but no on everyone else.


Posted


41Forever wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
You're seriously comparing Nymr83 to the man responsible for the Holocaust because he disagrees with you about a Hall of Fame vote?

I don't see how that helps advance the discussion, and I don't think it's good for the forum. If I'm the only one who feels this way, I'll stop. But I think someone needs to say that this is just wrong.


He keeps trying to antagonize Namor, disregarding the fact that Namor can't see any of his posts, unless they're quoted by someone else, as has happened here.


Guest 41Forever
Guests
Posted (edited)


Benjamin Grimm wrote:
41Forever wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
You're seriously comparing (Name redacted) to the man responsible for the Holocaust because he disagrees with you about a Hall of Fame vote?

I don't see how that helps advance the discussion, and I don't think it's good for the forum. If I'm the only one who feels this way, I'll stop. But I think someone needs to say that this is just wrong.


He keeps trying to antagonize Namor, disregarding the fact that Namor can't see any of his posts, unless they're quoted by someone else, as has happened here.


I'll refrain from taking the bait in the future. Apologies to Namor.


Edited by Guest
Posted


41Forever wrote:
41Forever wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
You're seriously comparing (Name redacted) to the man responsible for the Holocaust because he disagrees with you about a Hall of Fame vote?

I don't see how that helps advance the discussion, and I don't think it's good for the forum. If I'm the only one who feels this way, I'll stop. But I think someone needs to say that this is just wrong.


He keeps trying to antagonize Namor, disregarding the fact that Namor can't see any of his posts, unless they're quoted by someone else, as has happened here.


I'mm refrain from taking the bait in the future. Apologies to Namor.


Where were you when he goes around calling me Batshit? I'd really like to know. Really. Because there's a real possibility that people here are going to think he's a real Nazi. And again with the apologies. Mr. Apology. Issuing bullshit apologies every four posts for things he knows needn't be apologized for. What a fucking bullshit act that is. I apologize too. I apologize for Betsy Devos being a crooked religious know-nothing nutjob.
I apologize. I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I apologize.


Posted


Did Tommy John go into making men's underwear? That's what comes up when I search his name.

Anyway, I went with him, Miller, Simmons, Tiant, and Trammell. I think as the Hall has gotten bigger, the standards have tightened (with some obvious exceptions). All these players would have been obvious Hall of Famers fifty years ago. But Trammell is overqualified by any standard. (Whitaker too.)

Adrian Gonzalez is a better player than Steve Garvey was. John Olerud was a better player than Don Mattingly. Dale Murphy looked like the best player you ever saw, but he was actually only really good. Dave Parker had a hell of a peak and a hell of a long decline. And Jack Morris has my name, so I can't be impartial.


Posted


I think Dale Murphy's failing wasn't that he was worse than he looked, but that he didn't put together those seven years of mediocre production as a supporting player at the end of his career that Winfield, Dawson, or Eddie Murray did. Those years don't help the team that much, but they help the player hit round-figure milestones that decorate his HoF résumé. I'm not looking at the numbers, but I think he was as good in his prime as those players.

Also, the eighties were simply played closer to the mean. Nobody was hitting 50 homers, and nobody was striking out 300 batters, but it was a good decade with a lot of good and unique players, some of which were overlooked as their careers were judged in the 90s and later as distorted numbers were being thrown up.


Posted


I've said before that if you told me in, say, 1987, that Dale Murphy would not only not make the Hall, but only break 20% of the vote ONCE in fifteen tries -- I'd have said you were crazy. I swing back and forth on Morris, which means I guess by rights I should leave him out, but I'm a Big Hall guy.

Miller, Morris, Murphy, Parker, and Trammell for me.


Posted


bb-r lists Murphy with 46.2 career WAR and 41.0 7yr-peak WAR.

I imagine we'd all be pretty hard-pressed to find more than a handful of non-pitchers with such a concentration in a long career.


Guest d'Kong76
Guests
Posted


Love it that Mattingly is still at zero, you're all a bunch of biased bastages!


Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
The Grand Central Mets Caretaker Fund
The Grand Central Mets Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Mets community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...