2019 Baseball Hall of Fame Vote is Revealed 1/22

Why not Hernandez then as well? 

5 time All Star

11 Gold Gloves

1 batting title

3 top 5 MVP finishes

1 MVP

2 World Series Championships

jfinnegan said:
Why not Hernandez then as well? 
5 time All Star
11 Gold Gloves
1 batting title
3 top 5 MVP finishes
1 MVP
2 World Series Championships

I think he should be in -- eleven Gold Gloves

At first base.

Two more cents: Gold Gloves at SS, CF or C are worth more than GGs at 2B or 3B, which are worth more than GGs at RF, which are worth more than GGs at LF, which are worth more than GGs at 1B, which are worth more than GGs at P, which is why they're not Exhibit A, B or C in the case for Jim Kaat.

Kudos to Keith for being one of the best fielding first basemen, if not the best, of all time. But, IMHO, it's window dressing for his Hall of Fame argument.

if he was just a good fielder I'd say that would not be enough. But he was perhaps the best fielding 1B of all time and a very good hitter. Being the best or nearly the best ever at one's position is a pretty big deal. 

But we've been through these discussions before and I know my standards for the HoF are among the most lax of anyone who's a serious fan. 

DaveSchmidt said:
At first base.
Two more cents: Gold Gloves at SS, CF or C are worth more than GGs at 2B or 3B, which are worth more than GGs at RF, which are worth more than GGs at LF, which are worth more than GGs at 1B, which are worth more than GGs at P, which is why they're not Exhibit A, B or C in the case for Jim Kaat.
Kudos to Keith for being one of the best fielding first basemen, if not the best, of all time. But, IMHO, it's window dressing for his Hall of Fame argument.

Thoughts on Mark Belanger?

Train_of_Thought said:

Thoughts on Mark Belanger?

Get behind, and pretty far behind, Omar Vizquel.

Eight Gold Gloves, fantastic. But like ml1 (though maybe he was referring just to first basemen), I think you need more than that — unless you, say, redefine the position in some way. Ozzie Smith probably could have ridden a .228 average into the Hall. Not Mark Belanger.

How about you?

Certainly not.

DaveSchmidt said:

Train_of_Thought said:

Thoughts on Mark Belanger?

Get behind, and pretty far behind, Omar Vizquel.
Eight Gold Gloves, fantastic. But like ml1 (though maybe he was referring just to first basemen), I think you need more than that — unless you, say, redefine the position in some way. Ozzie Smith probably could have ridden a .228 average into the Hall. Not Mark Belanger.
How about you?

except for DH, there's still 2 aspects of being a ballplayer, and imho you can't be terrible at the more important part (hitting) and get into the Hall, even if you were a great fielder.  OTOH, there are guys like Ozzie, Vizquel and Hernandez who were terrific with the glove, and very good hitters (Ozzie and Vizquel relative to other SSs of their era).  And Belanger was so bad as a hitter that he often hit 9th at a time when almost no manager did that with a position player.

One of my main criteria is how many times was a guy an All-Star.  Sure there are guys who can be named to 2 or 3 All-Star teams because they were the mandatory representative from a bad team who weren't elite players (looking at you John Stearns).  A guy like Ryne Sandberg was considered on the bubble for the Hall, but to me he was a no-brainer.  He was an All-Star ten times.  If that doesn't mean you were an elite at your position for your era, what else does?  And Mark Belanger -- one All-Star game.

Then there is a position like closer that is perhaps the most overrated role in all of baseball.  A guy comes in at the start of an inning with a 3 run lead?  An average MLB pitcher should convert 80% of those opportunities.  That said, it is a role, and if a guy does it at the most elite level for a very long time like Mariano, he's in without a doubt.  Modern closer is kind of a bogus job, but sometimes a guy can take that role to a completely other level like Rivera or Hoffman.  

Belanger was a joke.

(ETA: my Belanger post, that is. Not Belanger the person.)

Case has been made for Mattingly  many times --especially when compared to Kirby Puckett who is in the HOF

https://hubpages.com/sports/Mattingly-vs-Puckett-Nearly-identical-careers

And speaking of players who were shortchanged due to the length of their career --- Thurman Munson.  

and then there are players who got in just because their stats grew because they were better than average and managed to stay around for a long time  (Don Sutton, and many others).  There are numerous articles on these subjects.  

Train_of_Thought said:
Belanger was a joke.

(ETA: my Belanger post, that is. Not Belanger the person.)

I fell for it. Which worries me, because the next thing you know I’ll start quoting WAR. That’ll seal the death of my sense of humor.

BTW, Belanger’s WAR is right there with Rabbit’s and Rizzuto’s.

It’s begun.

Train_of_Thought said:
Belanger was a joke.


(ETA: my Belanger post, that is. Not Belanger the person.)

aren't you supposed to put a smiley on it if it's a joke?

ml1 said:

Train_of_Thought said:
Belanger was a joke.


(ETA: my Belanger post, that is. Not Belanger the person.)

aren't you supposed to put a smiley on it if it's a joke?

 No.   

The Harold Baines episode will turn Cooperstown into Canton real quick.

Robert_Casotto said:
The Harold Baines episode will turn Cooperstown into Canton real quick.

IMHO, the Hank Bain episode deserves to be in some sort of Hall of Fame

Robert_Casotto said:
The Harold Baines episode will turn Cooperstown into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame real quick.

 There, fixed that typo.

ml1 said:
Mussina and Schilling are very similar in terms of their lifetime stats.  Each guy is a pretty good example of a "compiler" who played for a lot of seasons and amassed a lot of wins.  Neither won a Cy Young, and each was only an All-Star a handful of times (6 out of 20 seasons for Schilling, 5 out of 18 seasons for Mussina).  Schilling actually had a few really dominant seasons, which Mussina really didn't.
And now it appears Mussina is on the verge of perhaps being inducted and Schilling isn't.  It's hard to believe that Schilling isn't being left off ballots because of his open bigotry and his toxic Twitter persona.  I think he's a class A jerk, but if Mussina gets in, it's hard to justify keeping Schilling out.

Mussina has 54 more wins than Schilling and only 7 more losses. This is a significant difference in my view, not "similar."  

yahooyahoo said:

ml1 said:
Mussina and Schilling are very similar in terms of their lifetime stats.  Each guy is a pretty good example of a "compiler" who played for a lot of seasons and amassed a lot of wins.  Neither won a Cy Young, and each was only an All-Star a handful of times (6 out of 20 seasons for Schilling, 5 out of 18 seasons for Mussina).  Schilling actually had a few really dominant seasons, which Mussina really didn't.
And now it appears Mussina is on the verge of perhaps being inducted and Schilling isn't.  It's hard to believe that Schilling isn't being left off ballots because of his open bigotry and his toxic Twitter persona.  I think he's a class A jerk, but if Mussina gets in, it's hard to justify keeping Schilling out.

Mussina has 54 more wins than Schilling and only 7 more losses. This is a significant difference in my view, not "similar."  

Fair point.  But "similar" doesn't mean "same", and there are a lot of other considerations aside from wins and losses.

Schilling's best seasons came after age 33.  Other players that showed that kind of improvement at that age have all been accused of using steroids.  Why does Schilling get a pass (or maybe the HOF voters realize the same thing)?  

mikescott said:
Schilling's best seasons came after age 33.  Other players that showed that kind of improvement at that age have all been accused of using steroids.  Why does Schilling get a pass (or maybe the HOF voters realize the same thing)?  

First, there’s been no evidence or even hearsay. Second, your history is wrong. Schilling’s stuff was very apparent in his 20s (a 2.35 ERA and .990 WHIP in 226 innings at age 25, for example).

mikescott said:
Schilling's best seasons came after age 33.  Other players that showed that kind of improvement at that age have all been accused of using steroids.  Why does Schilling get a pass (or maybe the HOF voters realize the same thing)?  

the story that I believe even Schilling tells is that he always had talent, but as a young player he was too much of knucklehead to achieve.  Perhaps he just decided to become a different kind of knucklehead.

Schilling credits Clemens for one thing: reading him the riot act about his attitude and approach to pitching when they crossed paths one off-season — 1991, I think — in the Astrodome weight room.

His two best seasons were when he was 34 and 35.   

And I am sure part of it was growing up and learning to be serious (Whether it was Clemens or not that helped push him in that direction).  To me he is a borderline HOF player mostly because he had too many average or below average seasons.

mikescott said:
His two best seasons were when he was 34 and 35.   
And I am sure part of it was growing up and learning to be serious (Whether it was Clemens or not that helped push him in that direction).  To me he is a borderline HOF player mostly because he had too many average or below average seasons.

 Or was it due to Clemens showing him how to use Clear?

I’m sure Schilling just has an inhuman tolerance for pain.  Why, I pitched seven strong with busted stitches in my achilles just the other day, and felt great afterward.  Even did some pilates.  I’m all about core blasting these days.

Disappointed to see Fred McGriff drop off the ballot for 2020 after 10 years.  His numbers were right on the cusp of HOF contention, so I am not sure why he never even approached 50%.  I don't think there was ever a steroid cloud over his head.  Pretty sure he will get in through the Veteran review process in a few years.

2020 will be interesting for Bonds and Clemens.  Other than Jeter, and perhaps Larry Walker and Curt Schilling, there are few seemingly worthy candidates.  So there may be more consideration to put Bonds and Clemens down as a vote.

The new class is topped by Jeter, but then falls off quickly.  Jason Giambi is probably the next most qualified, but he is as dope-compromised as Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and Palmiero so no way does he get even above 25% in his first year.  Paul Konerko has numbers that are almost the same as Giambi, without the taint.  I still do not see him as getting above 30% on his first time at the dance.

As for returning candidates, I do not understand why Garry Sheffield keeps polling so low.  Yes, there is the steroids thing, but he was a faint rumor as I recall (please correct me if I am wrong).  Manny Ramirez was a monster at the plate and carried teams to the World Series, although the steroids were strong with this one for sure. 

Larry Walker has the Rockies thin atmosphere hanging around him but his votes have been rising each year and with the thin pickings of new candidates he should get close to the line.  I would love to see Omar Vizquel get up there also, but even in this thin year I do not see it happening.

Schilling will get in the Hall in 2020.  

So my prediction is Jeter and Schilling giving speeches at Cooperstown next year.

I would probably vote for Schilling.  But that's one speech I sure as hell don't want to listen to.  

Barry Bonds / Larry Walker > Harold Baines.

Roger Clemens > Mike Mussina.

If Harold Baines + Mike Mussina, then Larry Walker + Roger Clemens + Barry Bonds.

does Jeter also go unanimous?

he should

oots said:
does Jeter also go unanimous?
he should

 I hate both Jeter and the Yankees.

He should be a unanimous first ballot choice.  He was the linchpin of all those championship teams.