2024 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot

[oplum29]

Originally Posted by ewokpelts

jones will likely get in, but his falloff was BAD

Jones should get in just based on his defense alone. but just feeding off what you said, the part about "the falloff was bad"...shouldn't that apply to Dale Murphy?

he was one of the best players of the 1980s, right on par offensively with Mike Schmidt, and yet he gets no respect at all. i don't get it.

OF Dale Murphy: (.273/.361/.491, 1,553 H, 308 HR, 929 RBI, 938 R)
7X All-Star, 5X Gold Glove, 2X NL MVP

3B Mike Schmidt: (.277/.385/.540, 1,287 H, 313 HR, 929 RBI, 832 R)
8X All-Star, 3X NL MVP, 6X Gold Glove, WS Champ and MVP

that's their numbers for the decade of the 80's and mind you that Schmidt is considered to be the best player of the decade, and yet, Murphy's numbers and resume is right there.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by oplum29

i think Bonds and Clemens made a joke of themselves when they cheated the game of baseball. they get whatever they deserve, which is to not be in the HOF.

But they did what a lot of their peers were doing, so who cheated who? They just got singled out because they were the best of the best. While other guys fell under the radar, including players in the Hall of Fame.

The way I see it, the steroid era was its own era. It had its own unique qualities, including rampant PED use. The best of the best from that era shouldn't be blamed for being products of their generation.

Barry Bonds was the best player prior to hulking up -- winning 3 MVPs by his 8th season in 1993 -- and he was the best afterwards. Roger Clemens had already won 3 Cy Young Awards by 1991 -- also his 8th season. These players were the greatest of their generation regardless.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by eye4talent

I’m not a huge fan of the Rolen induction.

But McGriff comes with a huge asterisk, regarding your point about him not leading the league in much. Actually, the asterisk belongs to all the actual league leaders during his time—who were roided up.

For instance, who led the AL in home runs in 1988? Canseco? Who was second? McGriff. And the steroid era hadn’t even gotten rolling yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

McGriff was legitimately one of the best hitters in the game early on in his career while playing with the Blue Jays and Padres. He fell off in the middle of his career while playing for the Braves. He then got a second wind in his mid-to-late 30s with the Devil Rays, putting up some great hitting stats.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by oplum29

Jones should get in just based on his defense alone. but just feeding off what you said, the part about "the falloff was bad"...shouldn't that apply to Dale Murphy?

he was one of the best players of the 1980s, right on par offensively with Mike Schmidt, and yet he gets no respect at all. i don't get it.

OF Dale Murphy: (.273/.361/.491, 1,553 H, 308 HR, 929 RBI, 938 R)
7X All-Star, 5X Gold Glove, 2X NL MVP

3B Mike Schmidt: (.277/.385/.540, 1,287 H, 313 HR, 929 RBI, 832 R)
8X All-Star, 3X NL MVP, 6X Gold Glove, WS Champ and MVP

that's their numbers for the decade of the 80's and mind you that Schmidt is considered to be the best player of the decade, and yet, Murphy's numbers and resume is right there.

Schmidt's numbers were much better -- 49 points higher in slugging percentage. Murphy didn't even have a .500 slugging percentage, even though he led the league in home runs twice.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by oplum29

i think Bonds and Clemens made a joke of themselves when they cheated the game of baseball. they get whatever they deserve, which is to not be in the HOF.

They deserve to be in the HOF because they never tested positive for steroids and all that's keeping them out are sanctimonious writers and gossip queens who like spreading rumors about grown men.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by eye4talent

I’m not a huge fan of the Rolen induction.

But McGriff comes with a huge asterisk, regarding your point about him not leading the league in much. Actually, the asterisk belongs to all the actual league leaders during his time—who were roided up.

For instance, who led the AL in home runs in 1988? Canseco? Who was second? McGriff. And the steroid era hadn’t even gotten rolling yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The same argument could be said about the guy who ended up the all-time HR leader. Imagine how many he'd have if he had started roiding when the rest did.

[eye4talent]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

The same argument could be said about the guy who ended up the all-time HR leader. Imagine how many he'd have if he had started roiding when the rest did.

Whaaaat?

That’s not the same argument at all. You’re saying if Bonds had roided for a longer period of time, he would’ve hit more home runs. How is that the same as McGriff didn’t roid at all, and therefore was unjustly overshadowed?

Never mind, no need to answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by eye4talent

Whaaaat?

That’s not the same argument at all. You’re saying if Bonds had roided for a longer period of time, he would’ve hit more home runs. How is that the same as McGriff didn’t roid at all, and therefore was unjustly overshadowed?

Never mind, no need to answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

McGriff was overshadowed early in his career by players like Don Mattingly and Will Clark. McGwire had an epic rookie season in 1987, but was inconsistent year-to-year until the mid-90s.

McGriff fell off in performance in the mid-90s and was no longer a perennial All Star, so it's incorrect to say he was overshadowed by steroid users during that time period.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by eye4talent

Whaaaat?

That’s not the same argument at all. You’re saying if Bonds had roided for a longer period of time, he would’ve hit more home runs. How is that the same as McGriff didn’t roid at all, and therefore was unjustly overshadowed?

Never mind, no need to answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

"He would have led the league in HRs more"

Basically your excuse-making for McGriff, taken to an absurd degree, to show how bad your excuse-making was.

And how do you know McGriff didn't roid at all?

Do you think hitting more HRs than a bunch of juicers is something a guy can do on natural talent alone?

If so, why not give Bonds that benefit of the doubt?

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

McGriff was legitimately one of the best hitters in the game early on in his career while playing with the Blue Jays and Padres. He fell off in the middle of his career while playing for the Braves. He then got a second wind in his mid-to-late 30s with the Devil Rays, putting up some great hitting stats.

Huh? McGriff’s great falloff with the Braves was when he hit .277 with 22 HRs and 97 RBIs? It’s cute how you subtly accuse him of doing steroids to make you feel better about Bonds. He also was an All-Star from 1994-1996 but by your own words was no longer a perennial All-Star in the mid 90s? Do you even know what “mid” means?

[WizardofOz1982]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Just a reminder, A-Rod never tested positive during the testing era.

That matches with Arod's claim that he only used between 2001-2003. They didn't start official testing until 2006.

[WizardofOz1982]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

No -- a player that is an average or below hitter for a decade in their 20s and then a perrenial all star caliber hitter for another decade in their 30s.

I have a comp, unfortunately.

Jose Bautista? JD Martinez? Jeff Kent? It's not that uncommon for a guy to have a post 30 peak. Beltre sustained it for a long time but he played in a hitter friendly park in Texas too.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by Noles939913

Huh? McGriff’s great falloff with the Braves was when he hit .277 with 22 HRs and 97 RBIs? It’s cute how you subtly accuse him of doing steroids to make you feel better about Bonds. He also was an All-Star from 1994-1996 but by your own words was no longer a perennial All-Star in the mid 90s? Do you even know what “mid” means?

It means borderline.

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by Silent George

It means borderline.

I know but he said he was no longer a perennial All-Star in the mid 90s when he was in fact an All-Star from 1994-1996.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Regarding JAWS, Jay Jaffe, the creator of the metric, treats the average as a threshold -- he judges candidates based on whether or not they are at least average or better. Case in point, he wrote that McGriff was not deserving based on how he measured up to the average score: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/jaws-and...-fred-mcgriff/

Yes, average is not typically considered the pass-or-fail threshold -- I get it. But in this case, average is based on historical data, with many Hall of Famers falling way below the average. This has made Rolen's ranking both right at the average, but also above several players who would be classified as part of the Hall of the Very Good, like Graig Nettles and Sal Bando. So that is why I consider Rolen a borderline candidate -- a few less career WAR and he's on the outside looking in.

In a large enough sample size with reasonably distributed data, average is always going to have data points above and below. That’s how average works. The Hall of Fame has been around for nearly a Century. It has become a self defining institution. We have enough data on most positions to see what an average Hall of Famer looks like. If a player looks like a Hall of Famer, then he probably should be in the Hall of Fame.

The fact is, the Hall of Fame is way behind in inductees. Rolen is way above the standard. There are other thirdbasemen who should also probably be in including Nettles, Brando, Evans, Boyer, etc. But advocating for multiple players isn’t helpful. Better to coalesce behind one or two candidates. Right now I am more interested in Lou Whitaker and Vic Harris getting in.

[Svabinsky78]

I know that none of these will be on the 2024 ballot but with all the talk of "watering down" the hall with borderline players, what do people think of Curt Flood, Ken Boyers, Graig Nettles, Munson, Dave Parker, Grich, Garvey, Allen, Tommy John, ....I would put all of them in, along with Keith Hernandez (11 GGs), Mattingly (9 GGs and other hardware), Murphy, Lofton, Kent, Whittaker....then again, I am a bigger hall guy.....

As for Rolen, absolutely deserves to be in, one of the best, if not the best 3rd baseman of his era. If you're one of the best, you deserve a spot......the negative Nellies nitpicking/ hyperfocusing on some of Rolen's stats to poo poo him is just mind boggling to me.

I saw most of McGriff's career and when I watched him play I thought to myself, this guy is a future HOFer. One of the best hitters of his era.... consistently put up strong numbers year in and year out.

[MtnAg08]

[QUOTE=Svabinsky78;18966541]I know that none of these will be on the 2024 ballot but with all the talk of "watering down" the hall with borderline players, what do people think of Curt Flood, Ken Boyers, Graig Nettles, Munson, Dave Parker, Grich, Garvey, Allen, Tommy John, ....I would put all of them in, along with Keith Hernandez (11 GGs), Mattingly (9 GGs and other hardware), Murphy, Lofton, Kent, Whittaker....then again, I am a bigger hall guy.....

I agree with your second group all being deserving. Of that first group I think Dave Parker for sure and Dick Allen I go back and forth on. The other guys I've just never felt are quite there for one reason or another.

I'm also a bigger hall guy. My outlook on who I find deserving has definitely changed as I get older. At first, I would compare stats across eras as I didn't personally see players pre 80s play. Now, I try not to compare guys from decade to decade but look at who was the best during their era. For the most part if they were consistently in the top 3-4 at their position when they played then I would consider them a hall of famer. Of course, if there is a loaded position one era or a weak one there could be more or less deserving candidates.

[Svabinsky78]

[QUOTE=MtnAg08;18966575]

Originally Posted by Svabinsky78

I know that none of these will be on the 2024 ballot but with all the talk of "watering down" the hall with borderline players, what do people think of Curt Flood, Ken Boyers, Graig Nettles, Munson, Dave Parker, Grich, Garvey, Allen, Tommy John, ....I would put all of them in, along with Keith Hernandez (11 GGs), Mattingly (9 GGs and other hardware), Murphy, Lofton, Kent, Whittaker....then again, I am a bigger hall guy.....

I agree with your second group all being deserving. Of that first group I think Dave Parker for sure and Dick Allen I go back and forth on. The other guys I've just never felt are quite there for one reason or another.

I'm also a bigger hall guy. My outlook on who I find deserving has definitely changed as I get older. At first, I would compare stats across eras as I didn't personally see players pre 80s play. Now, I try not to compare guys from decade to decade but look at who was the best during their era. For the most part if they were consistently in the top 3-4 at their position when they played then I would consider them a hall of famer. Of course, if there is a loaded position one era or a weak one there could be more or less deserving candidates.

I do think Allen will get in on the next player vet committee. He has gain traction/supporters, especially as of late that, I think, he will get over the hump. His D was mehh, but he was a heck of a hitter.

Parker was one of the best power hitters at the time.

Hernandez has 11 GGs, the most of any 1st baseman.

Although not as long of an offensive peak, defensively Matts was one of the best 1st baseman when he was playing.

Curt Flood was one of the best defensive center fielders. His career was unfortunately cut short because he was blacklisted for challenging the clause.

Tommy John is a hair short of 300 wins. Argument against him is that like Baines, he only accumulated the numbers because he played for an eternity.

[WizardofOz1982]

Originally Posted by Svabinsky78

...Curt Flood, Ken Boyers, Graig Nettles, Munson, Dave Parker, Grich, Garvey, Dick Allen, Tommy John, Keith Hernandez (11 GGs), Mattingly (9 GGs and other hardware), Murphy, Lofton, Kent, Whittaker....then again, I am a bigger hall guy.....

I'm a bigger Hall guy too but I think some of your picks still fall short for my liking.

Flood/John - Both in but in a new Pioneers Wing. Neither should be in on their stats, for different reasons, but their mark on the game is indisputable

Boyer - My grandpa's favorite Cardinal but Kenny is short for me

Nettles - Short but just barely

Munson - Short even giving him credit for 3-4 more years due to his passing

Parker - Well short. 4 great seasons out of 19 don't make a HOF career

Grich - Yes, Should have been in long ago

Garvey - No, and he's not even remotely close for me.

Allen - His numbers are just above borderline for me but given the context he deserved enshrinement long ago

Hernandez - Borderline but yes. Greatest defensive 1B ever

Mattingly - No. His first four full years were obviously HOF trajectory but the back injuries derailed his career and his case.

Murphy - See Dave Parker. 4 great years and a bunch of mediocre ones won't get you there

Lofton - Borderline guy. I wouldn't oppose him going in but Edmonds should be there first and I could see Lofton being left out.

Kent - No. Great offensive 2B but poor defense drags him down. Well behind other deserving 2B like Whitaker and Grich.

Whitaker - The worst one and done snub there is. He should have been in long ago.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by Svabinsky78

I know that none of these will be on the 2024 ballot but with all the talk of "watering down" the hall with borderline players, what do people think of Curt Flood, Ken Boyers, Graig Nettles, Munson, Dave Parker, Grich, Garvey, Allen, Tommy John, ....I would put all of them in, along with Keith Hernandez (11 GGs), Mattingly (9 GGs and other hardware), Murphy, Lofton, Kent, Whittaker....then again, I am a bigger hall guy.....

As for Rolen, absolutely deserves to be in, one of the best, if not the best 3rd baseman of his era. If you're one of the best, you deserve a spot......the negative Nellies nitpicking/ hyperfocusing on some of Rolen's stats to poo poo him is just mind boggling to me.

I saw most of McGriff's career and when I watched him play I thought to myself, this guy is a future HOFer. One of the best hitters of his era.... consistently put up strong numbers year in and year out.

I'd put exactly zero of those names in the MLB HOF.

Why would you want to make the Hall of Fame a glorified participation trophy?

[panamamyers]

The biggest stain created by the steroid guys is for all of the guys who obviously did not use who now have WAR numbers a bit lower than folks would like to see because the average replacement player during that era was performing so well.

I am sure there are other examples, but if you take Lance Berkman out of the 1999 through 2013 era and stick him into 2009 through this year, he undoubtedly makes the hall of fame.

[msink28]

Exactly. Carlos Delgado comes to mind for me.

Originally Posted by panamamyers

The biggest stain created by the steroid guys is for all of the guys who obviously did not use who now have WAR numbers a bit lower than folks would like to see because the average replacement player during that era was performing so well.

I am sure there are other examples, but if you take Lance Berkman out of the 1999 through 2013 era and stick him into 2009 through this year, he undoubtedly makes the hall of fame.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz1982

Whitaker - The worst one and done snub there is. He should have been in long ago.

There's 2 bold items on his Baseball Reference page in a 17+ year career.

ROY in 78
Games played in 81

He won 3 gold gloves in 17+ years at 2B. Who was his competition????

Frank White? The most average of all average 2B in MLB history and Whitaker can't be the AL GG 2B more than 3 times in his life?

Sheesh.

[Svabinsky78]

Originally Posted by panamamyers

The biggest stain created by the steroid guys is for all of the guys who obviously did not use who now have WAR numbers a bit lower than folks would like to see because the average replacement player during that era was performing so well.

I am sure there are other examples, but if you take Lance Berkman out of the 1999 through 2013 era and stick him into 2009 through this year, he undoubtedly makes the hall of fame.

I spent my high school years and was a big Stros fan. Berkman, along with Bags and Biggio, formed the core of the offense. Berkman definitely was a solid player. 6x AS, 293 BA, 360 HRs, almost 2000 hits, 1200+ RBIs.

[MIRRABB]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

Another HOF class with guys who didn't lead MLB in anything and put together long careers and accumulated stats without hitting major statistical milestones.

McGriff led the league in HRs twice. Rolen led in dWAR once.

There's very little bold font on their Baseball Reference pages.

They fit right in with Jim Kaat (whose bold numbers as a pitcher are for hits allowed) and Tony Oliva who retired with a whopping 220 HRs as a rightfielder.

And Harold Baines, and Mike Mussina who led the league once in.... innings.

The MLB HOF is making a joke of itself in its efforts to keep Bonds and Clemens out. Who ever saw Harold Baines play and said this is a Hall of Famer?

On the contrary, a guy like Rolen is far less of a compiler than, say, Derek Jeter, who accumulated a similar amount of WAR in 700 more games.