2022 Hall of Fame Ballot

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by TooManyCards76

I get the whole shoeless Joe thing, but he did take money to throw a baseball game, I’m not 100% he knew what he was agreeing to, but he did agree and does not deserve the HoF

Rose, come on, he bet on baseball games he managed, no no no no.

The last group except Schilling are cheaters, and either got caught red handed or had a smoking gun that linked them to cheating. I’m sure there are others that cheated, but these bozos need to be kept out.

Schilling, he’s an awful person imho, but it didn’t cause him to cheat (that we know of), or do anything against the rules of baseball. It’s a travesty he’s not in because of political views and not having a PR firm vet his comments before tweeting or talking. He’d have been a slam dunk had he kept his mouth shut, but this is america and you’re allowed an opinion

Joe Jackson went to his grave saying he never got a cent. He didn't know what he was signing up for he couldn't read or write. They used the reputation of Risberg to get him to even sign his "x" on the confession.

I did a very deep dive into the whole thing for a college paper. Jackson being out is a travesty.

And you label some of them cheaters, but we put some of the managers and the commissioner of baseball that oversaw the whole thing into the Hall. I just don't get the hypocrisy.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by atoaz12

He's the greatest defender ever at a premium position

And you got 434 HRs and 1200+ RBI

PS more doubles than Ichiro, Bench, Greenberg, Sosa, McCovey, Mantle, Piazza too

PSS Is there any other player that is measurably the greatest at something that broad (in his case, playing centerfield) not in the Hall of Fame? Real question.

I'm not trying to hate on Jones, but he had a career .254 average and .337 OBP -- subpar batting average and run-of-the-mill OBP. He had good power, but fell way short of 500 home runs. He had a career 111 OPS+ and wRC+. He was not a good base runner. He aged very poorly in his 30s.

So his candidacy hinges on how good his defense was. And that is something that is hard to quantify, due to the lack of metrics.

[atoaz12]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Your position is 100% recency bias. The hall isn't being diluted. There have been lots of players who don't meet your lofty standards enshrined since the hall has existed. Having modern players with high WARs but low counting stats or less star power in isn't diluting a hall with High Pockets Kelly, etc... This modern obsession some people have with a small hall reserved for only superstars is just that, a modern obsession. The hall has never been as exclusive as you think it is.

No. It's a hope that the Hall of Fame will trend towards being more prestigious.

If you'll read above, I mentioned that previous poor choices shouldn't allow future ones.

Sad career numbers for sure when taken out of context, Kelly at least was top 15 all time in HRs when he retired

https://joeposnanski.substack.com/p/...rans-committee

This is a really cool article. There's always been a little chaos. I like exclusivity aka the 40s - don't think that's recency bias. Just my opinion.

[atoaz12]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

I'm not trying to hate on Jones, but he had a career .254 average and .337 OBP -- subpar batting average and run-of-the-mill OBP. He had good power, but fell way short of 500 home runs. He had a career 111 OPS+ and wRC+. He was not a good base runner. He aged very poorly in his 30s.

So his candidacy hinges on how good his defense was. And that is something that is hard to quantify, due to the lack of metrics.

There are metrics. Check them out!

[TooManyCards76]

Originally Posted by Chris Lyle

Joe Jackson went to his grave saying he never got a cent. He didn't know what he was signing up for he couldn't read or write. They used the reputation of Risberg to get him to even sign his "x" on the confession.

I did a very deep dive into the whole thing for a college paper. Jackson being out is a travesty.

And you label some of them cheaters, but we put some of the managers and the commissioner of baseball that oversaw the whole thing into the Hall. I just don't get the hypocrisy.

Don’t get me wrong, there are several players/managers I’d like out based on next level cheating, but that’s not was presented, I was just responding to those particular players. And I understand the plight of shoeless Joe, but facts and witnesses say he signed up for throwing the game, whether it’s true or not is not up to me, it’s just the facts that were presented… however we’ve all seen defendants railroaded by the police, corporations, politicians, etc, so it easily could’ve happened to shoeless Joe in 1919.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by TooManyCards76

It’s not moral arguments, it’s rules based arguments, ARod, Manny cheated and got caught or admitted, twice/each… Clemens, Bonds basically got caught with evidence after it was against the rules of baseball… McGwire/Sosa I could possibly let slide as it wasn’t technically against the rules for the majority of their careers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, in the case of A-Rod and Manny, they broke the rules. They were punished for it.

You know who else broke the rules? All pitchers who used foreign substances to enhance their grip. Are you saying they all should be banished too? That's going to be almost all of them.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by atoaz12

There are metrics. Check them out!

Outdated metrics.

Nowadays we have Statcast-based metrics, which finally allow us to precisely evaluate defensive performance.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by atoaz12

No. It's a hope that the Hall of Fame will trend towards being more prestigious.

If you'll read above, I mentioned that previous poor choices shouldn't allow future ones.

Sad career numbers for sure when taken out of context, Kelly at least was top 15 all time in HRs when he retired

https://joeposnanski.substack.com/p/...rans-committee

This is a really cool article. There's always been a little chaos. I like exclusivity aka the 40s - don't think that's recency bias. Just my opinion.

I find it strange that the small "prestigious" hall crowd argues only the top 1% of players should get in and letting in the top 2% of players will dilute the hall. That is absurdly arbitrary to me. The hall won't be any less prestigious if you let those in the 98th percentile in. In the end, we're just arguing over a bunch of players who were at the top of the sport. From my perspective, if we are arguing about their worthiness, the hall won't be diminished in the slightest by their inclusion.

[no10pin]

Andruw Jones is going in someday, it's just odd to me that it's taking this long.

Yeah, he flamed out at age 30, and that's probably the #1 thing that's kept him from getting in already. However, he started games in 1996 as a 19 year old. If he had debuted at 23, hit a wall at 34 and hung around until he was 40, I think it would be viewed differently.

If Ozzie went in with 90+ percent on his first ballot, I feel like Jones should have gotten in by now. Ozzie was by all accounts the best defensive SS of all-time, but his offense left a lot to be desired.

Andruw is either #1 or #2 all-time when it comes to defensive CF depending on who you are talking to, and his offensive numbers were above average for that 10-year stretch.

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by TooManyCards76

Don’t get me wrong, there are several players/managers I’d like out based on next level cheating, but that’s not was presented, I was just responding to those particular players. And I understand the plight of shoeless Joe, but facts and witnesses say he signed up for throwing the game, whether it’s true or not is not up to me, it’s just the facts that were presented… however we’ve all seen defendants railroaded by the police, corporations, politicians, etc, so it easily could’ve happened to shoeless Joe in 1919.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Signed up for throwing the games? Look at his stats during the series. He signed a confession under duress without being able to read or write... case closed. Witnesses could say anything and did but Joe didn't sign anything.

[atoaz12]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I find it strange that the small "prestigious" hall crowd argues only the top 1% of players should get in and letting in the top 2% of players will dilute the hall. That is absurdly arbitrary to me. The hall won't be any less prestigious if you let those in the 98th percentile in. In the end, we're just arguing over a bunch of players who were at the top of the sport. From my perspective, if we are arguing about their worthiness, the hall won't be diminished in the slightest by their inclusion.

What is your metric? How would you choose?

I'm not a 1%er. But I'm not a Hall of Great either.

I look at these things to determine consideration:

1) All Time excellence over a small period - 5-6 years (Koufax)
2) Excellence over a larger period - 8-10 years (tons of examples)
3) Really, really good over a really long time - 15+ (Biggio)

Then some questions to consider, if it's not obvious:

1) How many Hall of Fame seasons did they have?
2) How did they stack up to their contemporaries? (takes in to account eras)
3) Postseason success?
4) Are they all-time great in a specific area?

That's just me. Which ultimately means nothing.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Small Hall folks and those who think the Hall is too political, biased or tainted don't care.

Heck, even current Hall of Famers are fine with fewer entrants -- it keeps the Hall a smaller, more exclusive club.

The ones who want more Hall of Famers are those who do comparative analysis. But even amongst that group, there are differences -- the analytical types disagree with those who use more traditional methods.

I disagree with nearly any group you can imagine on the Hall, and I find that it's because the Hall is an entity that exists completely differently in everybody's head than it does in reality. And no one at all can get over their own bias. It's maybe my favorite thing to debate, and yet almost completely worthless to debate. It's like talking about Paris, France; and someone arguing with you about Paris, Tennessee.

Yeah, Rolen and Helton won't get in this year. Almost assuredly. People can be happy about that. But really? Why? By 2026 they'll both be in, unless the OJ their ex or something. This isn't a one time vote. The debate doesn't end. All it does is delay it. All it does is give people the honor when they're a little bit older, or for many, dead. That's what's being cheered.

And it's not about Rolen or Helton, or Jones, or anyone else who is DEFINITELY going to make it. It's about the Loftons or Edmonds or Whitakers that ended up getting pushed off crowded ballots and really will have to wait a much longer time for it to happen. And it WILL happen, but it may have to be Whitaker's children accepting the honor for him or something. That's what's ridiculous about cheering this on. - Rant over -

[JRX]

Not everyone that plays for 15+ years should be in the hall.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by JRX

Not everyone that plays for 15+ years should be in the hall.

Take that, Bronson Arroyo.

[atoaz12]

Originally Posted by JRX

Not everyone that plays for 15+ years should be in the hall.

No one said they should

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by no10pin

Andruw Jones is going in someday, it's just odd to me that it's taking this long.

Yeah, he flamed out at age 30, and that's probably the #1 thing that's kept him from getting in already. However, he started games in 1996 as a 19 year old. If he had debuted at 23, hit a wall at 34 and hung around until he was 40, I think it would be viewed differently.

If Ozzie went in with 90+ percent on his first ballot, I feel like Jones should have gotten in by now. Ozzie was by all accounts the best defensive SS of all-time, but his offense left a lot to be desired.

Andruw is either #1 or #2 all-time when it comes to defensive CF depending on who you are talking to, and his offensive numbers were above average for that 10-year stretch.

Shortstop is a much more complex and demanding position than centerfield.

A centerfielder just needs to run down fly balls and throw to the cutoff man or occasionally to a base. A very fast centerfielder can overcome poor routes.

Shortstops have to field a myriad of batted balls -- liners, dribblers, hoppers etc -- on dirt and grass in a relatively short amount of time. They must regularly take different angles to field balls. They must regularly dive and jump for balls. They must regularly make accurate throws to all bases, especially 1B and 2B. They must throw on the run and deep in the hole. They must turn double plays at 2B. It's just crazy to think about.

[JRX]

If Jones is a no dobut hall of famer why isn't Edmonds?

[no10pin]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Shortstop is a much more complex and demanding position than centerfield.

A centerfielder just needs to run down fly balls and throw to the cutoff man or occasionally to a base. A very fast centerfielder can overcome poor routes.

Shortstops have to field a myriad of batted balls -- liners, dribblers, hoppers etc -- on dirt and grass in a relatively short amount of time. They must regularly take different angles to field balls. They must regularly dive and jump for balls. They must regularly make accurate throws to all bases, especially 1B and 2B. They must throw on the run and deep in the hole. They must turn double plays at 2B. It's just crazy to think about.

I know what a shortstop is, my point was not that Jones is equal to Ozzie on the defensive side. CF is still a premium defensive position, although not as tough as SS.

Jones is top-2 all-time at a premium defensive position, and was above average with the bat for a 10-year stretch. If Ozzie sails in at 91% with his all-time great defense and a questionable bat, I would have expected Jones to be getting closer to going in than he is by his 5th try.

[babybull]

Originally Posted by no10pin

Andruw Jones is going in someday, it's just odd to me that it's taking this long.

Yeah, he flamed out at age 30, and that's probably the #1 thing that's kept him from getting in already. However, he started games in 1996 as a 19 year old. If he had debuted at 23, hit a wall at 34 and hung around until he was 40, I think it would be viewed differently.

If Ozzie went in with 90+ percent on his first ballot, I feel like Jones should have gotten in by now. Ozzie was by all accounts the best defensive SS of all-time, but his offense left a lot to be desired.

Andruw is either #1 or #2 all-time when it comes to defensive CF depending on who you are talking to, and his offensive numbers were above average for that 10-year stretch.

Ozzie ended his career with over 2,500 hits. Not sure he is the guy you should be using to make your case when you have Carter, Baines, Puckett, Slaughter and many more that should not be in.

[no10pin]

Originally Posted by babybull

Ozzie ended his career with over 2,500 hits. Not sure he is the guy you should be using to make your case when you have Carter, Baines, Puckett, Slaughter and many more that should not be in.

I chose Ozzie because his defense is the reason he's in the HOF. He doesn't sniff the hall with 2,500 hits in 19 years and average defense.

If and when Jones goes in, it will be the same reason.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by babybull

Ozzie ended his career with over 2,500 hits. Not sure he is the guy you should be using to make your case when you have Carter, Baines, Puckett, Slaughter and many more that should not be in.

Slaughter finished with 2,383 hits while missing 3 prime years entirely to WWII. It's a shame he had to wait as long as he did to get in.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by no10pin

I know what a shortstop is, my point was not that Jones is equal to Ozzie on the defensive side. CF is still a premium defensive position, although not as tough as SS.

Jones is top-2 all-time at a premium defensive position, and was above average with the bat for a 10-year stretch. If Ozzie sails in at 91% with his all-time great defense and a questionable bat, I would have expected Jones to be getting closer to going in than he is by his 5th try.

I do think the comparison has some validity -- Ozzie is 9th all time in JAWS for shortstop, and Jones is 11th for centerfield. Ozzie is number 1 all time in dWAR for shortstop -- Jones is number 1 for centerfield.

But Ozzie had 15 All Star selections and 13 Gold Gloves -- Jones had only 5 All Star selections and 10 Gold Gloves.

So, statistically, Jones and Smith are similar, relative to their positional peers. But fame wise -- it's the Hall of Fame, after all -- the Wizard has Jones beat.

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by Silent George

I disagree with nearly any group you can imagine on the Hall, and I find that it's because the Hall is an entity that exists completely differently in everybody's head than it does in reality. And no one at all can get over their own bias. It's maybe my favorite thing to debate, and yet almost completely worthless to debate. It's like talking about Paris, France; and someone arguing with you about Paris, Tennessee.

Yeah, Rolen and Helton won't get in this year. Almost assuredly. People can be happy about that. But really? Why? By 2026 they'll both be in, unless the OJ their ex or something. This isn't a one time vote. The debate doesn't end. All it does is delay it. All it does is give people the honor when they're a little bit older, or for many, dead. That's what's being cheered.

And it's not about Rolen or Helton, or Jones, or anyone else who is DEFINITELY going to make it. It's about the Loftons or Edmonds or Whitakers that ended up getting pushed off crowded ballots and really will have to wait a much longer time for it to happen. And it WILL happen, but it may have to be Whitaker's children accepting the honor for him or something. That's what's ridiculous about cheering this on. - Rant over -

Even then... Making Rolen, Helton and Jones wait until 10 years is ridiculous. What stat changes did they have between year 1 and 10 to make you change your mind?

[UMich92]

Originally Posted by atoaz12

What is your metric? How would you choose?

I'm not a 1%er. But I'm not a Hall of Great either.

I look at these things to determine consideration:

1) All Time excellence over a small period - 5-6 years (Koufax)
2) Excellence over a larger period - 8-10 years (tons of examples)
3) Really, really good over a really long time - 15+ (Biggio)

Then some questions to consider, if it's not obvious:

1) How many Hall of Fame seasons did they have?
2) How did they stack up to their contemporaries? (takes in to account eras)
3) Postseason success?
4) Are they all-time great in a specific area?

That's just me. Which ultimately means nothing.

You pretty much summarized how I look at. The more difficult ones for me are the so-called compilers. Is Biggio a HOFer with 2900 hits? How about 2800? I think so but the magic 3000 hit mark made induction easier.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by JRX

If Jones is a no dobut hall of famer why isn't Edmonds?

I think I know what you are getting at - but keep in mind that Edmonds does have a case. Statheads can point to him being among the top 20 CFers of all-time.

His HOF candidacy was a dud, but there’s more to it than that. He debuted on a ballot that featured 11 HOFers, not counting Bonds / Clemens / Schilling, and also Sheffield and Wagner who may also get into the HOF one day based on the groundswell of support they received this year. With the ten-player cap imposed by the Hall, it is easy to see why his candidacy never had enough time to gain steam.