- This topic has 73 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Both are deserving. Hard to compare numbers, especially given eras they played in. Boyer played in pitchers era before mounds lowered. Rolen played during hitters/steroids era. Not saying he was on steroids, but everyone in that era is tainted to some degree, rightfully so or not. Ultimately, both were amongst very best at their position during a 10+ year stretch. Both should be in HOF IMO.
So many red flags when comparing eras. The mound, the ballparks, rule changes, playing turf, equipment, the baseball, etc.
I understand the desire to try and nuetralize the numbers based off league avg, but what about D? Lack of technology and metrics in past eras is just an estimated guess defensively, that can vary substantially.
Neutralizing will never account for the difference in the mindsets of how the players play the game now. Get him over and get him was a priority in eras past and now it’s grip and rip regardless of the games context.
A productive out was expected in eras past and now K’s swinging away are acceptable. How do you neutralize that?
Players used to give up AB’s for the teams benefit, now all they can see is their next contract.
Normalizing stats takes care of most comparison issues across different years / eras.
(For example, the league batted .300 on average in 1930 and .301 was the AL batting champ mark in 1967.)
For any individual year you can simply look at how a player performed in this or that stat vs. the league \ mlb average for that year without worrying about normalizing anything.
As far as the HoF goes, I’m for making it for truly special players whose body of work truly sets them apart from their peers. So, I don’t know that ‘my’ Hall would be tiny but let’s just say there would be some cuts…..
Disappointing ballot from Saxon. Left two spots open, but still passed over Rolen.
Here is my HOF ballot. Be nice, everybody. @NotMrTibbs pic.twitter.com/BeuCgRb0fZ
— Mark Saxon (@markasaxon) December 14, 2021
Well I have some issues here with Saxon. Doesn’t vote for rolen but votes for Kent, that’s kind of ludicrous. Im not going to argue that Kent doesn’t deserve to be on there but I don’t see many voting for him. Vizquel to me belongs in there for defense alone but that’s just me. I don’t see him getting in by the writers. I’m not big on guys who primarily were DH so I wouldn’t vote for Ortiz but the precedent has already been set so he will get in. Far as steroid guys have no problem. If the league can constantly change baseballs and rules, guys should be able to do whatever they are willing to live with.
A writer turned in a blank Baseball Hall-of-Fame ballot for the second straight year. Do you think there should be rules against that? https://t.co/AjZEURd9Tx
— KMOXSports (@KMOXSports) December 15, 2021
Well not necessarily. It would depend on voting history. I don’t think someone should be forced to vote for someone if they do not feel there is a good candidate. However if they have voted in the past for someone that is far less deserving than some on the list, then you have to consider it.
It’s his ballot. Evidently he favors a small hall.
14 blank ballots in 2021 voting. Surprising, I wasn’t aware.
This writer goes into a lot of detail to explain his ballot. I don’t agree with all of the choices but I appreciate the candor.
Explaining my Baseball HOF ballot on @mlbtraderumors.https://t.co/jcQt5ztkAz
— Marc Narducci (@sjnard) December 17, 2021
Well nice explanation. However he let Ortiz off the hook but not Clemens. Which if you are going to stand on principle you can’t cherry pick. Bonds I believe admitted in court to using hgh but maybe I’m wrong. Otherwise the only one I totally disagree with is Kent. I acknowledge his offensive numbers but his below average defense keeps him way out in my opinion. I look at Kent as someone who a coach looked and said this guy hits so good we have to find a spot for him and second was the one they decided to go with since maybe he struggled with fly balls and countnt dig out balls at first.
Voting update.
Net gained/lost votes through 103 ballots (~26.3% of the vote):
Helton +6
Rolen +6
Wagner +4
Bonds +1
Clemens +1
Jones +1
Hudson +0
Abreu -1
Sheffield -1
Sosa -1
Kent -2
Ramírez -2
Buehrle -3
Hunter -3
Pettitte -5
Schilling -9
Vizquel -31Tracker: https://t.co/sziMyHO62y pic.twitter.com/TcR7APUUyW
— Ryan Thibodaux (@NotMrTibbs) December 31, 2021
Arguing about who should be hof is almost as arbitrary as the standards on getting in- its all subjective and evolving.
I have absolutely zero idea how defensive WAR is quantified per player. I doubt many on here (save brian?) do either. But it seems as though one way to help those voting 5 years plus down the road is to take offense out of the equation all together.
If you glove is good enough to keep you as a starter- that’s enough. A substantially better offensive 3rd baseman who is an above average defender should NOT be awarded a gold glove over an avg offensive 3B who is an elite defender. Which is historically how its been awarded. Thats my opinion at least.
Saxon is getting a lot of criticism for his HOF vote and has resorted to blocking anyone who criticizes his vote.
Reminder: The results of the BBWAA vote for the 2022 Baseball Hall of Fame class will be revealed Tuesday night on MLB Network.
I love the writers who wait until the very last day to disclose their ballots. They can crow about being transparent when the reality is that they don’t want to discuss it. Ballots were due on 12/31 so anyone just sharing now sat on their votes.
Having said that, they are still better than those who choose not to share how they voted. And kudos to the ones who share their results early and take the time and effort to explain their logic. I don’t always agree, but that beats the alternatives.
Well Ortiz got in. Doesnt surprise me that they let a guy who can’t really play much anywhere in the field in especially with how popular he was. Popular is the key way of getting in even if not deserved. Also funny how he tested positive for performance enhancing drugs though unsurprisingly the commissioner said those results were murky yet Clemens never failed a test and never got in in ten years. Just a sham, I think most of these guys shouldn’t be voting. There is no rationale for their voting.
Rolen just keeps getting screwed while one way players like Ortiz get rewarded for only playing 1/2 the game or less. T
Yeah. I think Ortiz is easily one of the more overrated players in recent memory. If he’s a Hall of Famer, then there are a lot of guys who deserve a lot more of a look.
When I see things like Ortiz getting into the HOF, I remind myself that this America’s Pastime we’re talking about, and it’s really all about what the fans want.
Onyx said:
Rolen just keeps getting screwed…
If you look at year to year results, Rolen made tremendous progress toward 75% and should get in next year, with Bonds, Clemens and others off the ballot.
1982willie said:
“Popular is the key way of getting in even if not deserved.”
Isn’t that why it is called the Hall of FAME?
“I think most of these guys shouldn’t be voting. There is no rationale for their voting.”
I don’t agree with a lot of the voters, but they are a reflection of a weak system.
The writers have begged the Hall for clearer voting guidelines but they won’t do it. They leave it to the writers to take the heat.
To get rid of a lot of the problems, I would create eligible and ineligible lists. Then you could have a simple official ballot that excludes those ineligible due to drug use or whatever rules are decided.
But then, the focus would be on those who create the two lists and what criteria they use to develop them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.