2021 Baseball HOF Inductees
saucywombat
Posts: 1,221 ✭✭✭
Looking at the HOF Tracker
bbhoftracker.com/2020/11/2021-bbhof-tracker-summary-and-leaderboard/
It appears that there will no players voted into the HOF this year. Support always drops for players once the private votes are tabulated. I suppose you'd say the writers that make their votes public are generally more player friendly and don't mind sharing that support.
Added to that 0 players have made the 75% threshold even on the public ballots.
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
saucywombat@hotmail.com
1
Comments
Any baseball museum without Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, and Rose is not a complete museum of baseball history.
None of the players added to this year's ballot should ever sniff the hall of fame. Scott Rolen? Todd Helton? Come on, man.
It's quickly become the Hall of Slightly Above Average (if you hung around long enough and the writers and/or Vets committee like you). 2019 made the HOF completely irrelevant to me, though it wasn't the first year of some dubious selections.
These writers would rather vote in very good players than being brave and voting in true all-time greats like Bonds or Clemens.
McGwire doesn’t belong in the hall - roids or not. Agreed on everything else.
Scott Rolen was an outstanding all-around player. He deserved to be in the HOF and, by the looks of it, his day is coming within the next year or 2.
I still think Schilling will get in this year.
Rolen's a HOF'er at some point in my opinion. He was an outstanding player.
Outstanding? Sure. But he was a top 5 MVP player just once in his career. He is not Hall worthy.
Rolen should not be in the HoF. He's basically the Graig Nettles of his era. A really good defensive third baseman with solid but not spectacular offensive stats. Role never led the league in anything. He was never even the best person on his own team. He was below average in the playoffs with a career .220 average. He was a good player but is only getting HoF notice because there is no one really worthy except a couple of steroid junkies like Bonds and Clemens.
Only Schilling stands to have a chance to get in this year. Scott Rolen might get in a little later in the future. Gary Sheffield is emerging and his progress will be fun to watch in the next few years. Omar Vizquel took a dive this year and that is likely from the allegations that have been brought up. Only time will tell what impact that will have long term (of course it also depends on the veracity of the allegations).
In terms of McGwire, Clemens, and Bonds (add in there Rafael Palmeiro), they have the cloud of steroids looming over their resume, so I can understand some voters (BBWAA and "Veterans" Committee) just not bothering to vote for them. There are not any set standards in place that would disqualify a player who was associated with steroids, let alone proven to have taken them regularly.
Manny Ramirez is on the ballot and has been suspended for banned substances twice. The first time he stated that it was part of a prescription medication that must have had that illegal ingredient in there but did not know it. 2 years after the first suspension, he tested positive again for banned substances and just retired. The first excuse is barely plausible since these players have all kinds of resources to know the ingredients of what they are taking. The second ban justifies the suspicion that he was deliberately enhancing his performance all along. Is there any one else on the ballot with as much evidence of regular use of banned substances as Ramirez? He was punished for his offenses during his playing career, so should he get punished again by preventing him from getting inducted into the HOF? He is eligible for the HOF, but some voters are using the banned substances scandal against him and they are within their rights to do so.
Just on numbers alone, there are excellent arguments to allow McGwire, Clemens, Palmeiro, Bonds and Ramirez into the HOF, but what do we do with the steroids scandal? I mean Olympians have been stripped of their medals after the fact, once it was established that they had banned substances in their system. I know MLB and the Baseball HOF is set up differently and does not have to follow Olympic standards, but it is a relevant reference point.
With all that said, Clemens and Bonds are still getting a lot of support. With time, it may be the case that no player is going to have steroids used against them. I am not saying I necessarily agree with this, but it seems to be trending this way.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I have a really hard time with the idea that Bud Selig is in the HOF when he, as an owner and as Commissioner, benefitted greatly from the explosion of ticket sales, merchandise sales, TV revenue, etc. during the steroid era when Sosa, McGwire, Clemens, Bonds, etc. were dominating MLB. How does he get to slide into the HOF, immortalized in bronze forever, when the players off whom he made money are kept out. If steroids ruined that period of baseball, it happened on his watch and he should bear some of the blame. I don't believe that they ruined that period. I also tend to believe that it is the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Good Players who were likable guys, or the Hall of Perfectly Ethical Guys, or the Hall of Really Good WAR. It is the Hall of FAME. Tell me how you have a Hall of Fame without the group of guys who were, without question, the most popular players and most riveting guys to watch during that period of time?
kevin
I think these two comments are intertwined. If I had to limit it to 10 though, I'm not sure Selig would quite make the cut of first ballot of 10 out.
Selig was also the man behind MLB's usage of steroids. When the strikes happened coupled with the surge of NBA and NFL interest, Selig's MLB was losing ground and owners were losing large amounts of revenue, so he along with the other owners decide that home runs drive interest and allows steroids to become the norm in the MLB. While it worked for 10+ years much of what the MLB is today (well behind the NBA and NFL and continuing to lose ground) can be placed on MLB's tarnished steroids era. More than half the potential fans grew up hearing nothing but steroid cases. Many of the older baby boomer die-hard MLB fans are dying off. The MLB is bleeding out and mainly this can be attributed to the man who led the league and had a firm grip on the owners as an owner himself doing this time. Selig should be considered a first ballot to the hall of shame.
???
He was definitely the best player on the Phillies when he was there. And I'm not going to punish him for not being best player on the Cardinals while Albert Pujols was there. That's like punishing Willie McCovey for not being the best because Willie Mays was also there.
Rolen has comparable offensive stats to Edgar Martinez and was an outstanding defender in the field. He also ranks tenth in career WAR for third basemen in MLB history. He's gonna be a hall of famer.
Jason
Personal Collection | Willie Woodburn | Legion of Doom
Let's not get carried away here. Martinez was much better offensively. Rolen was very good offensively, but if he wasn't an excellent defender he never would have lasted as long as he did at DH.
Rolen had more XBH than Martinez in fewer plate appearances. Numbers speak for themselves.
Jason
Personal Collection | Willie Woodburn | Legion of Doom
And I suppose if XBH/PA were the sole determiner of offense, you'd have a point. Martinez has a significantly higher BA, OBP, and SLG, so obviously a significantly higher OPS. If you look at the column that is partly cut off, you'll see a gigantic advantage in OPS+.
Martinez definitely had more hits and more walks driving his OPS+ higher. That advantage in OPS+ produced 8 more runs for Martinez and 26 less RBI than Rolen. I don’t see a clear advantage there.
Jason
Personal Collection | Willie Woodburn | Legion of Doom
I will just ask this, who thought while watching Scott Rolen play that "hey this guy is a HOF player" I sure didn't.
I never realized Nettles was so tough to strikeout.
This is my favorite part of the HOF debate: the eye test vs analytics. I don’t believe in the eye test so any opinion I share is going to be based on analytics.
What I like about analytics is the ability to bring together both offensive and defensive stats to create a better view of a player’s overall contribution to winning games. Too often, the sexy offensive numbers disproportionately overshadow the defensive numbers in my opinion.
Jason
Personal Collection | Willie Woodburn | Legion of Doom
Beltre should be a 1st or 2nd rounder in a couple years
Adrian Beltre's career is actually quite impressive. HOFer for sure.
Hall of Fame. These guys were in-famous, Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, Rose, Sheffield, Palmeiro, Shilling, Ramirez, thus Hall of Fame. What about ARod? Bert Blyleven, now he was a True Hall of Famer's, ya.
If there is any question as to whether someone should be in optics or stats then they do not belong IMHO.
I think many people don't understand the baseball hall of fame is a museum independent from MLB.
That distinction makes the causes for banning like Rose for gambling and Bonds and others for PEDs meaningless.
How can a museum be complete without some of most prolific players of their eras? How can someone learn the history of the game if we attempt to whitewash it?
PEDs saved baseball after the strike-that fact is irrefutable. Sosa and Mac's HR chase in 1998 brought the sport back from irrelevance. Bonds was the most fearsome hitter of the modern era.
But they aren't in the hall.
Regardless if you dislike the PED use, you certainly cannot argue the hall is complete without their inclusion.
The point you seem to be missing is that "sportsmanship" is as important, if not more than statistical achievements.
Baseball wasn't "saved" by the juicers, it was however, nearly ruined and the record books are screwed up forever.
The "Hall of Statistical Superiority" does not exist. I'll take the flawed HOF we have over a place that admits guys like Sosa, McGwire and Mr Giant Potato-head.
Edgar hit .312 lifetime. Rolen hit .281. That is a 31 points lower.
Edgar had a .418 lifetime on base %. Rolen was at .364. that is 54 points lower.
Edgar had a lifetime .933 OPS. Rolen was at .855. this was 78 points lower.
Rolens offensive output is more comparable to Shawn Green, Aramis Ramirez, and Paul O'Neal none of which are hall of famers.
No one is banned from the Hall of Fame. Anyone that is voted in by the writers goes into the Hall. Rose is not allowed (by MLB ) to be placed on the ballot. If enough writers wrote in his name (75%) . he would be in the Hall. As Clint says in the Unforgiven, "Deserves' got nothing to do with it".
I am not positive, but I think Pete is "ineligible" and would have to be reinstated before he could be on the ballot.
He received a lifetime ban from baseball in 1989 when an investigation by John Dowd showed Rose bet on baseball games, including the Cincinnati Reds, the team he managed. He signed an agreement on Aug. 24, 1989, accepting an indefinite suspension.
Yet, when he signed the agreement, he was unaware the Hall of Fame would pass a rule two years later banning any player on MLB’s ineligible list to be on the Hall of Fame ballot, whether dead or alive.
Sportsmanship? Really? Can you please point me to where that requirement is stated, and who is the judge of a "good sport"?
I guess it was simply a coincidence that the first time MLB attendance topped 70 million was in 1998.
The hall is a museum of baseball history - it's not a church and it sure isn't for saints. Ignoring the history of the game, particularly the parts you dislike, makes it an incomplete representation of the history of baseball.
No. He wasn't close to Edgar, and if your argument is a subset of a subset of players? Then you know he's not Hall-worthy.
I'm curious why you feel this way?
3 top-5 MVP finishes, 5 top-10 MVP finishes; led the league in HR 4x and 10x top 10 finishes. 11th all time in HR.
His career compares favorably to Harmon Killebrew, but was able to put up similar numbers but did it in 2000 fewer at bats. Killer has him in hits, but Mac beats him in OBP, SLG, OPS, and OPS+.
From BBWOA's "Hall of Fame Election Requirements"
Requirement # 5, Voting;
Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability,** integrity, sportsmanship, character**, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
(I added the bold and italics)
There are the facts on induction regarding sportsmanship. I didn't mention integrity and character. Three of the five requirements center around character, not ability.
As far as PEDs are concerned your opinion is they "saved" baseball. Baseball didn't need saving then any more than it does now. People were fooled into thinking something special was happening and it turned out to be a LIE.
Who determines a "good sport"?
If you honestly feel baseball was healthy and doing well after the shutdown of 1994 which the owners forced, then you weren't paying attention.
Something special DID happen - McGwire and Sosa saved baseball. You clearly disagree. That's fine.
"Baseball's 1998 home run chase between the Cubs' Sammy Sosa and Cardinals' Mark McGwire seemed too good to be true.
It was.
**Entering that season, Major League Baseball was still reeling from the 1994 strike which forced the cancellation of the '94 World Series. Attendance was down, and baseball, America’s Pastime was on the road to being irrelevant.
**
Enter Sammy and Big Mac.
“Those guys saved baseball,” said Kerry Wood, who was in his first season with the Cubs in 1998.
Attendance in 1997, the year before the cheating contest, was 63.2 million and had grown 5% over 1996. Had attendance continued growing at the same rate for two more years attendance in 1999 would have been 69.7 million. Instead, after baseball was "saved" the year before, attendance in 1999 was 70.1 million. An additional 3/10 of 1% growth was the observed result and there is no reason at all to think this was anything other than random noise. The "saving" of baseball is 100% myth.
5% growth from 96 to 97.
11% growth 97 to 98.
That's not noise.
2+ years of growth happening in a single year and you're going to suggest that's not causation ?
McGwire and Sosa were a manufactured product MLB created to sell tickets. It was not much different than professional wrestling and a bout as real too.
Are we talking about attendance or Bonds hat size?
Golden Era Committee scheduled to meet December 2021.
I'm in the Dick Allen should be in the Hall camp
*
*
[http://hallofstats.com/upcoming]
Oliva, Colavito and Hodges would be my top three. Allen would be fine too.
I like Oliva as well.
Shorter career. .304 lifetime average, 3 batting titles, 2 world series
ETA: ROY
The voters
Baseball was fine. Baseball was in a slight down period. The "patient" had a cold, nothing serious.
Nothing was in need of saving. There's no opinion here.
You got that right.
I wonder what Wood would say now? He was wrong then.
I won't completely rule out Helton.
2500 hits,.316 average, and a batting title.
Decent homerun total but the thin air in CO can cancel out that stat.
A little better than your Hall-of-very good
I think our definitions of offensive output differ. To me, offensive production is equal to the number of runs a player generates either by scoring themselves or plating teammates. Rolen scored eight fewer times and drove in 26 more runs in 156 fewer plate appearances than Edgar. I appreciate the fact that these numbers can be influenced by the quality of the bats in lineup around a player. But the bottom line, in my mind, is that when giving an opportunity to plate runs, both of these players did so at about the same rate.
Comparing Rolen to Aramis Ramirez is actually a really good comp because it shows the value of a defender's glove and is what really separates Rolen from other productive 3B during his career. Rolen was a plus plus defender at 3B while Ramirez was a negative defender at 3B. Rolen's range at 3B allowed him to produce almost 400 more outs than a replacement player during his career! Same is true for Shawn Green and Paul O'Neill. Both are negative defenders so while offensive comps are pretty good, Rolen's defense puts him well ahead of them.
Only Adrian Beltre, who is a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame, was a better defender at 3B during Rolen's career and only Beltre, and Chipper, currently in the HOF, generated significantly better offensive output at 3B during Rolen's career. Multiple players from the same generation at the same position go into the HOF all the time.
Jason
Personal Collection | Willie Woodburn | Legion of Doom
A comparison to the top ten players at the 3B position in MLB history that includes nine current HOFers and one HOF shoo-in doesn't qualify as a "subset of a subset of players."
Jason
Personal Collection | Willie Woodburn | Legion of Doom
Yes.
Runs scored and RBI are team dependent therefore very poor measures of a hitter.
Edgar was 10x the hitter Rolen was.
All of the HOF third basemen had at least one of the following: 3000+ Hits, 500+ HR or .300+ BA. The only exceptions to this are Santo, Robinson (who had 2848 hits) and Rolen. Rolen was a great player and deserves consideration, but he is not a HOFer. He was not elite in any aspect of his game. Simply a very good player.