Options
HOF veterans committee ballot! It is packed with star power and will be interesting....
1948_Swell_Robinson
Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭✭
Albert Belle
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Don Mattingly
Fred McGriff
Dale Murphy
Rafael Palmeiro
Curt Schilling
If the steroid guys get the cold shoulder there is a good chance Mattingly gets in and possibly Murphy.
0
Comments
Not sure on his chances, but depending on how things go, it might be time to start ripping some 1986 Leaf boxes soon...
He has a great shot too. A lot of star power on the ballot. The only one that would be a surprise election would be Belle.
It's time. They've been punished enough for doing what half the league was doing at that time.
I'd put all of them in the HoF.
Im a big hall guy. Put them all in!!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
IMHO do not permit any of them, and eject he of the pitiful WAR Baines
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
Did you have a chance to watch Bonds and Clemens? Dominant players before they took steroids and my eye test confirms two of the best to ever play.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Funny how many people think Clemens is guilty with no evidence. Bonds' samples were retested and it is PROVEN he juiced, plus he admitted to using.
I would put Clemens in. Also Murphy, Mattingly and McGriff.
While not admissible in court of law, I believe Andy Pettite statements.
Murphy, Mattingly and McGriff - all were very good and the former 2 dominant for much of a decade, certainly all 3 more feared than Baines but none of them including Baines belongs IMHO - same goes for Rice
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
>
Didn't Petite say he "misremembered"?
I freely admit that there's plenty to be suspicious where Clemens is concerned.
Maybe I give him too much benefit of the doubt because as a child I was falsely accused of something and was in line for an a$$ whipping until it got figured out.
No actual proof was ever offered. Accusations and a 20 year old beer can from a guys trunk doesn't cut it for me.
Re: Clemens - Is Piazza on the voting committee?
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
I think it was Clemens who misremembered…..most if not all of those guys belong in the Hall. A few card prices will jump on the results.
No sir. In early interviews Petite made some statements that, when he was asked about under direct questioning, said he might have "misremembered" the conversation about steroids.
If you do some research, it's pretty easy to find.
If Schilling doesn't get in, then the entire exercise of a Veteran's Committee is a joke.
Letting Baines in opened the door to a legion of so-so players who hung around a long time.
Mattingly getting in would open the door for a different legion of good players who didn't play very long. Well, technically Jim Rice already opened that door, but nobody from that particular mass of undeserving HOFers has followed him in since.
Schilling is the only one on that list that I'd vote for. My biggest concern is that the Veteran's Committee will undo the excellent work done by the sportswriters and let the cheaters in.
Once again, Baines didn't open that door. It was blown off its hinges by the Frisch-era committees fifty years ago.
This list, IMO, shows why the Committees should be disbanded. Clemens and Bonds are among the very best ever, and Schilling is well within the margin of a solid HoFer, but, and this is the huge but, it was just last year that the BBWAA rejected them for the final time. Just Last Year.
Leave aside Palmeiro for the moment except to note that it would be odd to enshrine him and leave Bonds out.
So we're left with four unimpressive candidates. Mattingly and Murphy were very good for short periods of time (Mattingly very short), like from 1980 to 1987 Murphy had six very good years. Mattingly was very good from 1984 to 1987, but neither was ever great. I'm hard pressed to consider a single season otherwise where Mattingly was very good. McGriff was a five time All Star who led the league nine times, including once in GIDP and in games played in the strike shortened 1995 season.
So, it's absurd to consider McGriff and Mattingly while the likes of Helton, Hernandez, and even Will Clark are waiting. (Helton should be in, Clark not, but I'm on the fence about Hernandez). Similarly Murphy when Jones (especially) and Lofton are waiting.
Belle was a much better hitter than the other three, but his career was very short (for a HoFer) and not nearly good enough to put him in the Sandy Koufax/Thurman Munson wing. He's considerably behind some left fielders that no one would consider for the Hall, like Brian Downing, George Foster, or Matt Holliday.
You have it 100% right JoeBanzai. not an ounce of actual evidence against Clemens.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Numbers have no factor why 4-5 on the list are not in. My opinion let Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Rafael Palmeiro, Curt Schilling in but only after they have passed. It will be good stern lesson for future players; you may still get in Hall if you do wrong or very wrong, but it won't be during your lifetime.
BTW from Mid 1984-end of 1987 Mattingly was probably the the most feared hitter in the game and so frickin clutch.
I watched him and Hernandez many times at their respective stadiums having grown up halfway from each and they were equally awe inspiring defensively at first base. Hernandez had the edge charging a bunt, Mattingly had the edge going back on foul pops
Still Mattingly was not the Koufax of hitters neither him nor Hernandez have hall numbers but neither does Rice or Baines. But since it's now a Hall of Slightly above average sure let him and Murphy in.
BTW folks Graig Nettles played the same amount of years as Baines and has twice the WAR. But Nettles did not have 2 time convicted drunk driver (PUBLIC RECORD!) LaRussa on his side.
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
Hernandez is closer than you think. I agree about Nettles. He's very close to the line of where one "should be" in and probably among the top five retired at least five years on the outside without political considerations (i.e. Rose, Bonds, Joe Jackson, Schilling).
Incidentally, top 5 in Batter Runs from 1984 to 1987: Boggs, Mattingly, Murphy, Schmidt, Dwight Evans. I'll readily concede that Boggs' offense was underrated at the time, so the statement about Mattingly above appears correct.
He had more good seasons than Koufax. His 103 extra base hits in 1995 were the most since 1948 - and he did it in a shortened season. And, unlike Koufax, he was still an elite player away from home.
Belle absolutely, without a doubt, belongs in.
Belle peaked at 40 votes (7.7%). He never won an MVP award (though one wonders why Vaughn won in 1995). The Koufax/Munson wing isn't for players who had a lot of good seasons. It's for players who were still good on the last day they played but just couldn't do it physically anymore. So we're not looking at Koufax/Belle career numbers but what they might have been if Koufax had been able to play until 1970 or Belle until 2004. I don't know what happened to Belle, that is if there was a severe injury after 1996, but averaging 700 PA argues against that, and if you take out 1998, his last four seasons were pretty bad.
It's also not clear to me that Belle had more "good" seasons than Koufax. (Which is by no means a HoF criterion.) Do you count 1961 and 1962 as good seasons, or only 1963-66? You can compare 1994-6 and 1998 to Koufax's top four, so you'll have to consider the secondary good seasons (the ones that are still good, but not great or only borderline "very good". 1993 fits that level, but there is really no sixth season.
I just don't see Belle as "elite" and neither did the BBWAA.
BTW, arbitrarily defining "good season" as one of 5.7 or more WAR (Belle's 3rd and 4th best seasons were worth 5.7 WAR), Chase Utley, Nomar Garciaparra, and Sal Bando each had half again as many "good" seasons as Belle. If we redefine "good season" to be 4.7 or more WAR to pick up Belle's 1993 season, Aaron Judge ALREADY has as many.
Belle had a degenerative hip injury. only his 00 season was down, but he probably should not have played. He was dominant during his run in the 90s. he didnt win MVPs because he was wildly unpopular. unpopular enough to not win a popularity contest with the sportswriters. Same with HOF voters. I think he was every bit as dominant as Koufax. Just not as popular
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Mattingly ranked #1 in MLB for OPS+ one time in his career and then was top 5 and top 10 for others. Dodger stadium gave Koufax an edge. Don't get me wrong, Koufax deserves the accolades, but his ERA+ gives him one season where he was #1 in MLB. The ERA+ takes ball parks into context so no player with a pitcher friendly stadium would have skewed numbers.
Mattingly set records that have not been broken till this day, only matched. He got a string of gold gloves, batting title, MVP, etc, but just lacked a WS trophy. His postseason performance was excellent though.
In the context that I presented, Koufax and Mattingly had shorter careers, but their peek was considered to be the best in baseball for their era.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I think the likely candidate from that list of eight would be Curt Schilling. No one has gotten over 70% on the BBWAA ballot and never made the HOF eventually.
Should Bonds or Palmeiro make it one day, then the other would have to be voted in too. Bonds has stats that are unmatched and Palmeiro has both 3000 hits and 500 home runs, which were regarded as each being an automatic ticket to Cooperstown.
One day, the list of eight may include David Cone, which I look forward to seeing.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
there are a few pitchers from the 90s who are underappreciated: Cone, Brown, Schilling are 3 I think could be HOFers
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
In my opinion Mattingly and Belle fall short, but with recent hall selections they aren’t undeserving.
David Ortiz opened the door for the PED guys who all deserve to be in.
David Cone has one of the most slam dunk resumes of the last 50 years. I have no idea how he was passed over.
Aside from who is deserving (there is a reasonable case to be made for all of them, as well as about 10-15 other players from that era) it seems to me the HOF has an agenda here, though I’m not sure exactly what it is. After getting many of its preferred older candidates in last year, the HOF restructured the committees to focus attention on more contemporary players, and clearly wants a couple of classes of those players (and a class of managers) from the committees. Then it adopted a 1-year waiting period from BBWA to committee consideration, to take affect after this cycle, ensuring Bonds, Clemens, and Shilling get a vote this time. Then it put three high character guys (with low past support) on with 3 steroid guys and 2 guys who are widely disliked. I don’t believe any of this was coincidental.
2 possibilities occur to me. I think the more likely is that this is set up to result in Mattingly, McGriff, and Murphy going in, with the steroid guys getting fewer than 5 votes and being left of subsequent ballots (like McGwire on this one) as a direct rebuke to them.
The other, I think less likely possibility, is that this is set up to get Bonds and Clemens in by putting them against guys who have not garnered support in the past.
Either way, I think the Hall wants to put to bed discussion of the steroid era as much as possible. We will have a better sense of which direction this is headed when they announce the committee members.
I think McGriff is the most likely to be elected, even if both the camps above are represented in the committee, as the folks who don’t mind steroids may include him to offset Bonds and Clemens, while the folks who hate steroids are likely to vote for him as well.
Agree on Cone. Guy also rose to occasion in the big postseason games. Related note one of the few players (or managers) for which fans of both NY teams love. Him, Yogi, Gooden,Strawberry and Seaver but only to anyone who recalls his years in the Yankee Broadcasting booth. Torre not on list as Met fans do not like him. Sadly same for Randolph and I'm not clear why as I feel he did the best job possible with the Met's teams he managed.
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
I would be okay with the above except since I grew up in the 80's all of my 80's rookie cards would never reach their value potential.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
While you may jest
Sadly the fiscal ramifications is why most here support or do not support a player for election even if they'll never be honest enough to cop to it.
Disclosure - I have ZERO cards of anyone on the list, with the exception of Mattingly and it's limited merely to the ol' beater 1984 Fleer and Topps cards I pulled from packs as child. With only very rare exceptions, I do not collect post 1980 Sports Cards thus I'm not in the market for any of the players on the list.
P.S. Speakign of Post 1980 Sports Cards, ironically enough given my forum name I have zero 1982 Football cards. I do have unopened Wax. It's the Wax wrapper i recall as a small child not any of the cards.
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
looks like it will take 12 votes to enter HOF. I did not see a minimum of 5 votes to stay on ballot though? this was on the HOF website.
also, does anyone know the makeup of the voters? I was unable to find that as well
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
16 member committee, 3 votes each, 12 votes necessary for election. Max 4 elected if it all fell perfectly. Not sure about the less than 5 rule. I heard somewhere that the voters will be announced a week before the committee meets.
This is so stupid that it must come to this but better late than never for the Mr October of pitching (Schilling) I suppose.
As for the Country Music Hall of Fame, Tanya Tucker (Veteran's era; eligible 40 years after first album release) and Clint Black (Modern Era; eligible 25 years after first album release) are LONG overdue.
EDIT: On that related note, we sadly lost Jeff Cook from the HOF band Alabama:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cook
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
I think we'll see McGriff and Murphy get in. Possibly Mattingly.
I followed the AL much more closely than the NL. Of course I heard a lot about Curt's team mate Randy Johnson, but not nearly as much about Curt.
Dallas is good at evaluating players and his strong statement caused me to take a close look at Mr Schilling's numbers.
20 year career, first 4 years were basically of little or no value. Used almost exclusively in relief.
He became a starter in 1992 and played for another 16 seasons.
3 of those years injuries kept him from having a good year. His ERA+ in those years (1994,1995 and 2005) averaged 121!
Of the remaining 13 seasons, he averaged 218 IP.
9 of those years he had an OPS+ between 134 and 159.
3 of his "worst" years, he averaged 193 IP & 122 ERA+.
He had only 1 season (not effected by injury) with an ERA+ of under 100 in 1993 when he threw 235 innings and had a 99.
His 9 year stretch from 1996-2004 has got to be one of the best ever for a starting pitcher.
The only knock on him is he never had one of those huge years in the regular season with an ERA+ in the 180's or so, and maybe his first 4 years.
We all know how good he was in the post season.
I have to agree with dallas here.
We've been over Schilling before. Schilling was great. Period. He did not get voted into the HOF because he has a big mouth and because he's on the "wrong" side of the political aisle. Neither one of those is disqualifying, but the combination is.
And JB, you can save yourself a little time doing the research you're doing by looking at RAA (Runs against average), which is simply a combination of ERA+ and innings pitched. For his career Schilling has an RAA of 488, For comparison, Tom Seaver has 533, Christy Mathewson has 507, and Justin Verlander and Bert Blyleven have 436. (Catfish Hunter has, I kid you not, 35). 488 is elite. Curt Schilling was elite. I'm not a big fan of the various veteran's committee's, but the one legitimate purpose they serve is to correct the mistakes made by the BBWAA. Not electing Schilling was an egregious mistake and it should be fixed.
I don't think it's that Schilling was on the 'wrong' side of the political aisle (lots of MLBers are on that side). CS just spent his entire career trying to anger everyone he came in contact with. Just an unrepentant angry-guy who couldn't get out of his own way. With his personality he'd have to be a mix of Nolan Ryan, Clemens, Mathewson & Koufax to overcome how disliked he was. Then he retired and did the same thing in the real world.
He's good enough to be in too.
I imagine this will be a Braves theme with it likely that no one gets voted in by the writers this year (Rolen, Helton, etc. burning on a long fuse)
I think this has Dale and Fred written all over it. MLB Network was talking them up the other day.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
Baseball needs healing and some good
Pr.. it’s time
To move on and appreciate these dudes / stop letting the fish wrap dictate who’s in or out
Dale seems like a winner in this. Back to back MVPs, plus the anti Schilling, anti PED guy.
Especially after Rice gets in and writers stole the 78 MVP from the rightful winner, Guidry.
>
>
I like to do my year by year research. I learn a lot more that way.
In doing a deep dive on Curt's career, I saw that while he never won a Cy Young, and probably never "deserved" one, he was a superb pitcher every single year, after he became a starter.
Even a couple of years he was hurt, when he pitched, he was outstanding.
He finished up his career with two above average years as well.
Apparently he is very opinionated, I fail to see why that should matter.
Creating an arbitrary standard of 5.7 WAR explains your incorrect conclusion regarding the number of good seasons Belle had. It's silly to argue that his 1999 season where he hit 37 homers with an n OPS+ of 143 was not "good" despite the WAR of 3.4. Same with 1993 with his 38 homers and OPS+ of 145.
8 seasons of OPS+ of 123, 9 seasons of 28+ homers but, sure, Belle only had 5 good seasons. C'mon.
Koufax had 6, 1961-66.
I mention Koufax because the knock on Belle is his longevity despite the fact that he had a career-ending injury similar to Koufax.
Keith Hernandez had the better career and should be on the ballot over Mattingly.
If Mattingly gets in, then the Hall of Fame will have to get a limo for Keith Hernandez next year.
If Hernandez gets in, so should John Olerud.
Mattingly had a near parallel career path to one of my favorite players - Nomar Garciaparra.
A superstar right out of the gate, 6-7 great seasons, and career ultimately slowed early due to injury .
Ultimately, in my opinion both came up 2-3 All-Star caliber seasons away from the HOF.
I'll avoid arbitrary standards, and simply list actual Win Shares for Belle and some others, from best season down to 10th best:
Belle: 37, 31, 30, 27, 24, 24, 18, 16, 15, 15
First, let's start with Biggio, a player many here thought got in to the HOF because he was a "compiler", and wasn't actually very good.
Biggio: 38, 35, 32, 32, 31, 29, 26, 26, 25, 20
Yeah, he compiled some ordinary seasons beyond that, but while he played the prime of his career, he beat Belle in each and every one of their top 10 seasons, and Belle has nothing beyond that, ordinary or otherwise. Silly comparison, Biggio was in a different value universe than Albert Belle.
Or Will Clark, who isn't in the HOF.
Clark: 44, 37, 34, 28, 25, 25, 20, 19, 19, 18
Again, he beats Belle in each and every season. Will Clark was a lot better than Albert Belle. A LOT better.
Jimmy Wynn?
Wynn: 37, 32, 32, 31, 28, 28, 28, 21, 18, 17
Belle ekes out one tie, but otherwise Wynn also takes all of the top 10. Jimmy Wynn was a lot better than Albert Belle. A LOT better.
So far, I've only compared Belle to players that were a mile and a half better than he was. Who was closer?
Bobby Murcer: 38, 36, 27, 25, 21, 21, 20, 20, 19, 18
Murcer wins 6 out of 10, but Belle wins 4. Murcer wins the Top 10 total by 8, and has a couple more good enough seasons beyond that. Bobby Murcer was better than Albert Belle, but not a lot better.
Roy White: 34, 29, 29, 26, 26, 22, 21, 19, 17, 15
White wins 4, Belle wins 5, with one tie. Total for their top 10 is White 238, Belle 237 - let's call that a tie. White played only one more season of any value (Belle none). Within the limits of statistical comparison, Albert Belle is effectively the equal of Roy White. {Note that Jim Rice is also 4-5-1 vs. Belle, loses the total, but has 2 more good enough seasons. He is also effectively equal to Belle and White.}
Amos Otis: 29, 29, 27, 25, 25, 23, 22, 22, 18, 17
Here we have a dead heat: Belle 5, Otis 5. Total for the top 10 - also a dead heat. By virtue of Belle's peak, I'll break the tie and say Belle was a very little bit better than Amos Otis.
That we are talking about Albert Belle being a HOFer is depressing. Just depressing. Otis, White, and Murcer were all fine players. Albert Belle was a fine player, too. But none of them was worthy of carrying Jimmy Wynn's jockstrap, and none of them are close to being HOFers. Not. Even. Close.
Might be an old school view on my part, and some of the above listed candidates may be worthy, if you don't get in in the first go round, it seems like an afterthought to get in via vet. comm.
Boston Globe's argument for Ortiz last year was something very close to "Ortiz didn't break any beloved records like Bonds and Clemens did, so it's OK to vote for him despite the PEDs."
Arbitrary standard of 5.7 WAR was to get Belle's 3rd and 4th best seasons to the line of "good" but not let other people's seasons that were nearly as good not count for them. In other words, to give Belle every advantage possible.
In 1993, Belle was 4th in home runs and 8th in OPS+. This was the season I offered as a "pretty good" season. It's embarrassing to compare it to 1995 or 1998.
In 1999 he barely squeaked into the top ten in those categories. I mean, a good year, but he was no Shawn Green was said by nobody ever.
In 1991 and 1992 Belle pretty much evenly divided his time between Left Field and DH. A, frankly, bad corner OF/DH with 38 players having a better OPS+ than him or 14 with more HR than him.
Just for fun, there are 39 players with 9 or more seasons of 28 home runs, 278 with 8 or more OPS+ of 123. If this is the best argument you can bring for Belle's "good" seasons, I suggest you don't have much of a case.
Look, Belle was really good in 1995 and 1998. It is inexplicable how he was 3rd in MVP voting in 1996.
You're asking us to consider a guy elite whose only value was as a slugger, yet was only 72nd in career home runs and 54th in OPS+ in a relatively short career. A good player, and he wouldn't be the worst in the HoF by ay means, but not among the 100 most deserving players not enshrined.
A word about lowering Hall standards: many people have decried the lowering of Hall standards by enshrining the likes of Morris, Baines, and Kaat. They say that if this is the standard then this guy or that guy should be inducted, like if Jim Kaat is a HoFer, how can you exclude Jamie Moyer? If Baines is in, how can the vastly superior Daryl Strawberry, or even Reggie Sanders be left out? But this misses the point. By the end of the 1940s there were already players like Herb Pennock and Tommy McCarthy enshrined, and standards can't possibly be as lot as they were on the various committees at the end of the '60s through the mid '70s. It's impossible to imagine the standard being lower than it was then. There have been, and always will be, baffling choices, but they are not the standard. We owe it to ourselves not to exacerbate the problem.
BTW, there are 299 players with more WAR than Belle not enshrined, 190 position players and 109 pitchers. Not all of them are more worthy, of course, but absent some very, very good reason otherwise, Belle needs to pay admission just like I do.