C.C. Sabathia HOF?
craig44
Posts: 11,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
He is up on the ballot for the first time. threw over 3500 innings, over 3K strikeouts. had a CY young award. part of a world series team. He seems similar to Andy Pettitte to me, with Pettitte having a better post season resume, and Pettitte is not in.
I think CC gets in. I am not so sure it is on the first ballot. I have a feeling he may be one of those 3rd or 4th ballot guys.
what do you think?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
0
Comments
I think he should be in on first ballot and will be enshrined for sure. He’s got a shot at first ballot but I think it’s unlikely.
HOF and probably first ballot
If it were up to me I would say no. I think the HOF should be the hall of the elite not the very good.
With that said, yes I do think he will get in and he should get in with the precedents that have been set
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I would personally lean no on CC. Piggy backing on what @Baseball21 said above I also believe the HOF should be reserved for the elite, CC would be in that very good club for me but not he HOF. But for example, looking at HOF Jim Kaat's stats as a comparison then I believe CC will be voted in.
55th all time WAR for pitchers and if he hadn't pitched in NY, nobody would remember his name.
The bar for HoF induction is so low now with Kaat's induction that everyone will get in.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
55th all time. That’s trash. It should be limited to 5 players at a time.
He can't see your quote or my reply, but it is funny when people actually make the case against what they are saying.
Part of my joy is that he doesn’t see it.
Mistlin is pure gold!
He said Curt Schilling only finished second in cy young voting 3 different times so doesn’t deserve the HOF.
So yeah he kind of doesn’t understand how to present a players stats in a way that favors his particular opinion about that player.
In content of his ERA Sabathia IMHO is a HOF but not a first ballot one. The game has changed and still evolves. The paradigm of 300 wins for example is now unrealistic.
as for Pettite I feel the same, however Clemens influence on him circa 2000-2005 removes him from consideration.
My post pertains strictly to the players mentioned in it. Please do not straw-man it to other pitchers.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
First ballot or 10th ballot shouldnt matter. Someone is either a HOFer or they arent
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Never forget it took Joe DiMaggio three tries. Four if you count the vote he got on 1945 before he retired
Im okay with it if voters run out of votes thinking that the votes they cast were better. Im just vehemently opposed to the idea of not voting for someone because of their ballot year which happens in all sports. It just makes no sense when people say I wont vote for them the first time but I plan on doing it a few ballots later which baseball and football are really bad about.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Voting was different then and there were factors in play for that situation. It wasn't because he was not considered what we call a 'first ballot' player today. On the contrary, if the five year rule were in place then, Dimaggio would likely have been a unanimous enshrine.
Here is an article that give a little light on how that unfolded.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/733813/2018/12/26/posnanski-how-the-lack-of-hall-of-fame-unanimity-became-a-thing-and-why-it-should-end-with-mariano-rivera/
"1953: The (non-)election of Joe DiMaggio.
After Gehrig’s special election, there wasn’t a player who could realistically garner unanimous support … until Joe DiMaggio retired in 1951. Oh, did the New York writers idolize Joe D. He was, to them, the ideal player — stoic, graceful, silent and (as they often told you) he never once missed a cutoff man or threw to the wrong base. He hit in 56 consecutive games in 1941, and believe it or not there was some talk in that moment of inducting him into the Hall of Fame automatically just for that achievement.
Advertisement
There have been many efforts, at different times in baseball history, to create a “Go Directly to Cooperstown, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200” card. This really came to a head in 1953 when the influential writer Joe Williams pushed a proposal that anyone who hit .400 in a season or threw a perfect game would automatically be put into the Hall of Fame. The proposal was approved and promoted by Commissioner Ford Frick himself. It was eventually spurned by the writers, but it was a real thing for a while there.
Anyway, in 1953, DiMaggio had been retired for about a year, and some of the New York writers had this notion that the Yankee Clipper, like Gehrig, ought to go in into the Hall of Fame unanimously. There was no possibility of a Gehrig-like special election — DiMaggio was quite healthy and, at the time, together with Marilyn Monroe — so instead the New Yorkers badgered their fellow writers incessantly. It backfired. DiMaggio got just 44.3 percent of the vote.
The post-election fireworks were something to see.
“Maybe Marilyn Monroe has more admirers in the BBWAA than she suspects,” wrote the New York Mirror’s Dan Parker, suggesting that jealousy cost DiMaggio.
“Had not the sportswriters in New York taken the stump on behalf of DiMag there’s a slim possibility he might have made it,” St. Louis writer Robert L. Burnets wrote. “The writers in New York will speed his entrance into the Hall if they’d just quit telling the rest of us how we should vote.”
“What it amounted to,” New York World-Telegram’s Bill Roeder said, “was the baseball writers told Joe DiMaggio to wait at the doorstep until they’re good and ready to let him in.”
Here’s the thing: If the current rules had been in place so that DiMaggio did not appear on the Hall of Fame ballot until he had been retired for five years, there’s a chance that he would have been elected unanimously. It’s not likely, but there’s a chance.
Advertisement
But the five-year rule didn’t come into effect until after the DiMaggio mess — it’s basically the Joe DiMaggio rule — and so this whole thing became a fiasco. DiMaggio should not even have been on the next year’s ballot, but he was grandfathered in and again failed to get elected.
The embarrassed writers finally put him in in 1955, setting up the “Hey, if Joe DiMaggio wasn’t good enough to get elected unanimously…” argument that would be repeated again and again for more than 50 years."
If you’re wondering why the “first ballot” topic has come up multiple times, it’s because the OP invoked it.
As far as it mattering. It certainly does, to many people. Should it is the question. No one knows the voters minds better than you, and I agree with what I think is your principle - that voters should just use their votes for the best candidates and stop managing votes to let people linger who otherwise wouldn’t or play weird snub games or turn it into a popularity contest. I think that how many votes and how many years should matter… if the voters wouldn’t play baby-games so often. Some of them. Not all of course.
I'm not very bullish on him being a HOFer. Lifetime 116 ERA+ in 3,577 innings is good, but not amazing. His peak isn't amazing either when looking from that angle. Again, maybe very good.
Some might say his lifetime ERA+ is higher than Carlton's(115), but lefty pitched 5,200 innings and he had amazing peak years so those are vast differences...but that is a different era anyway.
The guy in Sabathia's era that is just as good is Mark Buehrle. 3,200 IP and a 117 ERA+. The difference is the 3,000 strikeout club, which is a nice bonus, but still they really aren't much different.
Then you still have Schillling sitting outside with a 127 ERA+ in 3,200 IP and an excellent peak.
Cole Hamels 123 ERA+ in 2,700 IP. Less IP but the rate is better to make that close too. Same team photo there.
Someone already mentioned Pettite.
From just around the bend from his era, Saberhagen and Cone are just as good and certainly better peaks.
Kevin Brown is still waiting with a 127 ERA+ in 3,256 IP. He is clearly better.
There are other similar ones, but there are enough to say, Sabathia should get in line behind Schilling, Brown for absolute certain, then Saberhagen, and Cone....and stand next to Buehrle and Pettite while in line.
Schillingand Brown both more deserving.
Brown rarely gets mentioned, I wonder why.
While the HOF has a hierarchy of the elite of the elite all the way down to the guys that probably shouldnt be there, ballot number should make no difference. Someones career doesnt improve because theyre voted in on the first ballot, just like it doesnt get worse because it was the 5th ballot.
Theoretically the percentage of votes should matter, in reality it doesnt. Ruth got less than 96 percent of the vote, Williams less than 94 percent, Frank Tomas under 84 percent, Gwynn, Girffey Jr etc all had people not vote for them. As you mentioned theres just to many voters that are vindictive and petty with their votes for countless reasons. Then theres people that arent even being petty but just refuse to vote for people the first time. One guy even brags about turning in blank ballots, Im really not sure how he didnt lose his vote after doing that.
Rivera shouldnt be the only 100 percent guy and theres just far to many examples of no doubt hall of famers over multiple generations for the percentage of votes to be meaningful for where a player should stand in the hierarchy of the hall. The really messed up part is a lot of those guys probably would have gotten a higher percentage on the second ballot if they hadnt passed the threshold on the first one
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Most likely wins being held to the 300 win standard during his time. Hes certainly better than a number of pitchers that have been getting in since him. McGriff has the same issue with the 500 HR standard but they corrected that later on with the committee voting, It is interesting they didnt do the same with Brown
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
An easy fix to Hall of Famer voters determining the hierarchy with first-ballot nonsense:
Keep the same eligibility for players appearing on ballots five years after retirement, but they get ONE year of voting eligibility. Like was said above, you are either a hall of famer or you are not. For voters to hold the power to prioritize players and make them wait, sometimes many years, to be eventually voted in?
Ridiculous.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary