New HOFers announced Monday at 1PM
jimtb
Posts: 704 ✭✭
Here's who eligible:
The list and bios
I'm rooting hard for Trammell and Morris, although they have no shot. Boggs is a lock. Could it be Blyleven or Rice's year?
The list and bios
I'm rooting hard for Trammell and Morris, although they have no shot. Boggs is a lock. Could it be Blyleven or Rice's year?
Collecting all graded Alan Trammell graded cards as well as graded 1984 Topps, Donruss, and Fleer Detroit Tigers
0
Comments
The Veterans committee votes this year I think. No one got in last time- for better or worse Marvin Miller changed the game forever and should be in- there are a few others as well, but I doubt any pre war players will get in.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
I'm not actually rooting for ALL of them in the same year, that would be silly. But I would like to see or two of those get in before the next few batches are full of sure things. And I think one of them will, maybe Dawson or Ryno. Boggs won't be the only inductee, I'm betting.
This could be Cub and BoSox year for the HOF - Boggs is a lock, and Sandberg, Dawson, Rice, Sutter, Gossage (1 year as a Cub), and Smith are also possible.
Oh, and if the Veterans Committee votes in Ron Santo (in probably the last time he'd be able to accept the honor in person), I would not be surprised.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Boggs gets my vote!
The Veterens committee needs to go away...to much "buddy system" going on to take them serious!
Chili Davis quietly smacked 350 home runs, and has overall statistics that are arguably better than Dale Murphy's - of course, not HOF material.
Tommy John pitched 26 seasons, missed 1975 for his surgury, and then pitched 13 seasons after that, and managed a lifetime 3.34 ERA... that's amazing when you think about it. I'll still take Blyleven over him, with 287 wins and a 3.31 lifetime ERA... not many guys can match those type of numbers, especially over 20+ seasons.
Jack Morris threw 175 complete games out of 527 starts. Morris should be in the HOF in my opinion, he was far and away one of the best pitchers in the league during the 1980's, which is why Ozzie Smith is in... he is considered the best (really the only noteworthy) SS in the NL during the 80's. Trammell was much better than Ozzie Smith ever was overall, but he'll never get in because he was overshadowed in the AL by superior shortstops (Ripken, Yount).
No to Gossage, Sutter, Smith and the other closers on the list. Is the closer role really that much of a necessity? I don't think it is, certainly not in the capacity that it is used today.
I also say no to Dawson, Rice & Sandberg... not HOF calibur.
<< <i>does anyone think that jim abbout desrves special consideration not for just his accomplishments but for overcoming his handicap? >>
i do but not for the HOF.
BERT BLYLEVEN
WADE BOGGS
ANDRE DAWSON
and rocky colavito
Modern-Era Semi-Finalists for the Class of 2005
... the list will be reduced to 13 modern-era candidates and then will increase to 15 finalist nominees with the inclusion of the two recommended candidates of the Hall of Fame's Senior Committee ...
2005 Senior Nominees
Maybe only Boggs will get in this year? They should be compared to who's in the MLB HOF vs. each other - although that's what will happen. Most on the MLB list were good - not great. It's not always stats, but how they impacted the game.
Hall of Fame Election Results for 2004
There are some major differences between the Sandberg and Whittaker.
Sandberg had 9 gold gloves, Whittaker 3. Sandberg had 10 All Star appearances to Whittaker's 5. Sandberg had about 200 more stolen bases than Whittaker. Sandberg had an MVP and led the league in Runs 3 times and Homers, Triples and total bases once. I couldnt find where Whittaker led the league in anything except total games played in a season.
When Sandberg retired he had the most home runs ever by a second baseman and was tied for the highest fielding percentage ever by a second baseman.
Hitting, fielding and base running. He was complete and was the dominant NL second baseman of his era.
The only thing that kept him from being a megastar was the fact that his personality is very boring.
I hope he finally makes it this year.
Im also thinking that Boggs is a lock. My dark horse is Jim Rice for current and Santo for the veterans.
I agree with you 100% Koby. Boggs is a lock and, based on last year's voting, Sandberg has an excellent shot too. One of Gossage, Sutter or Dawson might sneak in. If they don't, they'll all have a great shot next year. There are no new HOF candidates coming up next year and voters will have to vote for someone. Borderline guys can forget about 2006 though. McGwire, Ripken and Gwynn are all locks.
BTW - The 2005 inductees will be announced on Tuesday, not Monday.
I understand your enthusiasm for your guy. Keep in mind that lack of competition (Gold Gloves) and winning a popularity contest (All Star appearances) don't necessairily equate to greatness. Look at these stats comparing Whitaker to HOFers currently in the hall. The stats are about half way down the page:
Link
With Whitaker and Sandberg's stats so close, there is a strong argument that both should be in, based upon the second basemen already in the hall. By the way, if you think Ryno was boring, he was Babe Ruth compared to the Jehova Witness Lou Whitaker!
And since we're talking about specialists, arguably the best DH in history just retired. Do DH's belong in there before closers?
I wish there were some place for Jim Abbott in all this. It's a shame there are wasted talents like Strawberry, Gooden, and Howe when someone with so much guts played so hard.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
Dave Parker,
Black Ink: Batting - 26 (68) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 145 (95) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 41.1 (133) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 125.5 (101) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.
In terms of comparable players, Smith's best comparison is Jeff Reardon, while Gossage's is Rollie Fingers (and Gossage's 2nd best is another HOFer, Hoyt Wilhelm).
I have no problem with the election of closers or DH's to the HOF. There are 2 DH's I'd like to see elected - Harold Baines and Edgar Martinez.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<<meanwhile
Dave Parker,
Black Ink: Batting - 26 (68) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 145 (95) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 41.1 (133) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 125.5 (101) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses. >>
I'll see your Dave Parker and raise you an Andre Dawson.
Black Ink: Batting - 11 (201) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 164 (66) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 43.7 (111) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 118.0 (114) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.
Here's the detailed head-to-head comparison
MVP Awards: 1 each (Parker had 5 other top 10 finishes, Dawson had 3)
Gold Gloves: Dawson 8, Parker 3
All-Star Appearances: Dawson 8, Parker 7 (Parker had All-Star MVP Award)
Batting titles: Parker 2, Dawson 0
Slugging titles: Parker 2, Dawson 0
Hits titles: 1 apiece
Total Bases titles: Parker 3, Dawson 2
Doubles titles: Parker 2, Dawson 0
HR titles: Dawson 1, Parker 0
RBI titles: 1 apiece
Games played: Dawson 31st, Parker 52nd
At Bats: Dawson 25th, Parker 41st
Runs: Dawson 80th, Parker not in top 100
Hits: Dawson 43rd, Parker 54th
Total Bases, Dawson 24th, Parker 39th
Doubles: Parker 30th, Dawson 41st
HR: Dawson 30th, Parker 74th
RBI: Dawson 28th, Parker 43rd
Extra Base hits: Dawson 21st, Parker 38th
Times on base: Dawson 87th, Parker 88th
HBP: Dawson 39th, Parker not in top 100
IBB: Parker 22nd, Dawson 42nd
Power-speed #: Dawson 6th, Parker 57th.
I support Parker's election, but Dawson IMO is more deserving.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>
I support Parker's election, but Dawson IMO is more deserving.
Nick >>
then they both get in but what was dawson's .obp on the road after
the 6th inning at night with 2 strikes and batting 4th in the month of september ???,
ahchahhh,
James
I've already established that my opinion doesn't matter, BUT, as far as guys who I think are deserving, but doubt will ever make it, Bert Blyleven and Lee Smith top that list. Jim Rice is close, but I think he just missed the mark.
I truly believe that a team with good pitching (starting and relief) will win the same number of games with or without the closer. Let's take a team like St. Louis. Last season, they had very good starting pitching as well as excellent relief. Say Isringhausen was not the closer, just another arm in the bullpen who typically was called in when they were in a jam anytime after the 5th inning, just like any other reliever would be. (If the pitcher is not in a jam, unless they are injured or just dead tired, there is no reason to bring in a reliever.) Is the rest of their bullpen, who pitched so well (several had better ERA's & WHIP's than Izzy), going to suddenly pitch worse because they pitch in a different inning? Absolutely not. And the argument that the closer is a nerve racking job because the game is on the line... that is a crock... every game is always on the line in every inning, except for the occasional blow-out. Theoretically, that would mean any middle reliever could take the mound in the 7th, with a 2 run lead, thinking... well, there's 3 innings left, the game is not on the line yet, so I can afford to screw up a couple times and not be nervous about the situation? Versus the closer who has to do exactly the same thing the other reliever needs to do, just a different inning. Do players batting skills elevate suddenly in the ninth inning of a game in which their team trails? I think not.
I, and I know many of you, read Bill James and his Baseball Abstract and for the most part I think the man is an absolute genius. But he screwed up big time with his calculation of Win Shares for closers and I suspect he probably knows it. He says that if closers are treated the same as starters then none of them would make his top 100 list, probably not his top 200. Well, he retreats from that conclusion and comes up with a different system just for closers - a system designed with the result he wants, namely to put a handful of closers in his top 100.
His system is based on the idea that since runs allowed in the late innings are more likely (I forget the number but let's say 3 times as likely) to affect the outcome of the game, then an out in a late inning is 3 times more valuable than an out in an early inning. Since it is closer's who get most of those outs, his system says they are as valuable as a starter pitching 3 times as many innings, all other stats equal.
Well, that is nonsense. For one thing, his system does not give starter's extra credit for late inning outs when they pitch a complete game, but gives a reliever triple credit FOR THE SAME OUTS if the starter is pulled. Also, and more importantly, somebody has to get those outs and ANYBODY could. If a team has two identical pitchers and draws straws to determine at the start of the season which one will pitch every ninth inning (Pitcher A) and which will pitch every 6th inning (Pitcher
They do not belong in either place.
Yes, I know I have oversimplified it. Teams do not have 5 identical relief pitchers, and the one who is chosen to be the closer is not chosen at random but because he is better than the others. But there is no reason to think that he is 3 times better than the others: when Bruce Sutter pitched for the Cardinals I loved him, but he was maybe 10% better than Jeff Lahti. Jeff Lahti should get 0 consideration for the HOF, and Sutter should get 10% more (for the math-impaired, that's still 0).
Smoltz has a short period of such dominance, but combined with his career as a starter, is a likely HOF candidate.
Gagne seems well on his way to joining them.
Lee Smith is questionable IMO, and Reardon is doubtful (not generally that dominant).
Worrell, Quisenberry, Righetti, Wagner, Wetteland, Nen, Myers, Percival, etc. are generally in the Reardon class - either not dominant enough, or having too short a peak period.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Rice, Dawson and Sandberg get a windfall of votes, because starting next season there are a lot of first-ballot locks who will be appearing. Writers who have been on the fence with those guys may be motivated to vote for them this year, because starting next year, they don't have a chance.
Now, to the closer argument: all my opinion, of course.
Gossage belongs in the Hall. The guy was absolutely dominant; he pitched 2-3 inning saves (look at the guy's innings pitched in the 70s) for the majority of his career, and - most important - he helped define the role of the closer.
Sutter belongs as well, although I don't think he's as deserving as Gossage. However, the guy was a monster, and he practically invented the split-fingered fastball.
Lee Smith does not belong. He has the saves record partially because of longevity, and partially because the rules defining a save were changed during his career to make it much easier to record a save when there was no "fire" to put out. A guy like Gossage would come in with the bases loaded in the seventh, clinging to a one-run lead, and pitch the rest of the game. This is also why you can't look at stats like losses or ERA when it comes to a closer. Case in point:
Let's say it's 1978. The Yankees are winning, 2-1 in the 7th, with the bases loaded. Rich Gossage comes in and gives up a two run single, then pitches the rest of the game and the Yanks lose, 3-2. Gossage has a 0.00 ERA for the game, gives up one hit, but takes the loss.
On the other hand, fast forward to 1988. Lee Smith comes into the game with a 2-1 lead in the 9th, with nobody on, pitches to the bottom of the order, gives up a single then strikes out the side. Smith has a 0.00 ERA for the game, gives up one hit, and gets a save.
There's only one modern closer (modern being post-1985 or so) who belongs in the Hall, and that's Mariano Rivera. Throw all the conjecture out the window with respect to Rivera, who has pitched the Yankees through eight or nine postseasons with very few flubs.
-Al
I agree with your assessment that the modern closer is not as meaningful a role as it was in the past, but I disagree on a couple of your points.
I don't think the modern closer was invented by player agents, although they're certainly quick to jump on that bandwagon for their clients. I think the modern closer sprung out of baseball's (and all pro sports, for that matter) annoying tendency to try to mimic the strategy of a winning team. The first "successful" one-inning closer was Dennis Eckersley. After the A's cleaned up in the mid-80s, and Eck got the reputation for being an unhittable one-inning pitcher, other teams began experimenting with the same strategy. After all, if your manager is labelled a "genius", he's got to be doing something right. It was really after that when the one-inning closer began to pick up steam.
I also don't think monitoring pitch counts is THAT recent a development. I think there are a couple of things at play with respect to pitch count: first, in the American League, the DH adds a certain number of pitches per game for a starter, which could cause a pitcher to go less deep into a game. I would love to see a comparison of the average number of pitches per game in the AL, pre-DH and post-DH. If the DH gets four at bats a game, and takes two more pitches than a pitcher would have, that's about half of an inning of EXTRA pitches for some pitchers. Second, when players suddenly started getting big money, all of a sudden a pitcher was an INVESTMENT. All you need to do is look at Andy Messersmith or Don Gullett to realize why Pedro Martinez gets hooked after 100 pitches.
Lastly, a quick response to dallasactuary - I love many of Bill James' theories as well. However, James falls short when he tries to devise a mathematical formula for a part of the game that's all about heart and nerves and guts. At one time, he felt that the closer's role was overstated, and that the closer might be better off pitching BEFORE the ninth inning (say, if the heart of the order was due up in the eighth). So he felt that teams could succeed with "closer by committee". Once he got on Boston's payroll and tried this for a season, he could see it didn't work. Regardless of whether or not the modern closer is as meaningful a role as it sounds, James and the Red Sox realized pretty quickly that light-headed guys like Ramiro Mendoza were not equipped to close out a game. So he went back on his theory, signed Keith Foulke, and won a World Series.
Bill James can call Derek Jeter a poor fielder, but he can't create a statistic for Jeter's shovel pass in Oakland, or his headlong dive into the stands against Boston. With a great game like baseball, sometimes things can't be captured in a formula.
-Al
We have an extra day of arguing
No one should be inducted into the Hall of Fame until AFTER I have acquired their rookie card cheap. I am indiscriminately selfish. I have Dave Kingman's rookie in PSA 9 -- therefore he should get in.
Seriously, someone said Jeter should get in because Ozzie did. I think that must have been tongue-in-cheek, since Derek's defense might charitably be described as adequate (famous dive into the stands aside). He might get in for other reasons, like being a key component of the modern Yankees dynasty, and for a time he was considered one of the three top hitting shortstops in the league.
But the Ozzie point raises the question ... Omar Vizquel when his turn comes?
<< <i>MLB.com notes that the announcement is actually on Tuesday, January 4 at 1 pm. >>
I thought it was the 4th also. But I thought a day earlier I will go with it!
James
<< <i>Important Dates for 2005Important Dates for 2005
January 4: HOF election results announced
February 22: Frick Award honoree announced
March 2: HOF Veterans results announced
May 23: HOF Game, Red Sox vs. Tigers
July 31: 2005 Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony
The Class of 2005
On Tuesday at 2 PM, the 2005 Hall of Fame inductee class will be announced live online
>>
<< <i>Something I've never understood - how has there never been a consensus 100% vote for a first ballot HOFer? I mean, who in their right mind would not have voted for the guys who are obvious locks? Are there some who just feel that nobody should get 100% of the vote? >>
The method of selection has changed greatly in the last 70 years, so that's part of it, but yes, there are some writers who apparently never vote for anyone in their first year of eligibility. A guy like Nolan Ryan got something like 98.5% (too lazy to look it up) because 3 or 4 guys either wouldn't unclench, or else they genuinely thought he was, I don't know, overrated or something. The fact the even men with unassailable resumes like Mike Schmidt or Tom Seaver couldn't do it means that there is always going to be something a little uncertain with HOF voting.
2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs
Nothing on ebay
I think Morris deserves to get in as well. He was dominant for many years, but never played in a big market.
As much of a tiger fan as I am, I wouldn't vote for Whitaker. He was very, very good, great even, but not HOF material IMHO.
Joe
Jim
<< <i>Aw crap, I put the wrong day, the announcement is Tuesday at 1, not Monday. Sorry.
I have been clicking the refresh button on the ESPN page all morning!
Great thread though. Always interesting to talk about who is deserving and who is not.
<< <i>He was almost as good as Ozzie in the field (.977 vs. .978), ... He just didn't do backflips.
Ozzie batted .173 in his World Series appearances, Tram .450.
Tram was a difference maker, Ozzie was not.
>>
1. Ouch! As a fielder, Ozzie was head and shoulders over every other shortstop of his time, including Trammell. Fielding percentage does favor the better fielders but it also favors those who don't try for the hard ones. Ozzie's range factors dwarf Trammell's (and everybody else's) which is impressive considering he had so many more Gold Gloves to carry around.
2. True, but it hardly seems fair to leave out the Playoffs where Ozzie was a stud, even winning an NLCS MVP.
3. Tell that to the Dodgers.
2460 hits
28 HRs
793 RBIs
.262 Avg
Hall of Famer?
MAN, he was fun to watch. That play that was rerun over and over again during his induction, from his San Diego days, when he dives over the middle, fully outstretched, and then reaches up with his bare hand to snare the ball after it took a wicked hop? That's the greatest defensive play I've ever seen.
But you can't put him in the Hall of Fame based on that play and a few somersaults. Certainly not on the first ballot.
In my opinion, Ozzie Smith = Mark Belanger + showmanship + nice guy.
Here's another one I think is interesting:
PLAYER A PLAYER B
Seasons Played 14 12
Games Played 1785 1783
At Bats 7003 7244
Batting Average .307 .318
Home Runs 222 207
RBI 1099 1085
Doubles 442 414
Triples 20 57
OBP .358 .360
SLUG .471 .477
MVP Awards 1 0
Gold Gloves 8 6
All-Stars 6 10
OPS .830 .837
Both players had their careers cut short because of injury.
They look virtually identical, don't they?
Player A is Don Mattingly. Player B is Kirby Puckett. So does Mattingly belong in the Hall, or does Puckett belong out of it?
-Al
However, that being said, we can't go around and vote other marginal players in simply because these 2 were fortunate enough to get voted in.
The only player from this lot who should be in the hall is Wade Boggs. All the others are simply not hall of fame material.