HOF Binder - who doesn't belong?

Buccaneer

As some know, I am working exclusively on raw vintage sets but I unfortunately have two banker boxes full of 80s stuff that I really don't want to keep. Included are about 1000 star cards for the years 1982-1989. What I have decided to do is to put the HOFers (only) in a large binder and then give the rest away to a charitable organization, as I have done with the tens of thousands of other 80s stuff.

My question is who should I and should not keep. So far, in working my way up through the years and brands, it's been fairly easy. I have pages and pages of players like Gwynn, Ripken, Schmidt, Rose (I know), Boggs, Brett, Yount, Ryan, Sandberg, Clemens (I know), Carlton, Jackson, Carew, Seaver. Murray, Ozzie and Puckett.

Some of the later years will include Bonds/McGwire (I know, again, may be tossed eventually), Maddux, Glavine and Griffey Jr.

Then it gets a little harder. What about:

Palmiero
Larkin
Alomar

Based on the HOF votes this year, can I safely discard:

Mattingly
Will Clark
Raines
Joe Carter

(Yes, I know this could dissolve into another HOF debate but I am not interested in hearing from those who's favorite player is being robbed by voters. All I am asking is whether those on the latter lists will or will never make it.)

Thank you.

Griffins

Keep Alomar, forget Palmiero (steroids) and Larkin (overshadowed by other great shortstops in his era).

edited to say I agree on passing on the bottom 4 as well. You can add an extra 10% on the vote to any NY player, but it still won't get enough to get Mattingly in.

Buccaneer

and forget about the bottom 4?

WinPitcher

Steve

I'd keep all the stars regardless if they would make the HOF.

Guys that are on the cusp should be saved.


Steve

julen23

i agree w/ old guy steve.

j

Buccaneer

Steve, but that's my point. Those with only 15-25% of the votes are not on the cusp nor will they be?

WinPitcher

Steve

I wasn't going by votes, I was going by stats and my opinion.

Guys like Munson, Mattingly, Carter, heck even Jamie Moyer

I guess I should have said:

stars and the guys on the cusp?

Steve

CDsNuts

Why limit it to HOFers? Why not just make a binder of the guys you personally consider great over the last two decades? Just curious because I really don't understand why somebody's cards become more desireable because of whatever bug the HOF voters happen to get up their butt that year. 10 years ago, Gossage and Sutter were not considered HOF material, now they are and their cards sell for more. It's like if you don't get in you weren't a superstar, which is BS.

Buccaneer

I understand Steve but I do have to weed them out and HOF seems to be a good objective criteria. I have too many cards that do not mean much to me but the idea of a HOF Binder seems attractive to me.

Buccaneer

<< <i>Why limit it to HOFers? Why not just make a binder of the guys you personally consider great over the last two decades? Just curious because I really don't understand why somebody's cards become more desireable because of whatever bug the HOF voters happen to get up their butt that year. 10 years ago, Gossage and Sutter were not considered HOF material, now they are and their cards sell for more. It's like if you don't get in you weren't a superstar, which is BS. >>



Because HOF seems to be a good criteria even though, in my opinion, there are way too many players in there that don't belong. Over the past several years though, I believe the HOF voters have done a good job, as long as they keep the Vet Committee nerfed.

MDCards

I think that only Raines has a chance from your bottom group (and perhaps Mattingly by the time he fully leaves the game).

You also have Biggio, R Johnson, Smoltz, Schilling etc at the tail end of that date range

TomGshotput

The sports writers have gone from doing an overall outstanding job to absolute stupidity in their selections, so the only answer is who knows?

But if I had to handicap, of the seven you listed from most likely to least likely
Alomar
Larkin
Raines
Palmerio
Clark
Mattingly
Carter

Raines and Palmerio are both big time drug users, with Palmerio also a liar. Character is supposed to be considered, but the voters have changed so much so quickly on that issue, it could very well change again in the next dozen years

It has always amazed me how so much value of baseball cards rests in the Hall-of-Fame vote. If it is that important why not collect cards of Frank Deford instead of Tony Perez?

VitoCo1972

<< <i>I think that only Raines has a chance from your bottom group (and perhaps Mattingly by the time he fully leaves the game).

You also have Biggio, R Johnson, Smoltz, Schilling etc at the tail end of that date range >>



I also believe Raines will eventually get in. Gammons wrote a GREAT column about his candidacy a month ago. I'll find it in a bit and post it here. Keep his cards for the moment.

RipublicaninMass

well it comes down to TRASH and SAVE. So in that case save the cusp guys, that is what I do. Hell I just found whole bunch of bonds cards I put away in 1992 before there was any hint of him breaking the record. Also, there was Kevin Brown, greg maddux, thse guys are worth keeping. Those and my red sox, red sox like John Tudor, andre dawson, etc worth more than Rich Gedman and Glen Hoffman. In short SAVE pile and TRASH/DONATE pile. BTW found like 10 larkins, going in the save pile

Buccaneer

During those years, I only purposely collected Gwynn (and Rose) cards. The rest I just happened to have because I bought way too much new s---. I can't keep all of them and like the idea of donating the ones I don't want to keep.

Buccaneer

<< <i>

<< <i>I think that only Raines has a chance from your bottom group (and perhaps Mattingly by the time he fully leaves the game).

You also have Biggio, R Johnson, Smoltz, Schilling etc at the tail end of that date range >>



I also believe Raines will eventually get in. Gammons wrote a GREAT column about his candidacy a month ago. I'll find it in a bit and post it here. Keep his cards for the moment. >>



I remember that Raines column but apparently it didn't impress many people, esp. with 24.3% of the votes. Has any player gotten so few votes and end up making it (non-Vet)?

Estil

Raines will no doubt go in the HOF, the rest are on the bubble (at best). As much as it pains me to say it as he is my boyhood idol, Mattingly's bubble seems to have all but burst. If only he had stuck around one more year (or if it hadn't been for the strike) and got that championship; he would've been first or second ballot for sure!

mrbecker712

I wouldn't judge based on HOF candidacy alone. To me, Gossage isn't a superstar player or a guy whose cards I want to collect. I'd much rather have a Mattingly or Joe Carter.

markj111

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I think that only Raines has a chance from your bottom group (and perhaps Mattingly by the time he fully leaves the game).

You also have Biggio, R Johnson, Smoltz, Schilling etc at the tail end of that date range >>



I also believe Raines will eventually get in. Gammons wrote a GREAT column about his candidacy a month ago. I'll find it in a bit and post it here. Keep his cards for the moment. >>



I remember that Raines column but apparently it didn't impress many people, esp. with 24.3% of the votes. Has any player gotten so few votes and end up making it (non-Vet)? >>




The answer is yes. Read "The Politics of Glory" by Bill James.

markj111

<< <i>The sports writers have gone from doing an overall outstanding job to absolute stupidity in their selections, so the only answer is who knows?

But if I had to handicap, of the seven you listed from most likely to least likely
Alomar
Larkin
Raines
Palmerio
Clark
Mattingly
Carter

Raines and Palmerio are both big time drug users, with Palmerio also a liar. Character is supposed to be considered, but the voters have changed so much so quickly on that issue, it could very well change again in the next dozen years

It has always amazed me how so much value of baseball cards rests in the Hall-of-Fame vote. If it is that important why not collect cards of Frank Deford instead of Tony Perez? >>






Raines was not a "big-time drug user". He went to rehab very early in his career, and has been a solid citizen for more than 20 years.

NYYanks23

Don't forget Goose, who just got in. I personally think Jim Rice deserves to get in, and will in the next ballot. I would hold on to Alomar and Larkin. I agree with the poster above who said Larkin is underated. Another SS who is not appreciated like he should be is Alan Trammell, I think he deserves a spot, but I consider Larkin to have more of a shot. Just my $.02 though.

onlyanumber

I'd keep Larkin in there. His stats and accomplishments are more substantial than he's given credit for--12 All Star games, an MVP, 9 time silver slugger (more than Ripken, Boggs, Sandberg--in fact only Bonds and Piazza have won the silver slugger award more) 3 time Gold Glove.

SDSportsFan

<< <i>I understand Steve but I do have to weed them out and HOF seems to be a good objective criteria. I have too many cards that do not mean much to me but the idea of a HOF Binder seems attractive to me. >>




The problem with considering HOF membership as "objective criteria" is that the HOF voting system is completely subjective.


Steve

Mickey71

Alomar for me is one of the most intriguing players of them all. Probably one of the best second baseman of all time. But, there is a big problem: He went from a mega star to terrible in one spring training. When he was traded to the Mets he was a fantastic impact player with the glove and bat. When he got to the Mets he was terrible. He didn't have a slow decline- he was done-no serious injuries that I know of either. Also, that spitting incident was just Nat King Cole "Unforgettable". He may have a tough time getting in the Hall.
Mickey71