Baseball HOF class has been announced

slum22 · January 6, 2015 4:28AM

Class of four: The Big Unit, Pedro, Smoltz and Biggio. Agreement? Disagreement? Discuss.

gemint · January 6, 2015 4:30AM

<< Class of four: The Big Unit, Pedro, Smoltz and Biggio. Agreement? Disagreement? Discuss. >>

Sounds about right to me.

Mick65 · January 6, 2015 4:36AM

Just sounds odd that Biggio is in and Clemens and Bonds are not.

Ironmanfan · January 6, 2015 4:39AM

I'm happy with the choices....

IMF

shagrotn77 · January 6, 2015 4:43AM

I'm happy with the 4 choices, and I'm glad to see Piazza and Raines get a boost in their vote totals. The one thing that really surprises me is Carlos Delgado being one and done. That just makes no sense.

Griffins · January 6, 2015 4:43AM

<< Just sounds odd that Biggio is in and Clemens and Bonds are not. >>

Biggio didn't cheat.

Clemens and Bonds are under 40%, Sosa and McGwire are on the verge of being dropped from the ballot entirely.
Be interesting to see if 2 that were suspected but no proof, Bagwell and Piazza, make it in next year with Griffey Jr. Both came really close.

hyperchipper09 · January 6, 2015 4:51AM

No problems with that class. And Piazza is a near lock to get in next year. To right that wrong.

miwlvrn · January 6, 2015 4:53AM

Johnson and Biggio got basically the %votes I expected. I guessed that Pedro might get a couple less and Smoltz a couple more, with those 2 guys ending up about equal, splitting difference between the percentages they actually received.

Mick65 · January 6, 2015 4:55AM

Biggio joined the 3,000-hit club in 2007, his last year in the big leagues. In all, he spent 20 seasons with the Astros, hitting .281 with 1,844 runs scored (15th all-time), 291 home runs and 414 stolen bases. He was hit by a pitch 285 times – second most all-time – won five Silver Slugger Awards (one at catcher and four a second base) and four Gold Glove Awards at second base (1994-97).

He is the only player in baseball history with at least 3,000 hits, 600 doubles, 400 stolen bases and 250 home runs.

Didn't follow Biggio's career.

Second most all-time getting hit by a pitch. Does that count in the voting?

I thought I heard someone comparing him to Jeter in the regular season, stats wise.

I guess the "cheating" will always be an issue, but those two (Bonds and Clemens) were superstars, it's too bad....

shagrotn77 · January 6, 2015 4:58AM

<< Be interesting to see if 2 that were suspected but no proof, Bagwell and Piazza, make it in next year with Griffey Jr. Both came really close. >>

Piazza has an excellent shot to get in next year, but it won't happen for Bagwell. A jump from 55.7% to 75% would be unprecedented.

oldrivers · January 6, 2015 4:58AM

Pretty much expected and all deserving. What stumps me is how 9% can justify not voting for Pedro and 3% not voting for The Unit. I get the politics of it all, but.

orioles93 · January 6, 2015 5:03AM

<< Pretty much expected and all deserving. What stumps me is how 9% can justify not voting for Pedro and 3% not voting for The Unit. I get the politics of it all, but. >>

Some probably didnt vote for martinez or johnson, because they assumed everyone else did, and that gives them another spot or 2 to vote for someone else. Say someone thought 12 were deserving, maybe they left the big 2 off and voted for the others, assuming that johnson and martinez would get in whether they vote for them or not. Ive heard a few voters give this explanation before.

Now i do agree with the 4 that got elected. I think they are all deserving. I would have liked to see piazza to but hopefully next year.

TNP777 · January 6, 2015 5:03AM

I have zero problem with the results. It would have been nice to see Piazza get in this year, but I know he will make it soon.

Nikklos · January 6, 2015 5:14AM

Yes it makes complete sense to keep two of the greatest players out and let Biggio in. No problem with that at all.

oldrivers · January 6, 2015 5:18AM

<< Some probably didnt vote for martinez or johnson, because they assumed everyone else did, and that gives them another spot or 2 to vote for someone else. Say someone thought 12 were deserving, maybe they left the big 2 off and voted for the others, assuming that johnson and martinez would get in whether they vote for them or not. Ive heard a few voters give this explanation before. >>

Yeah I get all that, and the few hardcore writers who say "If Cobb, Mays, Aaron etc. didn't get 100% these guys aren't either." But in reality, if the writer doesn't vote for Unit or Pedro, aren't they saying they don't belong in the Hall, and sort of gaming the system? I don't have a big problem with it, just curious.

TNP777 · January 6, 2015 5:29AM

<< Yes it makes complete sense to keep two of the greatest players out and let Biggio in. No problem with that at all. >>

I assume you're talking about Rose and the Shoeless One?

Oh, you're speaking of Bonds and Clemens. Well, they may not have been banned from baseball, but you'd be naive to believe they aren't being blackballed for their steroid use and will continue to be. Sure, there's no way to tell whether any of the players of the era in question were or weren't using, other than reputation and a gut feeling. We and the voters are pretty sure the players getting in weren't juicers, and we and the voters are pretty sure Bonds and Clemens did. In fact in Clemens' case, we know. Same for Big Mac, Sosa and some others. I think Bagwell, justified or not, carries some suspicion as well.

At some point I think the voters will have to let them in. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that some juicers have already been let in. Since there is no definitive way to tell, the numbers Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, etc will be too hard to ignore. Yeah, even Alex Rodriguez. In an era of rampant steroid use, they were head and shoulders above all of the other cheaters. Even on an even steroid-free playing field, they still would have been worthy of the Hall.

DanBessette · January 6, 2015 5:30AM

<< I have zero problem with the results. It would have been nice to see Piazza get in this year, but I know he will make it soon. >>

This.

gonzer · January 6, 2015 5:35AM

<< But in reality, if the writer doesn't vote for Unit or Pedro, aren't they saying they don't belong in the Hall, and sort of gaming the system? I don't have a big problem with it, just curious. >>

No, it just means that those writers have the sports knowledge of an ant and should be employed by the National Enquirer.
This years class exudes class while the omission of Bonds and his cheatin' cronies is right on the mark. Long live Hammerin' Hank and Roger Maris!

mattinglymint23 · January 6, 2015 5:42AM

Year 15 came and went for Donnie Baseball. 9.2%
Shame on you, Writers!

olb31 · January 6, 2015 5:45AM

In my opinion, if a player is a near HOF, like maybe Jeff Bagwell, and people think he did roids then leave him off. If your the pitcher ever, the best OF ever and the best 1st baseman ever then maybe you should overlook it and let them in. Their accomplishments are remarkable not above average.

FYI, players are still doing roids, they just learn to mask them.

vols1 · January 6, 2015 5:48AM

I would vote Mike Mussina over Smoltz.

orioles93 · January 6, 2015 5:59AM

<< I would vote Mike Mussina over Smoltz. >>

I think they both deserve to be in. Smoltz is the only pitcher of all time with 200 wins and 150 saves. Plus his great postseason numbers puts him in. Mussina put up borderline hall of fame numbers pitching during the steroid era which puts him in hall of fame status to me. 5 big pitchers during the same era (maddux, glavine, martinez, johnson, smoltz) are all already in, so that should help mussina getting votes in coming years.

Another thing i like about Mussina, his last season he went 20-9 with a 3.37 era. He retired while still pitching well. He didnt stick around and play a few mediocre or bad seasons at the end of his career. He could have easily gotten 30 more wins to get to 300 in 2 or 3 more seasons.

dberk12 · January 6, 2015 6:37AM

<< Year 15 came and went for Donnie Baseball. 9.2%
Shame on you, Writers! >>

Yes!

Bias aside, I agree with the four inductees. Piazza and Griffey Jr. will make for a nice class next year. After further review, Raines is very underrated and hopefully he will get in with Piazza and Griffey Jr.

baz518 · January 6, 2015 6:37AM

Where's Mark Grace? Oh, I forgot... he's no longer on the ballot (one and done). The steroid era was a sad time... so many legitimate players never got (or will get) the appreciation they deserved.

jwilson6204 · January 6, 2015 6:50AM

<< Biggio joined the 3,000-hit club in 2007, his last year in the big leagues. In all, he spent 20 seasons with the Astros, hitting .281 with 1,844 runs scored (15th all-time), 291 home runs and 414 stolen bases. He was hit by a pitch 285 times – second most all-time – won five Silver Slugger Awards (one at catcher and four a second base) and four Gold Glove Awards at second base (1994-97).

He is the only player in baseball history with at least 3,000 hits, 600 doubles, 400 stolen bases and 250 home runs.

Didn't follow Biggio's career.

Second most all-time getting hit by a pitch. Does that count in the voting?

I thought I heard someone comparing him to Jeter in the regular season, stats wise.

I guess the "cheating" will always be an issue, but those two (Bonds and Clemens) were superstars, it's too bad.... >>

I followed Biggio and Bagwell for their careers. I agree that Bonds and Clemens were better players and it's frustrating that these two are connected to PED's b/c they would have made the Hall without them. I didn't see where someone compared Biggio's regular season stats to Jeter's, but ironically I wondered earlier today how the two would stack up in the regular season. Jeter gets obviously gets more eyeballs playing for the Yankees. I'm not trying to say that Biggio is at or near the same level of Jeter, but that more people would consider Biggio more of a lock for the Hall if he played for a team on the East or West coast. If you didn't follow Biggio's career closely then I guess the stat on getting hit by pitches sums up his approach to playing and doing anything he could to help his team. I would also remind people that it helps to compare Biggio's accomplishments to others that played 2nd base. To play devil's advocate, I would point to Biggio's lack of production in the post season as a point against his case for the Hall. There were many discussions in Houston regarding Biggio taking a few days off during the regular season to leave him in better shape for the postseason. His "all-out" dedication beat up his body pretty bad over the course of a long season and he always talked his way back into the line-up when the manager tried to sit him (cue comments on him being a compiler

)

Bagwell put up some sick numbers and he was my favorite player growing up. I don't know how much of that was due to vitamins, but the voters will have to sort that out along with Bonds, Clemens, etc.

SOM · January 6, 2015 6:53AM

Bonds and Clemens:

I have no problem with voters relying on circumstantial evidence to bar their induction. Prosecutors rely on circumstantial evidence in plenty of criminal trials; why shouldn't CE be a criteria used for voting/not voting a player into the HOF?

Nick

EchoCanyon · January 6, 2015 7:00AM

Jeff Kent has more HRs than ANY 2b-,man in history, how does he only get 14% of vote?
(Plus an MVP to boot). Yeah, he was a obnoxious to writers, but so was Eddie Murray.

oldrivers · January 6, 2015 7:38AM

<< The steroid era was a sad time... so many legitimate players never got (or will get) the appreciation they deserved. >>

Well said and so true.

saucywombat · January 6, 2015 8:52AM

Great class - excited about all those guys.

Was a huge Braves fan so great to see John Smoltz get in on the first ballot.

Tabe · January 6, 2015 9:55AM

<< Another thing i like about Mussina, his last season he went 20-9 with a 3.37 era. He retired while still pitching well. He didnt stick around and play a few mediocre or bad seasons at the end of his career. He could have easily gotten 30 more wins to get to 300 in 2 or 3 more seasons. >>

That's true. His mediocre seasons came before his last one

4.59, 4.41, 3.51, 5.15 - Mussina's ERAs prior to his final season.

Tabe · January 6, 2015 10:00AM

<< 

<< Just sounds odd that Biggio is in and Clemens and Bonds are not. >>

Biggio didn't cheat. >>

That we know of for sure. I would be shocked - really, really, really shocked - if Biggio didn't do roids. Yeah, it's all circumstantial, but we're talking a guy who went from 4, 4, 6 HRs to 21 in one year. Who was teammates with a LOT of known/suspected roid guys - Caminiti, Gonzalez, Finley, Bagwell, Clemens, Pettite, and others. The Astros clubhouse was well known for being a steroid haven. Would it be all that surprising if he used?

markj111 · January 6, 2015 10:55AM

<< 

<< Another thing i like about Mussina, his last season he went 20-9 with a 3.37 era. He retired while still pitching well. He didnt stick around and play a few mediocre or bad seasons at the end of his career. He could have easily gotten 30 more wins to get to 300 in 2 or 3 more seasons. >>

That's true. His mediocre seasons came before his last one

4.59, 4.41, 3.51, 5.15 - Mussina's ERAs prior to his final season. >>

In one of those "mediocre" years he was 4th in the league in ERA. His WAR for his career is 24th all time among pitchers. His next to last year was the only one in which his ERA + was significantly below league average. It was 125 or better 12 times. He gets my vote.

orioles93 · January 6, 2015 11:50AM

<< 

<< Another thing i like about Mussina, his last season he went 20-9 with a 3.37 era. He retired while still pitching well. He didnt stick around and play a few mediocre or bad seasons at the end of his career. He could have easily gotten 30 more wins to get to 300 in 2 or 3 more seasons. >>

That's true. His mediocre seasons came before his last one

4.59, 4.41, 3.51, 5.15 - Mussina's ERAs prior to his final season. >>

Those 4 seasons his record was 51-34. And his total era for those 4 years was 4.36. Thats not great but its not bad by any means. I wouldnt call a .600 win percentage over 4 years mediocre.

I guess i get where youre coming from though saying that they were mediocre. I just remember from watching him that he was still pretty good.

Dialj · January 6, 2015 12:25PM

Congratulations on the newest HOFers. So in honor of them ...

Too bad Pedro didn't make this cut.

cardsnbeads · January 6, 2015 12:48PM

Reform the Baseball Hall of Fame vote- Reduce the Baseball Writers to 1/3 of the vote , 1/3 to the players , and 1/3 to the fans .

TNP777 · January 6, 2015 12:53PM

<< Reform the Baseball Hall of Fame vote- Reduce the Baseball Writers to 1/3 of the vote , 1/3 to the players , and 1/3 to the fans. >>

YES! As soon as this happens, we can start a change.org petition to get Don Mossi on the ballot.

CeciliaGuante · January 6, 2015 11:18PM

<< Reform the Baseball Hall of Fame vote- Reduce the Baseball Writers to 1/3 of the vote , 1/3 to the players , and 1/3 to the fans . >>

I hope you don't mean current players. Not sure I want a 24 year old who grew up on video games evaluating Mike Piazza's career.

TheMick6 · January 7, 2015 3:18AM

Haven't read all the posts here yet but have to say Smoltz surprised me. I don't see him as any better than Schilling or Mussina and I think Schilling was the best of the three. Mussina finishes with a much lower ERA and 3000 k's easily if he spent his time on an NL club. I think Smoltz was great but not walk right in great.

TheMick6 · January 7, 2015 3:26AM

How do people argue that Smoltz was a lock but Mussina put up borderline stats??? Smoltz one 20 win season Mussina one 20 win season. Mussina has two 19 win seasons and 5 17/18 win seasons Smoltz next highest total was one line 17 win season. Yes I know it's the win stat!!!!!! But if you go by more Modern thinking there WAR ugggggggh I ised WAR in an argument!!!! They are near the same if Smoltz is given those years as a starter. I really don't think the reliver thing is that huge after all what are most relievers???? Failed Starters.

CeciliaGuante · January 7, 2015 3:48AM

If they are close, which is debatable, Smoltz' post-season domination certainly puts him in the lead.

TheMick6 · January 7, 2015 4:19AM

How is it debatable that those three where close. Any statistic evaluation new or old style has all three damn near the same. And for all that post season domination Smoltz win 1 World Series ring. If Smoltz didn't have the three and a half closer years to cloud voters minds he's basicly Mussina.

TheMick6 · January 7, 2015 4:23AM

It would be hard to argue the postseason thing anyway because Schilling was better in the postseason than Smoltz. Mussina wasn't exactly a dud.

bishop · January 7, 2015 4:41AM

WSJ had article on 1-6 on unlikely players who got at least one HOF vote. The list included

2014- Jacque Jones
2013-Aaron Sele
2012-Eric Young
2011-Benito Santiago
2010- David Segui
2009-Jesse Orosco
2008- Shawon Dunston
2007- Jay Bruhner
2006-Walt Weiss
2005- Terry Steinbach
1980- Sonny Jackson

LarkinCollector · January 7, 2015 4:46AM

<< It would be hard to argue the postseason thing anyway because Schilling was better in the postseason than Smoltz. Mussina wasn't exactly a dud. >>

Unfortunately, Shilling's post-baseball exploits will likely keep him out.

shagrotn77 · January 7, 2015 4:52AM

I think the HOF voters were so enamored with the idea of getting Smoltz in just a year after Maddux, Glavine and Cox were enshrined that they wound up looking at him a bit through rose-colored glasses. This isn't to say that Smoltz doesn't belong in the HOF, because I believe he does, but there's just no justification for him sailing in first ballot with Schilling (39.2%) and Mussina (24.6%) again falling well short. You can look at all the stats you want, but these three in my mind were practically interchangeable. Now that the vote is said and done, I think Schill and Moose will take nice steps forward next year (Raines too for that matter).

bigjed · January 7, 2015 5:19AM

In my mind the only reason Biggio, Bagwell, ect... didn't get busted for roids is they were not high profile enough to warrant suspicion. The Hall of Fame voting process reminds me of the saying "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered." The good players from the steriod era are being rewarded while the great ones have been vilified.

And while I am being somewhat controversial:

Jack Morris > Mike Mussina

Happy Wednesday!

Stone193 · January 7, 2015 6:32AM

I like'm all.

Congratulations.

CeciliaGuante · January 7, 2015 8:18AM

<< How is it debatable that those three where close. Any statistic evaluation new or old style has all three damn near the same. And for all that post season domination Smoltz win 1 World Series ring. If Smoltz didn't have the three and a half closer years to cloud voters minds he's basicly Mussina. >>

Having to use "if" over and over should have been your first red flag. Mussina didn't play in the NL, and Smoltz did have three dominant years as a closer. As for post-season domination, pitchers don't win World Series titles single-handedly. Smoltz went 15-4 with two saves. Not much more you can ask.

TheMick6 · January 7, 2015 8:53AM

I'm not using if, it's a fact that Mussina had a better winning percentage, would have struck out the pitcher most of the time in the NL like Smoltz did and that he won 17 or more games 8 times to Smoltz's 2. Your right pitchers alone don't win championships so when people use that against Mussina it's an invalid point also. Mussina also had a greater WAR and even given the relief years it's likely based on averages that Smoltz ties him At best. I never once said Smoltz doesn't belong just that those other two are pretty much the same by all statistical analysis. My argument on the postseason was that Schilling was better than Smolt there that's not saying anything bad about Smoltz Schilling was ridiculous in the Postseason. How about the fact that Mussina is a notch below Schilling as far as control
Goes and statistically Schilling was the best ever there.

Skin2 · January 7, 2015 9:25AM

I agree with TheMick. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to put Smoltz in, but not Mussina.

For their careers:

NAME.......IP.......ERA+
Smoltz....3,473.....125
Mussina...3,562....123

So right there, with Mussina's extra handful of innings, they are about equal. If you just used Smoltz's numbers as a starter, then Mussina would be higher.

If you look at their career WAR:

Mussina 82
Smoltz 66

Look at their peak dominance. Below are their top twelve ERA+ seasons as starters:

Smoltz...Mussina
149.......164
144.......157
141.......145
140.......143
139.......137
138.......133
133.......131
130.......130
128.......130
123.......129
111.......125
105.......109

Mussina's top four are better than Smoltz's, and 8 of his top 12 better than Smoltz's.

If someone is going to use the mythical 'big game' pitcher ability of Smoltz, that is hogwash too. As the Mick pointed out, if you believe in stuff like that, then you would have to discredit him for losing four WS and winning only one. Furthermore, if you believe in the small sample sizes that support your mythical big game pitcher ability for Smoltz, then you CANNOT ignore that he was only 2-2 in WS play. If he indeed was a big game pitcher that knew how to win, then he would have found a way to do better than 2-2 in WS play, and then maybe they would not have lost four World Series.

So throw that post season stuff out the window.

PS, I'll burn anybody's ear on the overvaluing of the closer position. It is THE MOST overvalued position in sports. That is the only position in baseball where you can replace the so-called best at that position, bring a guy in from the bullpen, and have them get just as many saves with the same save percentage. Heck, look at the Yanks when Rivera went down, Soriano filled in and they didn't miss a beat, and Rivera is suppose to be the best ever! Then Robertson filled in when Rivera retired, and again, did just as good. The Dodgers have a seemingly invincible closer every few years, only to bring in a middle reliever or failed starter in, and they do just as good.

Even the advanced metics don't value that position correctly. I showed that before in more detail with Rivera/Soriano to highlight. So save the Smoltz as a closer garbage. That makes his career LESS valuable, not more.

There are measurements that put the best closer on par with the best hitter. That is ridiculous, because the closer's value comes primarily from a position of opportunity, and as in the case of Rivera/Soriano, or the Dodgers, it is simply a matter of putting a decent pitcher there to get that value.

In essence, you can remove the best closer in the game, take a guy from the bench(bullpen), and get nearly identical results in terms of saves and save percentages. Happens ALL THE TIME. So that means the value is in the opportunity, not the player.

If you take the best hitter(or SP) in baseball away, try finding a guy on the bench that will get the same OPS over the long season. Doesn't happen except in the rarest of instances when a team just happens to have their future stud up on the team when he is young.

CeciliaGuante · January 7, 2015 9:29AM

<< I'm not using if, it's a fact that Mussina had a better winning percentage, would have struck out the pitcher most of the time in the NL like Smoltz did and that he won 17 or more games 8 times to Smoltz's 2. Your right pitchers alone don't win championships so when people use that against Mussina it's an invalid point also. Mussina also had a greater WAR and even given the relief years it's likely based on averages that Smoltz ties him At best. I never once said Smoltz doesn't belong just that those other two are pretty much the same by all statistical analysis. My argument on the postseason was that Schilling was better than Smolt there that's not saying anything bad about Smoltz Schilling was ridiculous in the Postseason. How about the fact that Mussina is a notch below Schilling as far as control
Goes and statistically Schilling was the best ever there. >>

Yeah, you've used "if" twice. Mussina didn't play in the National League. "If" he did, he might have taken a line drive off the forehead in game one and never had a career. That's why we only go by what actually happened. The other "if" was "if" Smoltz didn't have his stint as a reliever. The truth is that he WAS a reliever, and he was one of the best in baseball when he did it. I've never understood the philosophy of ignoring three years, good or bad, just because.

How is it an invalid point against Mussina when the obvious point is that you look at the individual's stats in the post-season, not the team's stats? Mussina was a mediocre 7-8. Smoltz was 15-4 with two saves. That is a major aspect of HOF voting.

Baseball HOF class has been announced

Comments