HOF Voting

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    HOF Voting

    IMO

     

     

    Shoo-in - Maddux

    Hopeful - Morris

    Probable - Glavine, Biggio, Thomas

    Doubtful - Piazza

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IMO

     

     

    Shoo-in - Maddux

    Hopeful - Morris

    Probable - Glavine, Biggio, Thomas

    Doubtful - Piazza

    [/QUOTE]

    I hope Morris has to wait one more year ... just for his Buchholz/doctoring balony.  Tongue Out

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    If Morris gets in, it further demonstrates the joke of HOF voting.

     

    Voters found Morris not worthy 14 times.  Exactly what did Morris do in the last 12 months that suddenly made him worthy? 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IMO

     

     

    Shoo-in - Maddux

    Hopeful - Morris

    Probable - Glavine, Biggio, Thomas

    Doubtful - Piazza

    [/QUOTE] i add Bagwell to my hopefuls...


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to jete02fan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IMO

     

     

    Shoo-in - Maddux

    Hopeful - Morris

    Probable - Glavine, Biggio, Thomas

    Doubtful - Piazza

    [/QUOTE] i add Bagwell to my hopefuls...


    [/QUOTE] though he's lobbying harder for Bigg..


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to notin's comment:

    If Morris gets in, it further demonstrates the joke of HOF voting.

     

    Voters found Morris not worthy 14 times.  Exactly what did Morris do in the last 12 months that suddenly made him worthy? 



    Disagree; led the 80s in just about every category, and was one of the greatest big game pitchers I ever saw; and there were more than just G7 of the '91 WS. But to each his own.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to jete02fan's comment:

    In response to jete02fan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IMO

     

     

    Shoo-in - Maddux

    Hopeful - Morris

    Probable - Glavine, Biggio, Thomas

    Doubtful - Piazza

    i add Bagwell to my hopefuls...


    [/QUOTE] though he's lobbying harder for Bigg..


    [/QUOTE]

    Bagwell has the PED cloud, so doubtful.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    If Morris gets in, it further demonstrates the joke of HOF voting.

     

    Voters found Morris not worthy 14 times.  Exactly what did Morris do in the last 12 months that suddenly made him worthy? 

     




     

     

    why have BB debates if one is not allowed to change their mind

    besides it's not the exact same voters every yr

    same goes for the ballots maybe some thought he was the 11th best choice last yr

     

    as a matter of I fact

    I changed my mind about morris the other day

    I no longer would vote 4 him

    but  would be fine if he got in

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If Morris gets in, it further demonstrates the joke of HOF voting.

     

    Voters found Morris not worthy 14 times.  Exactly what did Morris do in the last 12 months that suddenly made him worthy? 

    [/QUOTE]

    First, it likelyhasn't been the same voters voting all 14 times. So different voters come in and have a different opinion. And even if a voter changed his mind. So what. Nothing wrong with looking at something and changing your opinion on further review.

    The idea that if you have to think about it, the player isn't a Hall of Famer -- that boat sailed decades ago. There are too many borderline players to simply end voting for borderline players now.

    It's unfair to say HOF voting is a joke. You have a large body of voters, which to me is better than having some so-call small, elite group, and you're going to have differing opinions on what makes a HOFer. That's not a bad thing. Diversity of opinion should be welcomed and makes -- or should make -- for fun debate.

    People say it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good. Well, if you narrowed it down to the no-brainers and kept it a small group of players who are deemed worthy -- what fun would that be?

    I don't want to get too loose on whom we deem worthy, but I have no problem with having a looser view on who gets elected. We're comparing guys from different eras and conditions change and approach to the game changes.

    So if 14 years later we change our mind about a player, that's fine.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    i believe Jim Rice slid in that way

    i cant wait to see (and hear why) which voter did not vote for maddux.....

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    As for Morris, he's probably the definition of borderline. His ERA was up and down. In full seasons, six times ERA under 3.40 and another at 3.43 and seven times ERA above 4.00 but five of those seasons came in his last six seasons. He was a workhorse and 11 times 235 innings or more and form age 24, his first full year as a starter, through his last year at age 39 he started fewer than 27 games in a full season just three times: 25 in the strike-shortened 1981 season, then 24 ag age 34 and 23 in his last year at age 39.

    I know wins can be overrated but he's a three-time 20-game winner and won 15 or more 12 times plus leading the lead with 14 wins in 1981. He had a 3.05 ERA that year so he might have won 20 had there not been a strike.

    Yes, he had a 4.04 ERA in 1992 when he was 21-6, but he pitched bad in only four of those wins. And he pitched good enough to win in one of his losses and two no-decisions, not including two 9 IP, 4 ER no-decisions, which of course is a 4.00 ERA but that's still pretty good.

    And add a solid overall postseason record, I'm probably OK if he gets in.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    i believe Jim Rice slid in that way

    i cant wait to see (and hear why) which voter did not vote for maddux.....

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I have NP with the line

    ''ruth didn't so no one we have seen 2 date should''

    heres your answer

    Greg Maddux won't be unanimous

    http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10259259/greg-maddux-unanimous-hall-selection

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    i believe Jim Rice slid in that way

    i cant wait to see (and hear why) which voter did not vote for maddux.....

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I have NP with the line

    ''ruth didn't so no one we have seen 2 date should''

    heres your answer

    Greg Maddux won't be unanimous

    http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10259259/greg-maddux-unanimous-hall-selection

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't agree with his reasoning of not voting for Maddux, but I'm not going to bash him for it. The steroid era does make it an issue because of the guidelines the Hall has for voters, so it's not an easy issue to deal with for the voters. So I'm not going to bash a guy who is trying to his best to deal with the situaition, even if I don't agree with him.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    And to add -- I think we make to much about whether or not a guy is unanimous. Perhaps it would be better if the percentage of votes a guy got weren't released. Maybe the names released should be put in three categories:

    In

    Out and enough to stay on the ballot.

    Out and off the ballot.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If Morris gets in, it further demonstrates the joke of HOF voting.

     

    Voters found Morris not worthy 14 times.  Exactly what did Morris do in the last 12 months that suddenly made him worthy? 



    First, it likelyhasn't been the same voters voting all 14 times. So different voters come in and have a different opinion. And even if a voter changed his mind. So what. Nothing wrong with looking at something and changing your opinion on further review.

    The idea that if you have to think about it, the player isn't a Hall of Famer -- that boat sailed decades ago. There are too many borderline players to simply end voting for borderline players now.

    It's unfair to say HOF voting is a joke. You have a large body of voters, which to me is better than having some so-call small, elite group, and you're going to have differing opinions on what makes a HOFer. That's not a bad thing. Diversity of opinion should be welcomed and makes -- or should make -- for fun debate.

    People say it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good. Well, if you narrowed it down to the no-brainers and kept it a small group of players who are deemed worthy -- what fun would that be?

    I don't want to get too loose on whom we deem worthy, but I have no problem with having a looser view on who gets elected. We're comparing guys from different eras and conditions change and approach to the game changes.

    So if 14 years later we change our mind about a player, that's fine.

    [/QUOTE]

    My point was not about Morris.  You got that.

     

    My point is, the act of appearing on the ballot 15 times has itself become a Hall-worthy accomplishment, given the near perfect track record of the voters and 15 time candidates.  All the criteria nhsteven mentionedhas been there 14 times and was never enough.  But as 15timers almost always get in, these are not cases of some voters being swayed on an iindividual player. This is herd mentality.

     

    I see Morris as a borderline candidate. I would not vote for him, but I can see why others would. The problem is this year, there might be a contingency who only votes for him because others did...

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As for Morris, he's probably the definition of borderline. His ERA was up and down. In full seasons, six times ERA under 3.40 and another at 3.43 and seven times ERA above 4.00 but five of those seasons came in his last six seasons. He was a workhorse and 11 times 235 innings or more and form age 24, his first full year as a starter, through his last year at age 39 he started fewer than 27 games in a full season just three times: 25 in the strike-shortened 1981 season, then 24 ag age 34 and 23 in his last year at age 39.

    I know wins can be overrated but he's a three-time 20-game winner and won 15 or more 12 times plus leading the lead with 14 wins in 1981. He had a 3.05 ERA that year so he might have won 20 had there not been a strike.

    Yes, he had a 4.04 ERA in 1992 when he was 21-6, but he pitched bad in only four of those wins. And he pitched good enough to win in one of his losses and two no-decisions, not including two 9 IP, 4 ER no-decisions, which of course is a 4.00 ERA but that's still pretty good.

    And add a solid overall postseason record, I'm probably OK if he gets in.

    [/QUOTE]

    He also pitched in a hitter's park. And while he's a 15-timer, I don't recall any other 15-timer player generating the controversy he has, including Gil Hodges and Ritchie Allen.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    Tommy Glavine used to shoot hoops in my driveway when he was about 12 years old. He was a great kid then and it would be pretty cool to say I knew a hall-of-famer when he was a kid! He was also a pretty darn good major league pitcher!

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    Morris is a clear no, IMO.  Not even that close.  "Best of the 80s" is a nonsense to me....why not the best from 1976 to 1986?  Seriously, compare his best 10 consectutive years to others' best 10 consectutive years....he'll be blown away.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If Morris gets in, it further demonstrates the joke of HOF voting.

     

    Voters found Morris not worthy 14 times.  Exactly what did Morris do in the last 12 months that suddenly made him worthy? 

    [/QUOTE]

    First, it likelyhasn't been the same voters voting all 14 times. So different voters come in and have a different opinion. And even if a voter changed his mind. So what. Nothing wrong with looking at something and changing your opinion on further review.

    The idea that if you have to think about it, the player isn't a Hall of Famer -- that boat sailed decades ago. There are too many borderline players to simply end voting for borderline players now.

    It's unfair to say HOF voting is a joke. You have a large body of voters, which to me is better than having some so-call small, elite group, and you're going to have differing opinions on what makes a HOFer. That's not a bad thing. Diversity of opinion should be welcomed and makes -- or should make -- for fun debate.

    People say it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good. Well, if you narrowed it down to the no-brainers and kept it a small group of players who are deemed worthy -- what fun would that be?

    I don't want to get too loose on whom we deem worthy, but I have no problem with having a looser view on who gets elected. We're comparing guys from different eras and conditions change and approach to the game changes.

    So if 14 years later we change our mind about a player, that's fine.

    [/QUOTE]

    My point was not about Morris.  You got that.

     

    My point is, the act of appearing on the ballot 15 times has itself become a Hall-worthy accomplishment, given the near perfect track record of the voters and 15 time candidates.  All the criteria nhsteven mentionedhas been there 14 times and was never enough.  But as 15timers almost always get in, these are not cases of some voters being swayed on an iindividual player. This is herd mentality.

     

    I see Morris as a borderline candidate. I would not vote for him, but I can see why others would. The problem is this year, there might be a contingency who only votes for him because others did...

    [/QUOTE]

    Is that (bold) true is question 1, and two, how many players are we talking about? If they keep getting enough votes for that time, they're obviously borderline. If voters are being convinced still means there must be some sort of case. It doesn't mean it's herd mentality as much as voters willing to change their minds. Rather that then being obstinate and not changing a vote siimply because you stay close-minded.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Morris is a clear no, IMO.  Not even that close.  "Best of the 80s" is a nonsense to me....why not the best from 1976 to 1986?  Seriously, compare his best 10 consectutive years to others' best 10 consectutive years....he'll be blown away.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why the best in the 1980s? Because that's when he pitched. He didn't pitch in 1976. It's not unfair to compare a players against others of his era rather than different eras. The game changes. A pitcher of the 1920s pitched in different circumstances than a pitcher in the 1960s and a pitcher in the 1980s and a pitcher in the 1990s.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Morris is a clear no, IMO.  Not even that close.  "Best of the 80s" is a nonsense to me....why not the best from 1976 to 1986?  Seriously, compare his best 10 consectutive years to others' best 10 consectutive years....he'll be blown away.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why the best in the 1980s? Because that's when he pitched. He didn't pitch in 1976. It's not unfair to compare a players against others of his era rather than different eras. The game changes. A pitcher of the 1920s pitched in different circumstances than a pitcher in the 1960s and a pitcher in the 1980s and a pitcher in the 1990s.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's not quite true.  ERA+ and WAR both account for era, league, park, etc.  It's an imperfect comparison but better than "WAR svcks, I saw him pitch and.....".

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Morris is a clear no, IMO.  Not even that close.  "Best of the 80s" is a nonsense to me....why not the best from 1976 to 1986?  Seriously, compare his best 10 consectutive years to others' best 10 consectutive years....he'll be blown away.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why the best in the 1980s? Because that's when he pitched. He didn't pitch in 1976. It's not unfair to compare a players against others of his era rather than different eras. The game changes. A pitcher of the 1920s pitched in different circumstances than a pitcher in the 1960s and a pitcher in the 1980s and a pitcher in the 1990s.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's not quite true.  ERA+ and WAR both account for era, league, park, etc.  It's an imperfect comparison but better than "WAR svcks, I saw him pitch and.....".

    [/QUOTE]

    Using some of the advanced stats to compare players of different eras can get tricky.

    Beyond that, it still doesn't take into account changes in training techniques, traveling, night games, changes in the way strikes are called, the advent of DH, which can skew even current comparisons, and how pitchers are used -- four man rotations with a lot of complete games compared to five-man rotations and specialists, all of which can affect stats.

    Not that I'm arguing for Morris, but to me, the fairest way remains comparing a player on how he stacks uip with players of his era. 

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    i believe Jim Rice slid in that way

    i cant wait to see (and hear why) which voter did not vote for maddux.....

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I have NP with the line

    ''ruth didn't so no one we have seen 2 date should''

    heres your answer

    Greg Maddux won't be unanimous

    http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10259259/greg-maddux-unanimous-hall-selection

    [/QUOTE]

    See...I actually have a very large problem with this.

    First of all, I find it insanely moronic that the BASEBALL WRITERS decide who gets into the BASEBALL HALL OF FAME. Is it the WRITER'S HALL OF FAME?

    Now, about that sentiment above, which I've heard for years...it's stupid. Plainly stupid. People are freely admitting that they are making a dumb, spiteful decision based off of an earlier, and equally dumb, and equally spiteful decision. Do I really need to explain even further how flawed, childish and, again, STUPID that thinking is?

    Baseball writers are some of the most curmudgeonly, axe-grinding, grudge-holding, agenda-driven people around the game.

    Anyone NOT voting for Maddux does not take the voting seriously, and should have no vote to cast.

    All the awards in baseball, including induction into the HOF, have basically turned into popularity contests, and platforms for people to explain why they're smarter than everyone else (talking of the voters here).

    If you have to think about it for more than 3 seconds...not a HOFer to me. Hall of FAME. Not Hall of good for a really long time. Or hall of really likeable. 

    Griffey Jr

    Maddux

    Jeter

    Gwynn

    Randy Johnson

    Ricky Henderson

    Guys who were the BEST in the game for a considerable time. The BEST! Craig Biggio? No way. Glavine? Borderline...probably in. Frank Thomas? Tough one....really tough. I think no. In a vaccuum, his numbers look great. Living through his entire career and being old enough to follow it from the beginning...he just misses. He was the Best for a stretch...but not long enough. He wasn't THE DOMINANT 1B...he played at a time when there were actually a lot of them, sharing all star space with someone like Cecil Fielder...so, probably no to the Big Hurt.

    Piazza should be in. His career, when viewed from the spectre of being a full-time catcher, is HOF worthy. He set the bar for what an offensive catcher could potentially be. Before him, D was viewed far more heavily and C was often an offensive hole of a position. When someone almost single-handedly revolutionalizes a position...they deserve recognition. He changed expectations for what a catcher should be for the entire league.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: HOF Voting

    They should evaluate writer's voting like they do umpires. In this day of metrics, that should be pretty easy. Odd exclusions should get a big negative mark, and could be grounds for not allowing them to vote in the future. Writers would think twice about excluding someone simply because they had an axe to grind.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share