2022 Hall of Fame Class

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,838
Boston, MA
It seems like this group put extra emphasis on contributions to the game beyond just their playing days. Every one of the guys who made it in coached, scouted, broadcast, or acted as an ambassador for the game. That's the only way I can see voting for Oliva over Dick Allen.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,292
It's not the Hall of WAR.
The goal is to put the best players in right? I'd love to know the argument for any of those guys being better than about 15 guys on the current ballot who won't get in, and who may never get in because the various committee backlogs are going to be insane if they're electing that caliber of players.
 
Last edited:

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,292
And thus begins the trip down the rabbit hole as to what defines "best"
I'll go with the metric that mlb teams use to determine value over a small random group of old players coaches and media voting for people they like
 

BigMike

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2000
23,244
IMO Oliva's entry into the Hall makes a stronger case for Dwight Evans getting in. I didn't think he was a HoFer either.
Evans should have been very close, if not in the Hall, He had such an upside down career though. Being a tremendous defensive but mediocre offensive player in the 70s, and then being one of the 10 best offensive players in the game in the 80's I don't think writers etc ever appreciated him for that

Jim Rice being in and Evans being eliminated from consideration after his first year was a complete travesty. Obviously Rice had the 3 year stretch 77-79 which was elite HOF. Rice was at best a serviceable OF, while Evans is an all time great RF, with 6 GG, and probably should have been more. Evans at the least should have been a guy who spent the maximum number of years on the ballot, getting 35-50% of the vote annually
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,634
where I was last at
Evans should have been very close, if not in the Hall, He had such an upside down career though. Being a tremendous defensive but mediocre offensive player in the 70s, and then being one of the 10 best offensive players in the game in the 80's I don't think writers etc ever appreciated him for that

Jim Rice being in and Evans being eliminated from consideration after his first year was a complete travesty. Obviously Rice had the 3 year stretch 77-79 which was elite HOF. Rice was at best a serviceable OF, while Evans is an all time great RF, with 6 GG, and probably should have been more. Evans at the least should have been a guy who spent the maximum number of years on the ballot, getting 35-50% of the vote annually
I thought Rice was borderline/leaning in and he was arguably the best RH hitter in the AL for about a decade.. Evans was more a pure borderline guy, a great defensive RF, good power guy, and who blossomed into a better hitter in his 30s.
IMO the problem Evans has is in the '70s he may have been the 4th best OF on that team and got overlooked. And I'm only being slightly facetious.

But if Oliva is in, IMO the case for Evans seems stronger.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,510
Evans belongs now. And as the son of a Brooklyn Dodger fan, who had some minor business dealings with his grandson, I'm happy Hodges finally got in... but man does it ever open a can of worms for like 20 dudes above him.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_1B.shtml
I think that's okay though, though to be honest that can was open a long, long time ago. There are more than a few dozen players in the HoF who are worse than Hodges and every once in awhile, one of them will sneak by. I'm all for putting a lot of players into the Hall because if you're hero is in Cooperstown, it makes you (as a fan) feel good. And isn't that the point of a Hall of Fame? To stir up memories, get those nostalgia neurons burning. I was never a Don Sutton guy, I saw him at the end of his career and I thought he looked like Mike Brady in an Angels cap. But I'm not angry that he's in Cooperstown. I just walk by his plaque and look at my first baseball hero Jim Rice (who probably shouldn't be in the HoF) and remember when he pretty much carried the 1986 Sox to Game 7. He was amazing that year.

Not everyone in Cooperstown is going to be Willie Mays or Ken Griffey Jr or Ted Williams or Babe Ruth. Everyone has a strong idea of who those greats are. It's nice to see the lesser greats get a chance to shine.

But I'm a big HoF guy, YMMV.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,219
Evans should have been very close, if not in the Hall, He had such an upside down career though. Being a tremendous defensive but mediocre offensive player in the 70s, and then being one of the 10 best offensive players in the game in the 80's I don't think writers etc ever appreciated him for that
Exactly right about Evans having an upside down career. IIRC, he was a pretty decently regarded prospect, but obviously struggled a lot with the bat when he made it to the big leagues. Consequently, he hit 7th or 8th a lot - how many Hall of Famers do that for a good portion of their 20s? He had a whiff of disappointment about him in those days. It also didn't help that he was overshadowed by Rice and Lynn, who did not have whiffs of disappointment, and by Fisk, Yaz, etc... So when he suddenly did finally become one of the best players in the game, it was like nobody noticed.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,292
Hey you unblocked me to make another snide comment.

By linking to a page which has nothing to do with players actually being elected, good job. If we're pretending that the idea of voting was never to elect the best players then just get rid of voting all together and let the hall pick whatever names they think make the best stories.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,510
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Hey you unblocked me to make another snide comment.

By linking to a page which has nothing to do with players actually being elected, good job. If we're pretending that the idea of voting was never to elect the best players then just get rid of voting all together and let the hall pick whatever names they think make the best stories.
The goal is to put the best players in right?
The goal of the hall of fame is not to "put the best players in." I suggest you read the whole page.

If you need to look at the rules for elections, those can be found here: https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/rules/bbwaa-rules-for-election
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,292
The goal of the hall of fame is not to "put the best players in." I suggest you read the whole page.

If you need to look at the rules for elections, those can be found here: https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/rules/bbwaa-rules-for-election
You' re right, players record ability and contributions to their teams doesn't mean best player.

The character clause part that you're implying is part of the goal is dumb because it's selectively ignored and the HOF won't ever clarify what it even means leaving people to just make it up to mean whatever they want. Unlike the part telling them to select based on stats ability and contributions, which is pretty clear.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
89,916
Oregon
Unlike the part telling them to select based on stats ability and contributions, which is pretty clear.
Which stats, though. The stats that have only become prominent over the past 10-20 years, or the stats that were considered important during the period when the players played? @Mystic Merlin spoke to this earlier, but judging Golden Era players by modern metrics is inherently complicated.

Take Jim Kaat, for instance. For most, if not all of his career, a different set of stats were considered important to his role as a starting pitcher. Had he played under management that emphasized current thinking, his win totals, innings pitched, etc would have decreased while his "advanced" metrics might have improved.

To judge Golden Era or other players from past categories by current values does them a disservice, and really only serves to further feed the arrogance of those who believe that their way of evaluating careers is superior to all others.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,866
All that’s well and good, but Kaat was first eligible for the hall in 89 and got 19.5% of the vote, behind guys like Harvey Kuenn and Maury Wills. 18% the next year, then 14%, 27%, 30%, 22%, 22%, 19%, 23%, 27%, 20%, 25%, 26%, 23%, and 26%.

So he was never particularly close to being voted in, and now, 38 years after he last three a pitch, he’s deemed worthy?

Why was he not close to a HOF for all those years, but now suddenly is?
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,292
Which stats, though. The stats that have only become prominent over the past 10-20 years, or the stats that were considered important during the period when the players played? @Mystic Merlin spoke to this earlier, but judging Golden Era players by modern metrics is inherently complicated.

Take Jim Kaat, for instance. For most, if not all of his career, a different set of stats were considered important to his role as a starting pitcher. Had he played under management that emphasized current thinking, his win totals, innings pitched, etc would have decreased while his "advanced" metrics might have improved.

To judge Golden Era or other players from past categories by current values does them a disservice, and really only serves to further feed the arrogance of those who believe that their way of evaluating careers is superior to all others.
The guys being put in (some negro leaguers not included) were all on a hall of fame ballot being voted on by people based on stats that were considered important during the period when they played. Some of them 15 times. And a lot of them were considered not even close at the time.


They just changed the voting pool to give a much smaller number of people, some of whom have personnel biases towards the players they're voting on, and who aren't necessarily any more qualified to vote, a huge amount of power in determining elections.

Jim Kaat also made 3 all star games and got mvp/cy votes 3 times in 25 years, so I'm not clear how the people at the time judged him as particularly valuable by the old stats.
 
Last edited:

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,838
Boston, MA
All that’s well and good, but Kaat was first eligible for the hall in 89 and got 19.5% of the vote, behind guys like Harvey Kuenn and Maury Wills. 18% the next year, then 14%, 27%, 30%, 22%, 22%, 19%, 23%, 27%, 20%, 25%, 26%, 23%, and 26%.

So he was never particularly close to being voted in, and now, 38 years after he last three a pitch, he’s deemed worthy?

Why was he not close to a HOF for all those years, but now suddenly is?
He became a beloved and Emmy winning broadcaster. Adding that to his borderline HOF pitching career must have put him over the top. The committee members this time were more willing to vote someone in for lifetime achievement than they ever have been in the past.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,866
His broadcasting career has been basically done for 15 years. I guess this paves the way for David Cone to be inducted in 2052.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,200
its been a week or so, but we are back to getting more WTF ballots from HOF "voters"
View: https://twitter.com/ShutTheDore/status/1469020048484405257

View: https://twitter.com/NotMrTibbs/status/1469025200721121285
He drops Manny who is now net -1. Blair explains he "decided against [Ramírez] this year because I’m one of those voters who casts a small ballot and I wanted to make room for A-Rod."











and I wanted to make room for A-Rod.

is doing a lot of work here, you are allowed to vote for more players than you have on this ballot you dolt
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,595
Maine
Nothing bothersome about Hale's ballot, but yeah, Blair dropping a guy to make room for another when he's got only four of 10 spots filled is dumb as shit.

With these ballots, Tangotiger has the first update on the chances of the guys in their final year. Schilling, Clemens and Bonds have not gained any votes yet. Schilling has actually lost two votes of the ones he got last year. Doesn't look good so far for any of them, but it's early.

View: https://twitter.com/tangotiger/status/1469027074451165184
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,538
CT
Dewey led the 1980s in home runs and extra base hits. Not to mention his defense, it’s amazing the lack of appreciation he got from voters.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,647
Hale’s ballot is pretty much my ballot. I might add a couple more but those are the first seven I would check. I am pretty much done with the steroid penalties.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,404
I don't understand how people can abstain from voting for the steroid guys, but then not vote for someone like Schilling. I mean...I get it. But it would have to be a purely off-field decision.

If you think steroids were that important and affected hitters that much, how can you not vote for one of the most dominant pitcher of that era who was able to get those guys out so consistently?
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,528
South Boston
I don't understand how people can abstain from voting for the steroid guys, but then not vote for someone like Schilling. I mean...I get it. But it would have to be a purely off-field decision.

If you think steroids were that important and affected hitters that much, how can you not vote for one of the most dominant pitcher of that era who was able to get those guys out so consistently?
Maybe because he said he wanted to see them lynched? Just a hunch.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,595
Maine
Maybe because he said he wanted to lynch them? Just a hunch.
I believe at least one of the voters who has released his ballot said he took Schilling off at Schilling's request. Ultimately, I think that will be why Schilling doesn't get in this year. Without his petty request to be removed from the ballot, he might have gained just enough support to get in.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,404
Maybe because he said he wanted to lynch them? Just a hunch.
So...off field stuff.

If a journalist getting his feelings hurt is sufficient enough to derail someone who deserves to be in the HoF, the process is garbage.

(As an aside - I don't want to make this a V&N thing, but you purposely used the word "lynching" when that's not what Schilling said. I think you used that word because of the offensive subtext that goes with it. Did he advocate to hang them? Yes. But we don't need to cross our Schilling racism wires here.)
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,907
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
I believe at least one of the voters who has released his ballot said he took Schilling off at Schilling's request. Ultimately, I think that will be why Schilling doesn't get in this year. Without his petty request to be removed from the ballot, he might have gained just enough support to get in.
Jesus is he actually doing that? What a psycho
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,510
So...off field stuff.

If a journalist getting his feelings hurt is sufficient enough to derail someone who deserves to be in the HoF, the process is garbage.

(As an aside - I don't want to make this a V&N thing, but you purposely used the word "lynching" when that's not what Schilling said. I think you used that word because of the offensive subtext that goes with it. Did he advocate to hang them? Yes. But we don't need to cross our Schilling racism wires here.)
He posted a picture of a guy wearing a shirt that said, “Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required.”

Do you think Schilling wanted to build Dan Shaughnessy a tire swing?
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,404
He posted a picture of a guy wearing a shirt that said, “Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required.”

Do you think Schilling wanted to build Dan Shaughnessy a tire swing?
I think he wanted to hang him.

But, while technically correct, the term lynching has a certain racial connection in the US. Framing it as lynching instead of hanging is a minor distinction, but a distinction none the less. Especially for someone with some pretty shitty world views like Schilling. It feels like a subversive wayto paint him as a racist, when that wasn't the intent of his stupid t-shirt.

Gross. I feel gross defending Schilling. Yuck.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,528
South Boston
So...off field stuff.

If a journalist getting his feelings hurt is sufficient enough to derail someone who deserves to be in the HoF, the process is garbage.

(As an aside - I don't want to make this a V&N thing, but you purposely used the word "lynching" when that's not what Schilling said. I think you used that word because of the offensive subtext that goes with it. Did he advocate to hang them? Yes. But we don't need to cross our Schilling racism wires here.)
I stand by my statement. He said he would want to see them lynched. It has racial connotations, I agree. But I also know 10th grade vocabulary. It fits. It's what he fucking meant. If you want to say murder, hanged or assassinated instead, go ahead. I don't begrudge the voters for saying fuck this guy.

Words have consequences.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
89,916
Oregon
Oh good, for a moment there I was worried we weren't going to go down the Schilling rabbit hole this year
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
89,916
Oregon
“There has been a report about him failing a supposedly anonymous survey test in 2003, but the substance was never identified, never confirmed,” said Verducci.
“In fact, the players association and the commissioner of baseball went out of their way to exonerate Ortiz as far as that qualifying as a positive test. I don’t think there’s been anything like that. So it is a different case. I’m going to go back and really rethink this one hard, whether that fact should be counted as proof-positive that David Ortiz used steroids.”
https://awfulannouncing.com/mlb/mlb-reporter-tom-verducci-says-needs-really-rethink-david-ortiz-hall-of-fame-candidacy.html
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,510
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I stand by my statement. He said he would want to see them lynched. It has racial connotations, I agree. But I also know 10th grade vocabulary. It fits. It's what he fucking meant. If you want to say murder, hanged or assassinated instead, go ahead. I don't begrudge the voters for saying fuck this guy.

Words have consequences.
(Also, all reporters aren't white. Even if lynching were restricted to a specific group. Which it isn't.)

At this point it's Schillings job to clean up his character, nobody else's. We're well past the "maybe he didn't mean it" zone.

He does not want to be in the hall? Great - that works for me.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,219
“In fact, the players association and the commissioner of baseball went out of their way to exonerate Ortiz as far as that qualifying as a positive test. I don’t think there’s been anything like that. So it is a different case. I’m going to go back and really rethink this one hard, whether that fact should be counted as proof-positive that David Ortiz used steroids.”
So everyone with actual knowledge of what happened "went out of their way to exonerate Ortiz" but Verducci still needs to think "really... hard" about whether this constitutes proof?

Hope this guy isn't on my jury when I'm tried for something!