SumnerH said:My gut feeling is that Tim Raines is being underrated here, but I'm on my phone so it's tough to link. He was an OBP machine, at least occasionally leading the league in that category, and right around top 100 WAR all time.
The 2014 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
Updated: Dec. 31 - 12:40 ~ 79 Full Ballots ~ (13.9% of vote ~ based on last year)
100 - Maddux
98.7 - Glavine
87.3 - F. Thomas
82.3 - Biggio
———————————
73.4 - Piazza
63.3 - Bagwell
62.0 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
54.4 - Raines
48.1 - Bonds
46.8 - Clemens
40.5 - Schilling
32.9 - Mussina
24.0 - L. Smith
22.8 - Trammell
17.7 - E. Martinez
16.5 - McGriff
11.4 - Kent
11.4 - L. Walker
11.4 - McGwire
7.6 - R. Palmeiro
7.6 - S. Sosa
———————————
3.8 - Mattingly
1.3 - P. Rose (Write-In)
Rice4HOF said:Tango has a post here where he tracks everyone's ballot:
http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site/article/most-perfect-hof-ballots
Links to this spreadsheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Aqc4QTMoPrdtdDQxaDYzd1lLOGpOdUdrcnNNNWNXa2c&authkey=CPyuwqIJ&authkey=CPyuwqIJ&pli=1#gid=7
Good for some good laughs.
That's last year. This year Maturo voted: 1. Biggio, 2. Bonds, 3. Clemens, 4. Glavine, 5. Kent, 6. Maddux, 7. Martinez, 8. Morris, 9. Piazza, and 10. Raines.JGray38 said:Greatest HOF ballot in my lifetime, and some guy wastes a vote on Pete fucking Rose.
Someone did this year as well according to soxhop411's post up above. Assumed it was the same guy. I'll have to some more digging.phrenile said:That's last year. This year Maturo voted: 1. Biggio, 2. Bonds, 3. Clemens, 4. Glavine, 5. Kent, 6. Maddux, 7. Martinez, 8. Morris, 9. Piazza, and 10. Raines.
Dahabenzapple2 said:What is the fascination that ~ 60% of the voters have with Jack Morris?
Finally, an announcement that will disappoint Neyer, Calcaterra and the reader who, like those two bloggers, said they were delighted that this was the last time I would be voting for the Hall of Fame. Sorry, guys I never made it definite.
I said “barring a change in my thinking,” this could be my last vote. My thinking has changed, and all of you critics can blame yourselves. How could I relinquish my vote knowing how much it annoys you? I plan to vote a year from now even if I just send in a blank ballot. You would love that.
I agree with the argument, but I wonder how someone named Rice4HOF can assert it.Rice4HOF said:Yep. Only reason. And an awful one, he should have lost that game. My thoughts: http://www.hallofverygood.com/2013-articles/january/11cooperstown-2013-jack-morris.html
opes said:
Biggio
Glavine
Maddux
Bagwell
Piazza
Thomas
Still not sure what a blogger is, old buddy. I do exactly the same thing you do, except a lot more often. Do I think I can do better with a Hall of Fame ballot? Sure. Don't we all? Doesn't every single baseball writer think his Hall of Fame ballot, whether real or imagined, would be at least slightly better than the next guy's? Otherwise, why not just ask the next guy if you can copy his?
I suppose it's true that Chass's standards are generally higher than mine. You know, if you ignore his insistence on voting for Jack Morris, who doesn't have nearly the case that Mike Mussina has. I applaud high standards. My issue with Chass's standards is that he's trying to invent a new Hall of Fame in which there's not room for players like Mussina and Trammell. The Hall of Fame's a self-defining institution; you're a Hall of Famer (or should be) if your performance falls within that definition. Mussina's and Trammell's clearly do, which is why I would vote for them.
I wish there was a simple answer to "the steroids thing." But I've never come up with one despite thinking I had worked it out over and over. If we followed your proposal then a guy with 3000 hits and 569 HR and a slew of Gold Gloves would probably get consideration for the HOF, as would another guy with 600+ home runs. But despite being way better than their colleagues almost nobody will vote for them despite the fact that voters (including you) would support other guys with maybe lesser statistics who may or may not have used. I'm not being critical of the your hypothetical ballot or anyone else who leaves off Sosa and Palmeiro but includes Bagwell and Piazza and Raines as I might do the same, but I'm not sure my reasoning would be simple or avoid contradictions.zenter said:
The steroids thing is stupid - it's simplest (and I think most reasonable) to say that the guys were still pretty darn superlative vis-a-vis their also-suspected lesser colleagues.
zenter said:Neyer takes Chass to task for taking him to task.
Chass's attack is particularly interesting given Neyer's well-documented ambivalence toward the HOF and particularly self-congratulatory purism, which Chass is of course practicing.
My ballot, split into 3 categories: the ones I wouldn't bother debating, the ones I think are probably deserving, and the ones I can be convinced are not deserving.
Definites: Maddux, Bonds, Clemens
Likelies: Glavine, Mussina, Thomas, Bagwell
Borderline: Schilling, Raines, Piazza
Just-Missed: Edgar Martinez, Craig Biggio, Alan Trammell, Lee Smith (toughest guy to leave off a ballot)
The steroids thing is stupid - it's simplest (and I think most reasonable) to say that the guys were still pretty darn superlative vis-a-vis their also-suspected lesser colleagues.
snowmanny said:I wish there was a simple answer to "the steroids thing." But I've never come up with one despite thinking I had worked it out over and over. If we followed your proposal then a guy with 3000 hits and 569 HR and a slew of Gold Gloves would probably get consideration for the HOF, as would another guy with 600+ home runs. But despite being way better than their colleagues almost nobody will vote for them despite the fact that voters (including you) would support other guys with maybe lesser statistics who may or may not have used. I'm not being critical of the your hypothetical ballot or anyone else who leaves off Sosa and Palmeiro but includes Bagwell and Piazza and Raines as I might do the same, but I'm not sure my reasoning would be simple or avoid contradictions.
drleather2001 said:Why Mussina over Schilling?
snowmanny said:If we followed your proposal then a guy with 3000 hits and 569 HR and a slew of Gold Gloves would probably get consideration for the HOF
Of course you are correct on the GGs, but the point stands that Palmeiro's numbers would put him into very strong HOF consideration absent the steroids.terrisus said:
If by "a slew of Gold Gloves" you mean 3, the last of which he "won" while playing a grand total of 28 games at First Base (and 128 at DH), sure.
Which, of course, leads into the absurdity of using any award voted on by others as consideration for HOF worth.
I mean, should we lower our view of Pedro because he never won an MVP?
zenter said:
Yeah, I get your point, but it really makes no difference, since one's argument for including/excluding player X or Y doesn't typically focus on a single counting stat here or there (EDIT: or award). For example, my reasons for leaving McGwire, Sosa and Palmiero off are unrelated to their presumed steroid usage.
I don't think he was a much better player. Raines was a better basestealer in his prime and was maybe a tad better hitter, but Biggio played a premium defensive position. Both have a pretty comparable 7-year period that represents much of their value.getfoul said:
He led the league in OBP once, but his career OBP was .385.
808 stolen bases. 85% success rate.
Missed about 140 games in 81, 87, 94 and 95 due to strikes and owner collusion(87).
I think he suffered a little bit because of the early career drug use. But mostly I think he played too long. Even though he maintained a great OBP, he wasn't considered a star player after he left Montreal. And after his White Sox years, he hung around as a part time player and bounced around.
He should be in. It's kind of funny that people are worried about Craig Biggio getting in, when Raines was a much better player than Biggio at his peak.
Super Nomario said:I don't think he was a much better player. Raines was a better basestealer in his prime and was maybe a tad better hitter, but Biggio played a premium defensive position. Both have a pretty comparable 7-year period that represents much of their value.
Biggio (1993 - 1999): .303/.397/.473, 132 OPS+, 237 SB / 68 CS, 814 R, 514 RBI, 283 2B, 26 3B, 122 HR, 4 GG at 2B, 41.5 WAR
Raines (1983 - 1989): .308/.398/.456, 139 OPS+, 429 SB / 63 CS, 710 R, 410 RBI, 217 2B, 61 3B, 78 HR, 39.3 WAR
Raines walked more and struck out less, but Biggio is 2nd all-time in HBP, which erases a lot of the OBP gap. Raines played in a lower run-scoring era (hence the higher OPS+ despite lower OPS) but Biggio played his prime years in a terrible hitters' park. They're fairly close as hitters, but Biggio's got a huge defensive advantage as a 2B even if you think he's overrated defensively.
Average Reds said:
You can make an argument against any of them, but to claim you aren't including any of the three and it has nothing to do with PEDs defies credibility.
ivanvamp said:So the question is: Do these two guys qualify *REGARDLESS* of PED use? To me, the answer is yes. Does the PED use *disqualify* them from consideration? Well, that's what people need to decide. I have, up til now, thought yes to that last question, but now I'm rethinking it.
zenter said:
The problem with the bolded question is the presumption of knowledge about when/if people began using PEDs. Even Bonds, who has the most public case here, is still a big question mark in this regard. Who knows if folks were taking PEDs (including andro, steroids, HGH, greenies, etc) during the 80s through mid-90s? We certainly don't have enough information.
As for the second question, PEDs were reportedly widely-used and MLB made no effort to prevent players from using them, nor punish them for using them. Therefore, no, PEDs during the free-for-all era ought not disqualify a player. PEDs in the post-2005 era (Peralta, Braun)? Absolutely.
BigMike said:
So basically you are saying that Bonds Prior to 1999 and Clemens prior to 1997 are just like EVERY other player who played the game from the mid 1960s through now. Guys who might have possibly done something
getfoul said:Garry Brown ballot (9):
Maddux, Glavine, Bagwell, Biggio, Martinez, Morris, Piazza, Raines, Schilling
Did he just forget to vote Frank Thomas?
Tell me about this Garry Brown since I'm not from Boston.
ivanvamp said:
Good point. Though I think I get where he's coming from. I mean, you have two guys that we essentially know did PEDs - Bonds and Clemens. Given this knowledge, it makes me wonder when they *really* started using. That they were users is not really in doubt. When they started may be.
Guys like Tony Gwynn or Wade Boggs were never ever ever suspected of using at all, and never tested positive for anything. No stories, no innuendo, no rumors, nothing. So I don't see it being reasonable to have the exact same question about Boggs as we do Bonds.
It would be like finding out that Joe was cheating on his wife last week. Kind of makes you wonder how long he had been doing it. Bob, meanwhile, has no indication at all that he was cheating on his wife. So are Joe and Bob on exactly equal footing in your mind as you think about whether they were cheating on their wives two years ago? There's no evidence that either one was doing it at that point in time, but given what you now know about Joe, I would think it would make you more suspicious.
"Rick Helling who was a close friend of mine and a player rep, stood up ten years ago and said we have to do something about this. And it was like ‘ah, let's move on, shut up, what's our per diem next year going to be?'
@TylerKepner really? Change? Seems like its time to relax and stop pandering to social media. I filled out four.
Ananti said:Clemens and Bonds, nor any of the known PED users, should ever be in the HOF. Of course in cases like theirs that absent the PED, they'd be surefire HOFs. But to me the HOF is not just about a collection of stats, it's about one's impact on the game itself. Of course the great players with great numbers have great impact on the game, so the two qualities often overlap. But that's no reason to mistake them for the same thing. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Great Players.