2018 Hall of Fame Class

[Bellhorn04]

With all the stats available to us now, someone who has never watched a game can do as good a job handing out the awards and honors as anyone.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

Papi won't get in then.

 

He might not get in. The voters will have to decide if he really failed that test or if that info was incorrect. If he really failed the test, they should keep him out.

 

But Ortiz's candidacy is an issue for several reasons--the DH thing too. To be sure, he won't make it in his first year of eligibility. He will be a controversial candidate.

 

Manny might not even get enough support to make the ballot the second time. That's the key for me--getting these guys off the ballot ASAP so that we don't have to talk about it every year (I think that happened to R.Palmerio).

 

Bonds and Clemons were always in that grey area because they were great players prior to juicing. In fact, they would both be in the HOF if they didn't cheat the game. Of course, take away steroids and Bonds doesn't turn into Babe Ruth at the age of 35 (and wouldn't be the all time HR leader) and Clemons would have fewer Cy Youngs, and so keeping them out is now the only acceptable course of action.

Edited December 26, 2017 by Fan_since_Boggs

[Kimmi]

All Former players and managers should vote. No sportswriters and absolutely no geeks. People who played the game are in the best position to judge greatness.

 

No, people who played the game are not in the best position to judge recipients of these awards. They are biased and vote largely based on reputation. Would they do a better job than sportswriters? Perhaps. But they would not do a better job than the geeks.

 

Managers have voted on the Gold Gloves for ages, and that award is considered probably the largest joke of all the awards. Managers have gotten it very, very wrong. It is only recently that the Gold Gloves have gained an ounce of respectability, after they added the sabermetric component.

 

The geeks would get it right, as is evidenced by the Fielding Bible Awards.

[Kimmi]

They are also a very biased source.

 

!!!

[Kimmi]

With all the stats available to us now, someone who has never watched a game can do as good a job handing out the awards and honors as anyone.

 

They could do a better job. Guaranteed.

[notin]

I agree with you, but the problem is with the ones who were never caught or those who were very popular among the press will get in.

 

For example Rickey Henderson & Mike Piazza were never caught and are already in the HOF, basically the "best cheater" will be rewarded. I agree that there are no solid reports of them linked to PED's but in the Henderson case he was with the A's when almost everybody in that clubhouse was using for me is very suspicious; and with Piazza you just need to see the numbers in his peak years and those were huge in a very demanding position during the PED rampage

 

.

 

Using this logic, Roger Maris was clearly using steroids despite many of them not being invented and all ofthem ccompletely absent from baseball during his career. ..

[notin]

No, people who played the game are not in the best position to judge recipients of these awards. They are biased and vote largely based on reputation. Would they do a better job than sportswriters? Perhaps. But they would not do a better job than the geeks.

 

Managers have voted on the Gold Gloves for ages, and that award is considered probably the largest joke of all the awards. Managers have gotten it very, very wrong. It is only recently that the Gold Gloves have gained an ounce of respectability, after they added the sabermetric component.

 

The geeks would get it right, as is evidenced by the Fielding Bible Awards.

 

The argument for players and managers voting should have died completely when they awarded a Gold Glove to a player who spent the overwhelming majority of the season as a DH and played only 28 games in the field...

[a700hitter]

Isn't that what all the veteran's committee ******** is? They went years and years without electing anyone. Back in the day, players just selected their buddies for the HOF.

It is their club. They should decide. There need to be standards which I am pretty sure would be enforced. They don't want to dilute their own accomplishments. The veterans committee has been far from a free pass. Very few players have made it that way and some very deserving players have not made it -- like Gil Hodges imo.

[a700hitter]

The argument for players and managers voting should have died completely when they awarded a Gold Glove to a player who spent the overwhelming majority of the season as a DH and played only 28 games in the field...

current players and managers should not get a vote. Only HOF members should get a vote. They would not dilute their own accomplishments. That HOF next to their signatures carries a hefty $. Less players would make it if the HOF members voted, imo.

[notin]

current players and managers should not get a vote. Only HOF members should get a vote. They would not dilute their own accomplishments. That HOF next to their signatures carries a hefty $. Less players would make it if the HOF members voted, imo.

 

Isn't that essentially the Veteran's Committee? They almost never vote anyone in.

 

Santo was elected by the Golden Era Committee or Golden Age Committee or something like that, and I'm not sure who's on that one. Electing Santo was the first thing thry did upon formation...

Edited January 1, 2018 by notin

[notin]

It is their club. They should decide. There need to be standards which I am pretty sure would be enforced. They don't want to dilute their own accomplishments. The veterans committee has been far from a free pass. Very few players have made it that way and some very deserving players have not made it -- like Gil Hodges imo.

 

Arguably it's a museum and not really a club, although elected members do apparently feel different. I think it gets too personal at that point. Although I also think the BBWAA has made some really questionable selections as well.

 

Not sure why the Hall itself can't handle the process internally...

[mvp 78]

current players and managers should not get a vote. Only HOF members should get a vote. They would not dilute their own accomplishments. That HOF next to their signatures carries a hefty $. Less players would make it if the HOF members voted, imo.

 

HOF members are the sole reason the worst of the worst got into the Hall in the first place. It was an old boys club that allowed their buddies to get in over far deserving players.

[mvp 78]

I can't recommend this book enough: https://www.amazon.com/Cooperstown-Casebook-Baseball-Should-Plaques/dp/1250071216

 

Even if you don't agree with who he wants selected, the first few chapters are invaluable to any discussion concerning how players have voted into the Hall.

[a700hitter]

HOF members are the sole reason the worst of the worst got into the Hall in the first place. It was an old boys club that allowed their buddies to get in over far deserving players.

I disagree.

[notin]

HOF members are the sole reason the worst of the worst got into the Hall in the first place. It was an old boys club that allowed their buddies to get in over far deserving players.

 

I can agree with that.

 

They kept out Gil Hodges and Luis Tiant and Carl Mays but let in Bill Mazeroski and Dave Bancroft...

Edited January 13, 2018 by notin

[a700hitter]

I can agree with that.

 

They kept out Gil Hodges and Luis Tiant and Carl Mays but let in Bill Mazeroski and Dave Bancroft...

Certainly Tiant and Hodges deserve to be in the Hall, and it highlights why the players would have tough standards. I wouldn't disparage Mazeroski, and don't know enough about Bancroft to disparage him. Most people here aren't old enough to remember Maz, and even if they were old enough, they probably had very little exposure to NL baseball in the 50's and 60's. Maz was a legendary fielder. When he retired he held a slew of fielding records. No one turned the DP like him, earning the nickname "no-touch". The number of DPs that he was involved in was off the charts. He played in a pitching dominated era when middle infielders didn't hit much, and his kind of fielding was highly valued by his peers. Putting him in the Hall doesn't dilute it. He was the best second baseman of his generation.

[notin]

Certainly Tiant and Hodges deserve to be in the Hall, and it highlights why the players would have tough standards. I wouldn't disparage Mazeroski, and don't know enough about Bancroft to disparage him. Most people here aren't old enough to remember Maz, and even if they were old enough, they probably had very little exposure to NL baseball in the 50's and 60's. Maz was a legendary fielder. When he retired he held a slew of fielding records. No one turned the DP like him, earning the nickname "no-touch". The number of DPs that he was involved in was off the charts. He played in a pitching dominated era when middle infielders didn't hit much, and his kind of fielding was highly valued by his peers. Putting him in the Hall doesn't dilute it. He was the best second baseman of his generation.

 

Bancroft was the original example of cronyism. He had several teammates in the Hall, and they were the ones who elected him. Statitisically he was rather bland, and his main accomplishment seems to be that he played for a long time.

 

Mazeroski had the defensive reputation, but his career totals are not much better than Lou Whitaker as a 2B. Whitaker did play 2 more seasons, but he also was an offensive contributor. Really, there are arguments for and agaist Mazeroski, especially over other players. But what are the arguments against Tiant, Mays and Hodges?

 

And if you had to rank the 4 players I mentioned for Hall worthiness, how do you rank them? I know this is tough, since none of us saw most if not all of them play. But then I would also bet that most of the people who elected Mazeroski never say Mays pitch either, yet they didn't vote him in.

 

In fact, doesn't letting Hall members vote create an obvious bias towards players the members played with and against?

[a700hitter]

Bancroft was the original example of cronyism. He had several teammates in the Hall, and they were the ones who elected him. Statitisically he was rather bland, and his main accomplishment seems to be that he played for a long time.

 

Mazeroski had the defensive reputation, but his career totals are not much better than Lou Whitaker as a 2B. Whitaker did play 2 more seasons, but he also was an offensive contributor. Really, there are arguments for and agaist Mazeroski, especially over other players. But what are the arguments against Tiant, Mays and Hodges?

 

And if you had to rank the 4 players I mentioned for Hall worthiness, how do you rank them? I know this is tough, since none of us saw most if not all of them play. But then I would also bet that most of the people who elected Mazeroski never say Mays pitch either, yet they didn't vote him in.

 

In fact, doesn't letting Hall members vote create an obvious bias towards players the members played with and against?

As I mentioned, they should all be in the Hall imo. The fact that Tiant, Hodges and Mays have not made it bolsters the argument that letting the HOF membership vote would not water down the standards. As for Maz, it isn’t fair to compare him to Lou Whitaker(who I think deserves to be in), because they were from different eras. Maz was clearly the best second baseman of his generation (especially in the NL), and that is how a player should be judged. Tiant was great and deserves to be in the Hall imo, but he was not the best at his position in his generation.