2019 HOF ballot

[Northern Star]

https://bbwaa.com/19-hof-ballot/

 

Mo is a lock.

 

Juan Pierre? That's a joke, right? A slaphitter with 600 SBs and nothing else.

 

Also, another joke is Andruw Jones as a holdover. OK, he got a lot of gold gloves, but

[Northern Star]

Also, they need to up the percentage of vote required to stay on the ballot. I'd say 20% minimum.

[Bellhorn04]

In the 'can you believe it' department, it's already the 7th year on the ballet for Bonds and Clemens.

 

6th year for Schilling and Mussina.

 

10th year for Edgar Martinez.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

I would vote for Halladay, Rivera, and Schilling.

 

I wouldn't vote for the PED guys: Pettitte, Bonds, Clemons, Manny.

 

The guys I might vote for but would require more research & thought: E.Martinez, Mussina, McGriff, Wagner.

[moonslav59]

Mo & Edgar.

 

The others can wait.

[Jasonbay44]

Kevin Youkilis, Rick Ankiel and Jason Bay are eligible for the Hall of Fame? Ummm... Alright lol. Good luck to them.

[jacksonianmarch]

Mussina has a great case, as does Edgar. Halladay and Mo are shoe in's IMO. Clemens and Bonds will get closer. Schilling will get close too

[Bellhorn04]

With Schilling I think the personal dislike factor is working against him big time. Which is dead wrong of course.

[Youk Of The Nation]

Helton is the interesting one for me. He was always a favorite of mine but I think Coors is going to work against him in the voting, as is the fact that while he played so many seasons, he never made it to either 500HR or 3000H. I think he's going to get in eventually but it's probably going to take five or six years of voting.

 

Bay, Ankiel, Lilly, Pierre, Polanco, Hafner, Garland, Garcia, Oliver, Oswalt, Wells, Young, and, as much as I hate saying it, obvious though it is, Youkilis, should all be laughed off of the ballot on their first go-around.

 

It's long past time for Martinez to go into the HOF.

 

Rivera is an obvious first-ballot choice.

 

McGriff, Jones, Rolen, Wagner, and Walker should have been gone by now.

 

PEDs happened and everyone needs to move on from that s***. All the PED guys had great careers even before their use. It's time for Manny, Clemens, and Bonds to go in.

 

Sosa and Sheffield, no, because Sheffield wasn't that great and wasn't good for long enough, and Sosa was mediocre outside of hitting HRs, same as McGwire.

 

Tejada? I don't really have an opinion there.

 

Halladay and Schilling will be in eventually. I think Halladay's sudden death last year will probably push his induction up a year or two from where it would have been normally. I don't like Schilling as a person, but I don't need to. There are plenty of athletes I can't stand. Youk was a gigantic douchebag. Papelbon was the white-trashiest of white-trash *******s in the history of the world but while he wore the Sox uniform I loved that beady-eyed son of a bitch. He should go in, but I think it'll be a couple years because he wasn't overwhelmingly great a la Johnson or Maddux or Smoltz or Glavine.

 

Andy Pettitte can eat a bag of dicks, which would technically cannibalism as he's a gigantic bag of dicks. I don't give a s*** about HGH, he may have pitched for a long time but at best he was maybe the sixth or seventh best pitcher in any given season he pitched in. He can f*** right the f*** off and buy a ticket to the HOF like the rest of us. Or better yet, he can ride in on Clemens' coattails.

 

Finally, Derek Lowe: No. Sorry dude, thanks for 2004 but no way are you getting in.

[notin]

The PED thing is so overblown. In many cases, it wasn’t even against the rules. It does really need to be ignored for a lot of these players...

[Fan_since_Boggs]

If you want the voters to ignore the PED stuff, you have to remove the sportsmanship clause from the ballot instructions. For reasons that are pretty self-explanatory, people are going to believe that the PED guys demonstrated poor sportsmanship and that is pushing down their vote totals.

 

I might support Clemons, Bonds in the HOF if, and only if, they come forward and improve our knowledge of PED effects on numbers. We would need to know the extent of their PED usage, the years they started juicing, etc., and they would need to document such information to prove they aren't lying. It would be so useful for MLB to have this information. But Bonds and Clemons don't care about the well-being of MLB or advancing public knowledge of PED use--they only care about themselves and so who really cares if baseball keeps them out. They deserve to be out. They made their own bed, they can now sleep in it.

[Kimmi]

With Schilling I think the personal dislike factor is working against him big time. Which is dead wrong of course.

 

IMO, the entire voting process for the HOF is whack.

 

On a related note, IMO if there has to be a debate about whether a person belongs in the HOF or not, then he shouldn't get in.

 

The HOF should be limited to those players who are no brainers or shoe ins.

[Northern Star]

IMO, the entire voting process for the HOF is whack.

 

In what sense?

[Northern Star]

I'm a big fan of Ankiel, but I seriously question why the committee decided to put him and Darren Oliver on the ballot. Their stats aren't even close to HOF. Gotta be kidding me with this ********.

[Northern Star]

Ted Lilly???

[Jasonbay44]

With Schilling I think the personal dislike factor is working against him big time. Which is dead wrong of course.

 

Yup. Its a joke. Its similar to the NFL hall of fame where they had a clear vendetta against T.O, and despite him having arguably the best stats of all time for a WR not named Jerry Rice, he had to wait two years just become some voters can't get over themselves.

[Jasonbay44]

I'm a big fan of Ankiel, but I seriously question why the committee decided to put him and Darren Oliver on the ballot. Their stats aren't even close to HOF. Gotta be kidding me with this ********.

 

The Ankiel story is a great one, and I'm a fan of him and his comeback as well, but him being on HOF ballot is a joke lol.He didn't even get 500 hits or 80 homers for his career, and his pitching stats obviously aren't very impressive and we all know that story. I don't even remotely understand this one

 

And Darren Oliver lol... I can't think of anything noteworthy about him besides the fact he played a ridiculously long time and was always surprised to see him on another team every year... his career reminds me of Fernando Rodney to some extent, but at least Rodney has some historic seasons under his belt and was considered a good closer for at least some of the teams he played for.

[Kimmi]

In what sense?

 

The biggest issue is with the players staying on the ballot for 10 years (used to be 15 years). My question is, if a player is not worthy of a HOF vote in year one, why does that change in years 2-10? A player is either HOF worthy or he's not. The passage of a few more years should not change any player's worthiness.

 

Also, how is it that voters are allowed to vote or not vote someone in based on whether they like the person or not? Schilling's percentage actually went down from one year to the next, after he ran his mouth about a bunch of stuff. I understand that people don't like what he has to say, but that should not affect his HOF votes. Changing a vote because of something he said is just plain wrong.

[Northern Star]

The Ankiel story is a great one, and I'm a fan of him and his comeback as well, but him being on HOF ballot is a joke lol.He didn't even get 500 hits or 80 homers for his career, and his pitching stats obviously aren't very impressive and we all know that story. I don't even remotely understand this one

 

And Darren Oliver lol... I can't think of anything noteworthy about him besides the fact he played a ridiculously long time and was always surprised to see him on another team every year... his career reminds me of Fernando Rodney to some extent, but at least Rodney has some historic seasons under his belt and was considered a good closer for at least some of the teams he played for.

 

I recently read Ankiel's memoir and it was interesting, but I don't think Tim Brown did a good enough job of bringing the story to life and giving us enough insight. A lot of it was just telling us the same things multiple times to pad the book to acceptable length.

[Northern Star]

The biggest issue is with the players staying on the ballot for 10 years (used to be 15 years). My question is, if a player is not worthy of a HOF vote in year one, why does that change in years 2-10? A player is either HOF worthy or he's not. The passage of a few more years should not change any player's worthiness.

 

Also, how is it that voters are allowed to vote or not vote someone in based on whether they like the person or not? Schilling's percentage actually went down from one year to the next, after he ran his mouth about a bunch of stuff. I understand that people don't like what he has to say, but that should not affect his HOF votes. Changing a vote because of something he said is just plain wrong.

 

One way to solve the first issue is to raise the percentage required to stay on the ballot. I mentioned it earlier in the thread, what is it now, 5%? Complete joke.

 

The second issue cannot be policed in any way that I can think of. You'll always have bias. That's at least partly why no one's got in on a unanimous vote. And a few years back, I remember a writer leaving a shoo-in off the ballot and gave some garbage reason about forgetting about him or something. Should have his vote taken away.

[Kimmi]

One way to solve the first issue is to raise the percentage required to stay on the ballot. I mentioned it earlier in the thread, what is it now, 5%? Complete joke.

 

The second issue cannot be policed in any way that I can think of. You'll always have bias. That's at least partly why no one's got in on a unanimous vote. And a few years back, I remember a writer leaving a shoo-in off the ballot and gave some garbage reason about forgetting about him or something. Should have his vote taken away.

 

My thing is, why does any player need to be on the ballot more than one year? When a player becomes eligible, he's either voted in or he's done.

 

How is a player not good enough to be in the HOF for the first 5 years of eligibility, then is suddenly good enough in his 6th year? What has changed?

[notin]

In

I recently read Ankiel's memoir and it was interesting, but I don't think Tim Brown did a good enough job of bringing the story to life and giving us enough insight. A lot of it was just telling us the same things multiple times to pad the book to acceptable length.

 

I remember Ankiel as pitcher his rookie year before all the psychological issues set in. On MLB Tonight one night, Tim Kurkjian actually said “If Rick Ankiel doesn’t cut it as a pitcher, he can still have a career as an outfielder because he’s such a good hitter.”

 

How prophetic was that? Maybe Kurkjian needs to be in the Hall of Fame...

[Northern Star]

My thing is, why does any player need to be on the ballot more than one year? When a player becomes eligible, he's either voted in or he's done.

 

How is a player not good enough to be in the HOF for the first 5 years of eligibility, then is suddenly good enough in his 6th year? What has changed?

 

I see your point, but I'm ok with them not being one and done.

[Youk Of The Nation]

People change. The same voters now are not all the same voters as 10 years ago. One and done would mean guys who deserve to be in the hall of fame being left out because that particular year's crop of voters might have a problem with them, either personality-wise or based on their interpretation of eligibility. Martinez isn't in yet because some people think that DHs don't belong in the HOF. But his percentage increases each year because of new voters who have more non-Martinez seasons to reflect on and realize he was a very good player. Guys might be left out because some voters think that their stats didn't put them above anyone else, but the longer they're out of baseball, the more seasons there are without them to compare their performance to.

 

I think the problem is voting. It shouldn't be sportswriters, it should be a committee made up of the same number of people that includes all living HOFers and a selection of current and former players and managers selected by a vote of the living HOFers.

[Kimmi]

People change. The same voters now are not all the same voters as 10 years ago. One and done would mean guys who deserve to be in the hall of fame being left out because that particular year's crop of voters might have a problem with them, either personality-wise or based on their interpretation of eligibility. Martinez isn't in yet because some people think that DHs don't belong in the HOF. But his percentage increases each year because of new voters who have more non-Martinez seasons to reflect on and realize he was a very good player. Guys might be left out because some voters think that their stats didn't put them above anyone else, but the longer they're out of baseball, the more seasons there are without them to compare their performance to.

 

I think the problem is voting. It shouldn't be sportswriters, it should be a committee made up of the same number of people that includes all living HOFers and a selection of current and former players and managers selected by a vote of the living HOFers.

 

Everything you're saying here is part of the problem with the HOF voting. IMO, the players who get in the HOF should be no brainers. Therefore, if the group of voters this year doesn't think someone's good enough to get in, then they shouldn't get in.

 

If they vote against someone because they don't like that player, then that's a whole other problem.

 

I'll say it again with all sincerity. Let the stat geeks vote.

[Bellhorn04]

It is what it is. Like so many things in our lives, it'll never live up to what we think it should be.

[Northern Star]

I know you can't set absolute thresholds for stats that guarantee HOF status, but that would make things easier in terms of should a guy be in or not. I fear that over time so many undeserving players have been elected that it's lowered the bar. HOF should be for undisputed great players, not very good players.

 

(as close to undisputed as you can get, anyway).

[Bellhorn04]

I know you can't set absolute thresholds for stats that guarantee HOF status, but that would make things easier in terms of should a guy be in or not. I fear that over time so many undeserving players have been elected that it's lowered the bar. HOF should be for undisputed great players, not very good players.

 

(as close to undisputed as you can get, anyway).

 

If it was only for undisputed great players, there might be some long stretches with no one getting in. Some people would say that's boring.

 

I get your point, but no matter how it was there would be something to complain about.

[Northern Star]

If it was only for undisputed great players, there might be some long stretches with no one getting in. Some people would say that's boring.

 

I get your point, but no matter how it was there would be something to complain about.

 

Very true.

[Jasonbay44]

Hey, at least its not like the Basketball Hall of Fame where they kind of just throw everybody in.