Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

HOF results are in

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

Musial Collector

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
5,671
2
It's funny but when you do the numbers, I think more than 15 people didn't vote for Maddux lol - not even close to 100%

Overall, I agree with the guys who are going in.

Sucks for Biggio. Don't have heartburn over him not getting in. Sorry.


---
Buying Albert Belle cards! PM me!

No heartburn about any of those guys who are off now going forward. Anyone else feel differently?


---
Buying Albert Belle cards! PM me!

I have TONS of heartburn right now, not sure if its the Stupidity of the Baseball Writers or if its the Buffalo Chix Sub from Subway
 

predatorkj

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
11,871
2
I'm not heart broken Bagwell didn't get in but I just don't understand how he went down in percentage. If everyone can vote for 10 people, there would have been the ability for every voter to vote for the top ten guys. I don't get it. I hate the first or second ballot stuff. Either the guy is or isn't a HOF'er.

But hey, maybe his card prices will go back down a little. That'd be nice.
 

predatorkj

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
11,871
2
Well, instead of complaining about the few who didnt vote them in, lets be grateful they got in.

I hope I have some time today to look at a side by side comparison between Thomas and Bagwell. After all, throughout the 90s, if Thomas was on an insert, Bags was on the other side... Just wanna know how Thomas gets in and not Bags.

500 hr's, no evidence of PEDS. I say evidence. But really nobody has anything on Bags either.
 

Austin

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
5,706
41
Dallas, Texas
Just wanna know how Thomas gets in and not Bags.
Besides Thomas having better overall numbers, two MVPs and being considered one of the top 3 players of the '90s, Thomas was never suspected or accused of using PEDs, unlike Bagwell.
Simple really.
 

gracecollector

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
6,559
215
Lake in the Hills, IL
Hopefully the Hall will lift the 10 person maximum before next year's vote which will help ease the backlog and also eliminate the possibility some guys that deserve a look falling off the ballot due to the cap.

I'm just really happy that 3 actually made it and I think the 16 people that didn't vote for Maddux should have to provide their explanations with the rest of the voting pool allowed to kick any of them out if their reasoning fails any minimal standard of logic. I know that is a ridiculous and unrealistic thing to say. But that sure would stir the pot!

Why would they lift it? Since the initial class of 5, the most elected in in any year has been 4 once, 3 a couple times. Absolutely no reason to lift it, the current system works fine. Voting for 10 is plenty - I doubt very many ballots list that many.
 

MansGame

Active member
Sep 25, 2009
15,324
20
Dallas, TX
It's funny when you talk about guys who were in insert sets back in the '90s versus others and who got into the HOF, etc.

The writers have a mind of their own and the process does too... these conversations are pretty interesting all around if you ask me. Look at Albert Belle for example... guy didn't even get enough votes (~3.5%) to get to year #2 LOL! I mean I'm not going to start up the "Albert Belle should be in the HOF" talk but you have to be honest and say him falling off after 1 year was a joke, right?
 

r2d2

Active member
Aug 24, 2008
2,814
1
Mexico City
Why would they lift it? Since the initial class of 5, the most elected in in any year has been 4 once, 3 a couple times. Absolutely no reason to lift it, the current system works fine. Voting for 10 is plenty - I doubt very many ballots list that many.

50% of the voters used 10 spots this year.
 

Gwynn545

Well-known member
Aug 29, 2008
5,526
44
North Seattle
Jacque Jones was 1st in the league at Range Factor/9 Innings in 2002, so you guys are idiots for not seeing his HOF worthiness! Sucks for him. I'm writing a letter to the HOF...
 

BBCgalaxee

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2011
6,475
59
Jacques Jones and Benitez got votes!!!!!#-!!!!!!!!

Sent from my HTCONE using Freedom Card Board mobile app
 

maxe0213

New member
Oct 10, 2012
1,833
0
California and Oregon for school
Besides Thomas having better overall numbers, two MVPs and being considered one of the top 3 players of the '90s, Thomas was never suspected or accused of using PEDs, unlike Bagwell.
Simple really.

Nail on the head. Thomas was overall just a better player than Bagwell.

Little surprised Biggio got so close but I would guess he will get in next year. I'm not sure anyone else on that ballot besides Biggio and Piazza will ever get in. They elected the three correct players this time though.
 

markakis8

Active member
Oct 31, 2008
12,081
2
I'm not heart broken Bagwell didn't get in but I just don't understand how he went down in percentage. If everyone can vote for 10 people, there would have been the ability for every voter to vote for the top ten guys. I don't get it. I hate the first or second ballot stuff. Either the guy is or isn't a HOF'er.

But hey, maybe his card prices will go back down a little. That'd be nice.

It's not really a reflection on Bagwell, so don't take it so hard. Bagwell will definitely get in, he's just gonna have to wait until these next few ballots clear out. I see Bagwell having to wait another 5 years.
 

craftysouthpaw

New member
Jan 8, 2010
668
0
Nail on the head. Thomas was overall just a better player than Bagwell.

Little surprised Biggio got so close but I would guess he will get in next year. I'm not sure anyone else on that ballot besides Biggio and Piazza will ever get in. They elected the three correct players this time though.

Thomas was a better hitter. But overall? No way. Bagwell was an excellent fielder and one of the best best runners ever to play 1B and almost certainly the best for anyone at the position with anywhere near the power he had.

Doesn't overall mean all phases of the game? Thomas was a zero in two of the three. Now, he was an absolute beast at the plate and definitely more valuable there than Bagwell and offense carries more weight than baserunning and defense. But put them all together and they are neck and neck. WAR lists Bagwell as the 4th best 1B to play since 1900. Thomas is right with him which again shows just how dominant he was offensively that he was able to get that much value just from his bat.

But the PED witch hunt is at its most egregious with regards to Bagwell hence the voting difference. Even if you believe PED users shouldn't get in, there isn't the slightest shred of evidence that Bagwell used beyond some folks think he looked like a user. Whatever that means. Of all the guys getting shafted by the BWAAA, Bags is the guy I feel most sorry for.
 

maxe0213

New member
Oct 10, 2012
1,833
0
California and Oregon for school
Thomas was a better hitter. But overall? No way. Bagwell was an excellent fielder and one of the best best runners ever to play 1B and almost certainly the best for anyone at the position with anywhere near the power he had.

Doesn't overall mean all phases of the game? Thomas was a zero in two of the three. Now, he was an absolute beast at the plate and definitely more valuable there than Bagwell and offense carries more weight than baserunning and defense. But put them all together and they are neck and neck. WAR lists Bagwell as the 4th best 1B to play since 1900. Thomas is right with him which again shows just how dominant he was offensively that he was able to get that much value just from his bat.

But the PED witch hunt is at its most egregious with regards to Bagwell hence the voting difference. Even if you believe PED users shouldn't get in, there isn't the slightest shred of evidence that Bagwell used beyond some folks think he looked like a user. Whatever that means. Of all the guys getting shafted by the BWAAA, Bags is the guy I feel most sorry for.

Offense carries much more weight in the HOF voting than Defense or Running IMO and I think many voters look at it that way as well.

Thomas Offense > Bags Offense, Defense, Base Running Combined.

Thomas was outspoken against PED's and never thought to have used. Bagwell has had some issues with accused of Steroids.

I think its pretty obvious why he didn't get in and he didn't get "shafted" either.
 

craftysouthpaw

New member
Jan 8, 2010
668
0
Why would they lift it? Since the initial class of 5, the most elected in in any year has been 4 once, 3 a couple times. Absolutely no reason to lift it, the current system works fine. Voting for 10 is plenty - I doubt very many ballots list that many.

Because it is a completely arbitrary limit and the BWAAA has created a mess of a backlog. As several have already stated, a large chunk of the electorate is using all 10 votes and several have said they would vote for as many as 15-20 if they could (and in my opinion, those guys tend to be the more enlightened voters in the pool - but that is strictly my opinion and I respect any disagreement). Why should guys have to squeeze their ballots if they truly believe that many deserve their vote?

The Hall has already said they are going to discuss this later this year and I'll be surprised if they don't lift it or at least raise it.
 

predatorkj

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
11,871
2
Besides Thomas having better overall numbers, two MVPs and being considered one of the top 3 players of the '90s, Thomas was never suspected or accused of using PEDs, unlike Bagwell.
Simple really.

Bagwell is just as clean as Thomas. That is, nobody knows whether either one of then did it or not.
 

predatorkj

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
11,871
2
It's not really a reflection on Bagwell, so don't take it so hard. Bagwell will definitely get in, he's just gonna have to wait until these next few ballots clear out. I see Bagwell having to wait another 5 years.

No, you should never vote for a guy and then take the vote back. Not with ten open spots. That's what makes me mad, player be damned. It makes a persons vote mean a bit less. I can't take people like that seriously.
 

Members online

Top