Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

HOF 2019 Discussion

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.

Austin

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
5,706
41
Dallas, Texas
I'd vote for Rivera, Edgar, Schilling, Halladay, Walker and Helton.

No one else has mentioned Helton, not even as a borderline candidate?
 

WizardofOz1982

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2017
1,736
1,498
Oklahoma
Never said he was Lou Gehrig. McGriff didn't take PED's unlike the other hacks.

Don't you think it's imperative to examine players on a case by case basis while also considering context and social norms for that time period? It doesn't make things right or just, but treating eras universal based on morality doesn't serve any justice. Roberto Alomar spit on an empire and he's in.

McGriff was never a great defender, but Martinez was never a defender at all. Offense can ususrp defense when it comes to HOF discussion. It's the same reason David Ortiz will slide in as a first ballot although he never played a legit position.

Could a, would a and should'a. Vizquel still has the hardware regardless of your opinion. Those three you listed weren't half the players that Vizquel was.

You have definitive proof that McGriff didn't take steroids/PEDs? How do you know he didn't? He played on teams with several prominent steroid guys and he certainly played in the heart of the era. Even if you remove the known PED users like Bonds and McGwire, McGriff still doesn't crack the top 25 in SLG during his career. That's not premier. at least to my mind. I have no issue with McGriff in the Hall, especially given the 1994 strike and how close to 500 HRs he is, but I don't believe he's slam dunk by any stretch.

Sure you consider players on a case by case basis as long as it's objective. There is nothing remotely objective about the way the voters view the steroid era versus other PED enhanced eras though. If you're okay with Willie Mays popping greenies and drinking leaded coffee in the clubhouse then you have to be okay with Barry Bonds using the cream and the clear and both being in the Hall of Fame. If Bonds is out because he used steroids then Mays should be out for using greenies. Context? Is there a context that makes cheating via PED use okay? There are blinders up on the voting members, probably mostly due to the fact that guys like Aaron, Mays, and Schmidt are their childhood heroes, about that whole era. Greenies have as much or more effect on a baseball player over a 162 game in 180 day schedule as steroids do but they're okay and steroids aren't. As far as social norms I think you can split a finer hair. Would I leave Cap Anson out of the Hall for being a racist a-hole who initiated the conditions that kept baseball segregated for 60+ years? Absolutely. Would I leave out a Christy Mathewson, who by all accounts was a fine example of a human being, because he came along 15 years later after Anson and played in a league that was already segregated by none of his doing? Absolutely not. If you want to consider social norms that's fine, and frankly a necessary part of it, but in doing so you have to go to the sources of those norms and hold them accountable, be that for good or bad. This is the reason I'll continue to stump for Marvin Miller and Curt Flood to be in the Hall of Fame. Those two did more to shape the current game (societal norm if you will) than anyone else.

Martinez played the first quarter of his career (over 550 games) as a scratch average or slightly above defensive 3B. He wasn't taken off the field because his defense was bad. He was taken off the field because he kept getting hurt and they were smart enough to know that Mike Blowers at 3B and Edgar at DH was more valuable than Mike Blowers at DH and Edgar on the DL. I agree with you about Ortiz. I consider him borderline but he'll go in first ballot because of the personality and the postseason heroics.

Rey Ordonez, especially, was every bit as good defensively as Vizquel was and probably better. He just didn't hang around for 24 years hitting singles. Cezar Izturis was a career utility guy and I honestly don't know anything about Rabbit Warstler (had never even heard of him till he popped up as a comp for Vizquel). The fact that those guys are good comps statistically for Vizquel doesn't speak highly of his career. Being mediocre overall for 24 years in the bigs doesn't make you a Hall of Famer.


This is the only thing I’m gonna say this year about the hall. You have Edgar Martinez in as do most. I do not. But no Omar. And then you go on to say why. Anybody who saw his entire career should know how great he was and if Ozzie is in then Omar is a certainty. But the argument for Edgar is the same for omar if people want to compare the two. He was a DH FOR 80% Of career. Hence both mine as well be set up men according to that logic.

Well one more thing Andrew Jones and not Fred McGriff. That’s a joke to. Andrew Jones has NO SHOT and Fred mcgriff. Is Co Paris me to Art Monk in football. Took 10 years. Unreal.


Sent from my iPhone using Freedom Card Board mobile app

Omar Vizquel wasn't half the player Ozzie was. I saw both their careers (except the first four years of Ozzie's) and I don't know how anyone that watched them both can think Vizquel was even close. Vizquel wasn't even the best defensive shortstop in the AL during most of his career (though he wasn't far behind Ripken), much less on par with Ozzie defensively or offensively. He was probably the flashiest in the AL but that's not nearly the same thing. I'm not in any way saying he was a bad defender but he's overrated by many people and his bat was awful.

Andruw Jones wasn't quite as good a hitter as McGriff but he was still above average with good counting stats (434 HRs, 1200+ runs, 1200+ RBIs in 80% of the At Bats that McGriff had). That's where the similarities end. McGriff was a poor defender at the very low end of the defensive spectrum. Andruw Jones is the greatest defensive center fielder of all time by the second largest value gap over the second best at any position. Only the value gap between Brooks and Beltre at 3B is bigger. There's a pretty solid argument to be made that he's the greatest defender of all time, no matter what position you're talking about. If you think McGriff deserves to be in the Hall of Fame then you should be tearing down the doors to put Andruw Jones in.
 

Austin

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
5,706
41
Dallas, Texas
21% of the HOF ballots have already been made public, according to http://www.bbhoftracker.com

So far, several players are over 75%, Rivera, Halladay, Martinez, Mussina and Schilling.
And Clemens and Bonds have over 70%.
Walker has 65%.

It's still very early, and the results could change drastically, but it's interesting Bonds and Clemens are starting to be accepted by more voters.

B16D43C1-54AE-49F1-8182-E8D620148634.png
 

chadgwynn

Member
Jun 13, 2011
288
4
You have definitive proof that McGriff didn't take steroids/PEDs? How do you know he didn't? He played on teams with several prominent steroid guys and he certainly played in the heart of the era. Even if you remove the known PED users like Bonds and McGwire, McGriff still doesn't crack the top 25 in SLG during his career. That's not premier. at least to my mind. I have no issue with McGriff in the Hall, especially given the 1994 strike and how close to 500 HRs he is, but I don't believe he's slam dunk by any stretch.

Sure you consider players on a case by case basis as long as it's objective. There is nothing remotely objective about the way the voters view the steroid era versus other PED enhanced eras though. If you're okay with Willie Mays popping greenies and drinking leaded coffee in the clubhouse then you have to be okay with Barry Bonds using the cream and the clear and both being in the Hall of Fame. If Bonds is out because he used steroids then Mays should be out for using greenies. Context? Is there a context that makes cheating via PED use okay? There are blinders up on the voting members, probably mostly due to the fact that guys like Aaron, Mays, and Schmidt are their childhood heroes, about that whole era. Greenies have as much or more effect on a baseball player over a 162 game in 180 day schedule as steroids do but they're okay and steroids aren't. As far as social norms I think you can split a finer hair. Would I leave Cap Anson out of the Hall for being a racist a-hole who initiated the conditions that kept baseball segregated for 60+ years? Absolutely. Would I leave out a Christy Mathewson, who by all accounts was a fine example of a human being, because he came along 15 years later after Anson and played in a league that was already segregated by none of his doing? Absolutely not. If you want to consider social norms that's fine, and frankly a necessary part of it, but in doing so you have to go to the sources of those norms and hold them accountable, be that for good or bad. This is the reason I'll continue to stump for Marvin Miller and Curt Flood to be in the Hall of Fame. Those two did more to shape the current game (societal norm if you will) than anyone else.

Martinez played the first quarter of his career (over 550 games) as a scratch average or slightly above defensive 3B. He wasn't taken off the field because his defense was bad. He was taken off the field because he kept getting hurt and they were smart enough to know that Mike Blowers at 3B and Edgar at DH was more valuable than Mike Blowers at DH and Edgar on the DL. I agree with you about Ortiz. I consider him borderline but he'll go in first ballot because of the personality and the postseason heroics.

Rey Ordonez, especially, was every bit as good defensively as Vizquel was and probably better. He just didn't hang around for 24 years hitting singles. Cezar Izturis was a career utility guy and I honestly don't know anything about Rabbit Warstler (had never even heard of him till he popped up as a comp for Vizquel). The fact that those guys are good comps statistically for Vizquel doesn't speak highly of his career. Being mediocre overall for 24 years in the bigs doesn't make you a Hall of Famer.




Omar Vizquel wasn't half the player Ozzie was. I saw both their careers (except the first four years of Ozzie's) and I don't know how anyone that watched them both can think Vizquel was even close. Vizquel wasn't even the best defensive shortstop in the AL during most of his career (though he wasn't far behind Ripken), much less on par with Ozzie defensively or offensively. He was probably the flashiest in the AL but that's not nearly the same thing. I'm not in any way saying he was a bad defender but he's overrated by many people and his bat was awful.

Andruw Jones wasn't quite as good a hitter as McGriff but he was still above average with good counting stats (434 HRs, 1200+ runs, 1200+ RBIs in 80% of the At Bats that McGriff had). That's where the similarities end. McGriff was a poor defender at the very low end of the defensive spectrum. Andruw Jones is the greatest defensive center fielder of all time by the second largest value gap over the second best at any position. Only the value gap between Brooks and Beltre at 3B is bigger. There's a pretty solid argument to be made that he's the greatest defender of all time, no matter what position you're talking about. If you think McGriff deserves to be in the Hall of Fame then you should be tearing down the doors to put Andruw Jones in.

2 points mcgriff played in a better era an Andrew in juiced ball. There is no comparison on how much influence these two had in their careers. Also Andrew played on a stacked team. Chipper for one. And just didn’t do it
That long as well as not being great.

As far as vizquel his bat was not the best I give you that. As far as comparing to Ripken. Although more home runs Ripken didn’t hit for a great average. Ripken vs visquel the glove is no comparison visquel in my opinion is the greatest fielder EVER. until I made a statement 5 years ago on watching Colorado Aranado and have proven to myself he is the best vacuum ever and I to saw most of Ozzie they are equal players in my opinion. Ozzie was
Popular like ozzzyy ozbourne with his antics as well and was the first to really hit the hall with an average bat.


Sent from my iPhone using Freedom Card Board mobile app
 

jbone17

Active member
Sep 26, 2008
6,756
42
The Riverlands.
You have definitive proof that McGriff didn't take steroids/PEDs? How do you know he didn't? He played on teams with several prominent steroid guys and he certainly played in the heart of the era. Even if you remove the known PED users like Bonds and McGwire, McGriff still doesn't crack the top 25 in SLG during his career. That's not premier. at least to my mind. I have no issue with McGriff in the Hall, especially given the 1994 strike and how close to 500 HRs he is, but I don't believe he's slam dunk by any stretch.

Sure you consider players on a case by case basis as long as it's objective. There is nothing remotely objective about the way the voters view the steroid era versus other PED enhanced eras though. If you're okay with Willie Mays popping greenies and drinking leaded coffee in the clubhouse then you have to be okay with Barry Bonds using the cream and the clear and both being in the Hall of Fame. If Bonds is out because he used steroids then Mays should be out for using greenies. Context? Is there a context that makes cheating via PED use okay? There are blinders up on the voting members, probably mostly due to the fact that guys like Aaron, Mays, and Schmidt are their childhood heroes, about that whole era. Greenies have as much or more effect on a baseball player over a 162 game in 180 day schedule as steroids do but they're okay and steroids aren't. As far as social norms I think you can split a finer hair. Would I leave Cap Anson out of the Hall for being a racist a-hole who initiated the conditions that kept baseball segregated for 60+ years? Absolutely. Would I leave out a Christy Mathewson, who by all accounts was a fine example of a human being, because he came along 15 years later after Anson and played in a league that was already segregated by none of his doing? Absolutely not. If you want to consider social norms that's fine, and frankly a necessary part of it, but in doing so you have to go to the sources of those norms and hold them accountable, be that for good or bad. This is the reason I'll continue to stump for Marvin Miller and Curt Flood to be in the Hall of Fame. Those two did more to shape the current game (societal norm if you will) than anyone else.

Martinez played the first quarter of his career (over 550 games) as a scratch average or slightly above defensive 3B. He wasn't taken off the field because his defense was bad. He was taken off the field because he kept getting hurt and they were smart enough to know that Mike Blowers at 3B and Edgar at DH was more valuable than Mike Blowers at DH and Edgar on the DL. I agree with you about Ortiz. I consider him borderline but he'll go in first ballot because of the personality and the postseason heroics.

Rey Ordonez, especially, was every bit as good defensively as Vizquel was and probably better. He just didn't hang around for 24 years hitting singles. Cezar Izturis was a career utility guy and I honestly don't know anything about Rabbit Warstler (had never even heard of him till he popped up as a comp for Vizquel). The fact that those guys are good comps statistically for Vizquel doesn't speak highly of his career. Being mediocre overall for 24 years in the bigs doesn't make you a Hall of Famer.




Omar Vizquel wasn't half the player Ozzie was. I saw both their careers (except the first four years of Ozzie's) and I don't know how anyone that watched them both can think Vizquel was even close. Vizquel wasn't even the best defensive shortstop in the AL during most of his career (though he wasn't far behind Ripken), much less on par with Ozzie defensively or offensively. He was probably the flashiest in the AL but that's not nearly the same thing. I'm not in any way saying he was a bad defender but he's overrated by many people and his bat was awful.

Andruw Jones wasn't quite as good a hitter as McGriff but he was still above average with good counting stats (434 HRs, 1200+ runs, 1200+ RBIs in 80% of the At Bats that McGriff had). That's where the similarities end. McGriff was a poor defender at the very low end of the defensive spectrum. Andruw Jones is the greatest defensive center fielder of all time by the second largest value gap over the second best at any position. Only the value gap between Brooks and Beltre at 3B is bigger. There's a pretty solid argument to be made that he's the greatest defender of all time, no matter what position you're talking about. If you think McGriff deserves to be in the Hall of Fame then you should be tearing down the doors to put Andruw Jones in.

Never said McGriff is a slam dunk, but he's very deserving. He suffers from the cloud of suspicion. There's never been a shred of evidence connecting him to PED's, but writers feel the need to exclude him because he happened to play in that era. It's unfair and the reason why so many deserving players are kept out.

No way. Mays taking greenies and Bonds taking Andro is a completely different scenario. Bonds took a substance called "the clear" in which he altered his body to enhance his performance and that if tested, it would've been hidden. He's a sneaky and smug *****. He was charged with obstruction of justice and hired a good lawyer to get him off. Mays and guys like Mike Schmidt took something that a truck driver would use. How do you feel about A-Rod and Biogenesis? A-Rod attempted to buy back documents that implicated him in the scandal and threatened his own cousin to keep quiet about his alleged steroid usage. Do you feel that's similar to someone taking greenies? Again. Case by case basis is the only way to judge across eras. They're not the same. I am 100 percent with you on Marvin Miller and Curt Flood. The impact they left on our game is undeniable. Steinbrenner not being in is another crime.

Vizquel is a HOF'er because of his longevity at a grueling position. Do you know how durable you have to be to play 24 years as a damn short stop? Not only that, as I alluded to before he won 11 gold gloves regardless of how he won them. Vizquel and Roberto Alomar formed one of the best double play combos you'll ever see. Nothing got past them.
 

Super Mario

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2009
18,242
85
Mushroom Kingdom
21% of the HOF ballots have already been made public, according to http://www.bbhoftracker.com

So far, several players are over 75%, Rivera, Halladay, Martinez, Mussina and Schilling.
And Clemens and Bonds have over 70%.
Walker has 65%.

It's still very early, and the results could change drastically, but it's interesting Bonds and Clemens are starting to be accepted by more voters.

View attachment 85397

Mariano should be unanimous, but he won’t be.
 

nosterbor

Well-known member
Jun 20, 2010
6,099
431
Sunny Florida
" Mariano should be unanimous, but he won’t be. "
No he won't because there are those that won't vote for him just because they can.
 
Last edited:

JVHaste

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2015
4,751
270
Vancouver WA
21% of the HOF ballots have already been made public, according to http://www.bbhoftracker.com

So far, several players are over 75%, Rivera, Halladay, Martinez, Mussina and Schilling.
And Clemens and Bonds have over 70%.
Walker has 65%.

It's still very early, and the results could change drastically, but it's interesting Bonds and Clemens are starting to be accepted by more voters.

View attachment 85397

What we saw last year (and I think its similar most years) Is the early voters were the enthusiastic yes voters and the end was a bunch of blank/nearly blank ballots. Edgar was over 80-85% for a while last time and then bombed the ending iirc.

It makes the whole process even more of a tease! :cry:
 

JVHaste

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2015
4,751
270
Vancouver WA
21% of the HOF ballots have already been made public, according to http://www.bbhoftracker.com

So far, several players are over 75%, Rivera, Halladay, Martinez, Mussina and Schilling.
And Clemens and Bonds have over 70%.
Walker has 65%.

It's still very early, and the results could change drastically, but it's interesting Bonds and Clemens are starting to be accepted by more voters.

View attachment 85397

What we saw last year (and I think its similar most years) Is the early voters were the enthusiastic yes voters and the end was a bunch of blank/nearly blank ballots. Edgar was over 80-85% for a while last time and then bombed the ending iirc.

It makes the whole process even more of a tease! :cry:
 

death2redemptions

New member
Feb 4, 2016
12,488
0
The Carolina on the Southern side
What we saw last year (and I think its similar most years) Is the early voters were the enthusiastic yes voters and the end was a bunch of blank/nearly blank ballots. Edgar was over 80-85% for a while last time and then bombed the ending iirc.

It makes the whole process even more of a tease! :cry:

Yeah, it seems like the closer it gets to the final vote, the lower the percentages drop for every player. Like if you ain't at over 85-90% at this point in time, you won't end up with over 75% when voting comes to an end. I thought for sure Schilling would finally make it in last year because he was over 75% for the longest time (well past where we are now).

Although, I can't remember if Clemens & Bonds were getting this much love this early on or not.
 

Scartchy18

New member
May 21, 2013
24
2
Schilling, Walker, Mussina, McGriff, Halladay, Edgar, Vizquel. Not a fan of guys who pitch one inning or less.
 

Members online

Top