Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot

Final ballot: Who should make the Hall of Fame later today?

1/8/14 in MLB   |   Pat   |   5138 respect



Eric's take:
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballotBefore I state my entire (fake) ballot, I want to briefly touch on some guys that we didn’t get to in our look at the individual players. All are NO votes, but some are closer than others, and others would get my vote if not for the limit.

Fred McGriff was incredibly consistent, but had little peak to speak of. I’m still open to his candidacy though, as I wonder if I’m underrating the fact that his prime was the less offensive 80s.

Don Mattingly was great from 1984-1987, but there isn’t much else there, which is unfortunate.

Lee Smith’s candidacy was mostly based on the career save record, which he hasn’t had for a few years now. He was at one point a multi-inning closer, but not entirely. He’s not necessarily ahead of any of the five relievers currently in the Hall, and he’s certainly behind Mariano and Hoffman and probably behind Billy Wagner too on future ballots.

Not voting for Alan Trammell hurts, since he might be the most overlooked player on the ballot. His number compare favorably to Barry Larkin and even Cal Ripken. He will soon join Lou Whitaker as snubs, the two 1980s Tigers who should be knocking on the door of the Hall. For me, Trammell got squeezed, and his low vote total was a reason why.

One quick look at his stats in Montreal and St. Louis show that Larry Walker was not just a creation of Coors Field. His bigger problem for me is the fact he played more than 150 games only once. Still, at some point I hope he gets a real debate on his case, because so far it hasn’t happened.

With that, here is how I would vote if I had one. As stated in our articles, I’ve said yes on nine guys:

Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballotJeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Tom Glavine
Greg Maddux
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Frank Thomas

I had one open spot, and I’m giving it to Mike Mussina in a close one over Edgar Martinez, Trammell, and Curt Schilling. Is part of that because he’s the only non-PED disgrace Oriole on the ballot? A little bit, but Mussina has a fine, if underrate, case, and hey, let me have this one.

I hope you all enjoyed our look at the Hall of Fame ballot. It’s overwrought and probably insane that we (well, mostly me) spent that much time on it. However, if you like baseball, it’s hard not to get involved with Hall of Fame stuff, and the way I see it, if you’re going to get involved, you might as well as do your homework and have your opinion be based on something. The “it’s not the Hall of Very Good,” the “if you have to think about, he’s not a Hall of Famer” and arguments like that drive me nuts because they are thoughtless. If you can actually do some research and argue your choices, cool, even if I don’t agree. If you’re a voting member of the BBWAA, it’s your responsibility to do so.
 
Eric's Ballot:
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Jeff Bagwell
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Craig Biggio
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Barry Bonds
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Roger Clemens
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Tom Glavine
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Greg Maddux
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Mike Piazza
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Tim Raines
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Frank Thomas
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Mike Mussina



Pat's take:
In our previews, I already said that I'd be voting for Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Mike Piazza, Craig Biggio, Jeff Bagwell, and Frank Thomas. Add Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine to the list, because they're locks in my mind.

Beyond that, it gets extremely difficult in my mind. There are a lot of players who are absolutely deserving of induction. Mussina, Raines, Trammell and many others are guys who absolutely deserve a long look, and might someday be inducted.

Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballotWith my final two votes, I'm going to get a little biased. I believe Curt Schilling and Mike Mussina are nearly identical in terms of HOF worthiness. But as a Red Sox fan, I'm going to go with Schilling over Mussina this time, because I appreciate what he did for the Red Sox. I also think that his status as the ace for several World Series champions should be considered, as well as his historically low walk rate. Schilling's control was impeccable, and he was a great pitcher for an extremely long time.

Also, Schilling is 4th among all eligible players on Jay Jaffe's JAWS list. He trails only Bonds, Clemens and Maddux, who are all obviously among the all-time greats. Schilling gets my 9th vote.

Last but certainly not least, I'm going to make a case for the greatest designated hitter of all time (for now). There's an annual award named after Edgar Martinez, and he was a professional hitter in every sense of the word. Lots of people will fault him for not playing the field, but they won't hesitate to vote for a great hitter who played mediocre in the field. What's the difference, really?

Also, I believe that Edgar Martinez's HOF case is intrinsically linked to that of David Ortiz, when he becomes eligible for consideration. As a huge Ortiz supporter, I believe it would be disingenuous if I didn't support the pioneer at his position, and the man after whom the "Best DH" award is named. Martinez gets my 10th and final vote.
 
Pat's Ballot:
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Roger Clemens
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Barry Bonds
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Mike Piazza
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Craig Biggio
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Jeff Bagwell
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Frank Thomas
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Greg Maddux
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Tom Glavine
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Curt Schilling
Blog Photo - Baseball Hall of Fame final ballot
Edgar Martinez


If you haven't taken our poll yet, go ahead and do it now. Also, stick with us throughout the day as we post the actual announcement as the voting totals are revealed later in the day.

Who would make your Hall of Fame, if you had a vote? Let us know in the comments below.
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

1/13/14   |   ML31   |   3616 respect

Pat wrote:
The DH also doesn't have the opportunity to screw up in the field, either.

His Cleveland years? He played 39 games in Cleveland, and 5 were as a DH. What are these "years" you're talking about?

Kent wasn't THAT bad. But he wasn't good. His performance in the field added no value whatsoever. And the reason they didn't have him play DH is because HE WAS IN THE NATIONAL LEAGUE FOR 95.4% OF HIS GAMES PLAYED (2194 out of 2298).

So now you're comparing Kent (offensively) to second basemen, because they're mostly weak hitters and that makes him look better, but you don't want to acknowledge that defensively, he was among the worst at his particular position. Oh ok.

Are you even paying attention to what you're saying?

OK....  Cleveland year.  But that year he WAS the replacement!  And he only had 5 DH games.  You seemed to have missed where I said "in the interleague games" when it came to him being used as a DH.  Once again, if he were THAT bad in the field managers would have jumped at the opportunity to have him ride the bench as a DH in the AL parks those few games a year.  They didn't.  Therefore, it seems that not only to people who have seen him play not think he was below average in the field but his managers seemed to not think that either. 

I am not comparing Kent to other 2nd basemen because they're mostly weak hitters.  I'm comparing him to other 2nd basemen because HE PLAYED 2ND BASE TOO!   Just as I wouldn't compare a catcher to a first baseman.  It's not Kent's fault 2nd basemen have overall lacked the offensive prowess of outfielders or corner infielders.  I acknowledge his defensive ability as adequate.  Along with every one else who saw him play day in and day out.  Saying he was among the worst is just ignorant.

I do make the occasional mistake from time to time and own up to it when pointed out.  In this case no mistake has been made regarding Kent's defensive abilities by me.  Only by you.  Will you admit to that?

1/13/14   |   ML31   |   3616 respect

Eric_ wrote:
I wouldn't say replacement level is arbitrary. You can quibble with the mathematical baseline of the concept, but it has a real life equivalent: those players at the bottom of the major league roster or in AAA who only get significant playing time in the bigs due to others unavailability. It's guys who are pretty easy to acquire and get rid of. I would think most would get that part of it at least.

Also, "WAR guys" mostly don't exist except as straw men.

Then you aren't getting the concept of the term "WAR guys."   Also, those players aren't necessarily replacement players.  As I said, it is a decision made to make the stat work.  Nothing wrong with the stat.  It's just that it isn't as valuable a measurement as many seem to think it is.

1/12/14   |   Pat   |   5138 respect

ML31 wrote:
You are forgetting that the DH doesn't even have the opportunity to make plays.  A sub par fielder (which Kent most certainly was NOT) has far more opportunity to help the team than any DH.  Even the greatest fielder on the planet is going to make errors from time to time.  Because of this, the every day player ought to get far more consideration than a DH does.  Period.  Think about it...  Why are most DH's DH's?  Because they are usually far far below average fielders who can still swing the bat.  If Kent was really THAT bad he would have been a DH.  At least in the IL games.  How many times was he a DH in all those NL years?  2.  How about his Cleveland years?  5.  Obviously Kent was considered better than any replacement available on any of those teams. 
Perhaps arbitrary was the wrong word.  It is calculated so it's calculation is not really arbitrary.  The idea of a generic replacement player is.  But it is still not as valuable a gauge of players as you and some others seem to think it is.  I understand how it works and that is why I accept it's value for what it is.  A way to place a numeric value on something that in the real world really cannot be calculated. 
I'm not even going to address the "mitt" part as either it clearly went over your head or you just are playing around with the statement.

The DH also doesn't have the opportunity to screw up in the field, either.

His Cleveland years? He played 39 games in Cleveland, and 5 were as a DH. What are these "years" you're talking about?

Kent wasn't THAT bad. But he wasn't good. His performance in the field added no value whatsoever. And the reason they didn't have him play DH is because HE WAS IN THE NATIONAL LEAGUE FOR 95.4% OF HIS GAMES PLAYED (2194 out of 2298).

So now you're comparing Kent (offensively) to second basemen, because they're mostly weak hitters and that makes him look better, but you don't want to acknowledge that defensively, he was among the worst at his particular position. Oh ok.

Are you even paying attention to what you're saying?

1/12/14   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

I wouldn't say replacement level is arbitrary. You can quibble with the mathematical baseline of the concept, but it has a real life equivalent: those players at the bottom of the major league roster or in AAA who only get significant playing time in the bigs due to others unavailability. It's guys who are pretty easy to acquire and get rid of. I would think most would get that part of it at least.

Also, "WAR guys" mostly don't exist except as straw men.

1/12/14   |   ML31   |   3616 respect

kantwistaye wrote:
You are as wrong as you have ever been on that one.  How many putouts does a DH make?  How many putouts did Kent make? 

Defense rests.

A DH makes none.  However, a good defensive second basemen makes more than an average one.  An average one makes more than a below average one. If you're below average (like Kent was), you're costing your team.  Hence, less valuable.  This isn't hard.


BTW...   WAR is among the most worthless and arbitrary stats there are.  It is impossible to determine wins against a player's replacement. 

The point is that it isn't arbitrary.  And its pretty easy to figure out a player's replacement.  You can either find league average or average out the last guy on every roster.  Either way, its pretty simple.

You need to come up with something more credible than that.  I've seen him play a ton.  Trust me.  He was a steady fielder.  Baseballs into his mitt were outs.

Now, if you want arbitrary, this is it.  "Trust me" without an argument lacks reason.  But hey, it happens.  And your last point?  Its kind of the point you're missing.  You can't mess up an out if you can't get to the ball.  

True.  But defense is also one of those things that really is very difficult to measure with raw #'s.  You can have players with fantastic ranges make more errors.  But they are still considered the superior fielder because he has more range than others, for example.  Raw numbers just can't reveal that sort of thing.  it really comes from watching players play.  Kent NEVER cost his team in the field.  No one who watched him play on a regular basis felt he did.  The only people who think he did are people who only saw him on rare occasions or not at all.  Funny how it works that way...

Regarding your WAR argument, you are saying that Playing Ramon Martinez (Kent's replacement on that roster essentially) game in and game out at 2nd base in 2000 would have meant almost an extra win for the Giants that year.   Further, a players replacement isn't necessarily that last guy on a roster.  It would come from the other 1 or 2 players who could adequately play his position in his absence.  Further still, the league average of the last few guys on all MLB rosters doesn't tell you about his actual replacement.  It's just a decision made to try and make WAR work. 
I know WAR people wouldn't but I certainly would value the honest opinion of someone who watched a player play on a fairly regular basis over that of someone who never, or rarely saw him play at all and is judging him solely on WAR.  I never claimed Kent had great range.  He probably had slightly less range than many others.  But he was NEVER a defensive liability out there by any means.  He was simply adequate.  Again...  No one who watched him play on a regular basis believes him to be "sub par" in the field. 

1/12/14   |   ML31   |   3616 respect

Pat wrote:
It doesn't matter how many putouts a DH makes, since a DH also makes zero errors. I could play 2nd base and make a few putouts, but that doesn't make me worth a damn thing to an MLB team as a 2nd baseman. If a player makes less plays and plays worse defense than a replacement level player, he is NOT actually helping his team in the field.

And no, WAR isn't arbitrary at all. You simply believe it to be arbitrary because you don't understand it.

Last but not least, baseballs into ANYONE'S mitts are an out, more often than not. Even the worst fielding MLB player makes an out most of the time, when the ball goes into their mitt. Nothing impressive about that.
(Edited by ML31)

You are forgetting that the DH doesn't even have the opportunity to make plays.  A sub par fielder (which Kent most certainly was NOT) has far more opportunity to help the team than any DH.  Even the greatest fielder on the planet is going to make errors from time to time.  Because of this, the every day player ought to get far more consideration than a DH does.  Period.  Think about it...  Why are most DH's DH's?  Because they are usually far far below average fielders who can still swing the bat.  If Kent was really THAT bad he would have been a DH.  At least in the IL games.  How many times was he a DH in all those NL years?  2.  How about his Cleveland years?  5.  Obviously Kent was considered better than any replacement available on any of those teams. 
Perhaps arbitrary was the wrong word.  It is calculated so it's calculation is not really arbitrary.  The idea of a generic replacement player is.  But it is still not as valuable a gauge of players as you and some others seem to think it is.  I understand how it works and that is why I accept it's value for what it is.  A way to place a numeric value on something that in the real world really cannot be calculated. 
I'm not even going to address the "mitt" part as either it clearly went over your head or you just are playing around with the statement.

1/12/14   |   Pat   |   5138 respect

ML31 wrote:
You are as wrong as you have ever been on that one.  How many putouts does a DH make?  How many putouts did Kent make? 

Defense rests.

BTW...   WAR is among the most worthless and arbitrary stats there are.  It is impossible to determine wins against a player's replacement.  You need to come up with something more credible than that.  I've seen him play a ton.  Trust me.  He was a steady fielder.  Baseballs into his mitt were outs.

It doesn't matter how many putouts a DH makes, since a DH also makes zero errors. I could play 2nd base and make a few putouts, but that doesn't make me worth a damn thing to an MLB team as a 2nd baseman. If a player makes less plays and plays worse defense than a replacement level player, he is NOT actually helping his team in the field.

And no, WAR isn't arbitrary at all. You simply believe it to be arbitrary because you don't understand it.

Last but not least, baseballs into ANYONE'S mitts are an out, more often than not. Even the worst fielding MLB player makes an out most of the time, when the ball goes into their mitt. Nothing impressive about that.

1/12/14   |   kantwistaye   |   4201 respect

ML31 wrote:
You are as wrong as you have ever been on that one.  How many putouts does a DH make?  How many putouts did Kent make? 

Defense rests.

BTW...   WAR is among the most worthless and arbitrary stats there are.  It is impossible to determine wins against a player's replacement.  You need to come up with something more credible than that.  I've seen him play a ton.  Trust me.  He was a steady fielder.  Baseballs into his mitt were outs.

You are as wrong as you have ever been on that one.  How many putouts does a DH make?  How many putouts did Kent make? 

Defense rests.

A DH makes none.  However, a good defensive second basemen makes more than an average one.  An average one makes more than a below average one. If you're below average (like Kent was), you're costing your team.  Hence, less valuable.  This isn't hard.


BTW...   WAR is among the most worthless and arbitrary stats there are.  It is impossible to determine wins against a player's replacement. 

The point is that it isn't arbitrary.  And its pretty easy to figure out a player's replacement.  You can either find league average or average out the last guy on every roster.  Either way, its pretty simple.

You need to come up with something more credible than that.  I've seen him play a ton.  Trust me.  He was a steady fielder.  Baseballs into his mitt were outs.

Now, if you want arbitrary, this is it.  "Trust me" without an argument lacks reason.  But hey, it happens.  And your last point?  Its kind of the point you're missing.  You can't mess up an out if you can't get to the ball.  

1/12/14   |   ML31   |   3616 respect

Pat wrote:
But your standards aren't actually higher. They're just convoluted.

They are much higher given that you have constantly complained that the 10 player limit is too low while I find it way too high.

Nothing convoluted about that. 

1/12/14   |   ML31   |   3616 respect

Pat wrote:
Jeff Kent's career dWAR was -0.7. So yes, he would have been more valuable to his team if he had played DH in every single game. He had negative overall value in the field. He added nothing to his value by playing the field.

You are as wrong as you have ever been on that one.  How many putouts does a DH make?  How many putouts did Kent make? 

Defense rests.

BTW...   WAR is among the most worthless and arbitrary stats there are.  It is impossible to determine wins against a player's replacement.  You need to come up with something more credible than that.  I've seen him play a ton.  Trust me.  He was a steady fielder.  Baseballs into his mitt were outs.

1/10/14   |   Pat   |   5138 respect

ML31 wrote:
As I said...  It's only meaningless to people who cannot see beyond raw numbers. 

Those numbers are useful of course but they don't always tell the full story.  Intangibles help give a more clear picture of a player.  Just like raw stats.  As I said....  Stat geeks hate intangibles and poo poo them because they are incapable of placing a value on it.  They think if it can't be measured then it shouldn't be considered.  Which is a monumentally limited view point.

Why is it so hard to accept that some people just have higher standards for quality?

But your standards aren't actually higher. They're just convoluted.

1/10/14   |   Pat   |   5138 respect

ML31 wrote:
Says the person who thinks that sitting on the bench doing nothing helps more than being in the field and in the lineup. 

You are forgetting that below average fielders are rarely in the field unless they can put up excelent offense.  Kent was by no means a terrible fielder.  Him being in the field certainly was NOT a negative.  No way no how.  Sure, he lacked the range of other fielders but he was steady and handled very well what came his way.  You are knocking his defense as if he was no better than a little leaguer. 
Of course I am crediting him against others of his ilk.  Should I compare him to pitchers?  Please....   You were saying something about incredibly stupid comments?

Jeff Kent's career dWAR was -0.7. So yes, he would have been more valuable to his team if he had played DH in every single game. He had negative overall value in the field. He added nothing to his value by playing the field.

1/10/14   |   ML31   |   3616 respect

Eric_ wrote:
No, it's just a meaningless buzz phrase. It means the person saying it didn't bother to do any modicum of research. What do intangibles have to do with it, and what does that have to do with you not wanting to vote for say, Bagwell?

As I said...  It's only meaningless to people who cannot see beyond raw numbers. 

Those numbers are useful of course but they don't always tell the full story.  Intangibles help give a more clear picture of a player.  Just like raw stats.  As I said....  Stat geeks hate intangibles and poo poo them because they are incapable of placing a value on it.  They think if it can't be measured then it shouldn't be considered.  Which is a monumentally limited view point.

Why is it so hard to accept that some people just have higher standards for quality?

1/10/14   |   ML31   |   3616 respect

Pat wrote:
Being mediocre isn't useful, when you're taking the place of a player who could offer superior performance. When a player is below average in the field, his contributions in the field can be NEGATIVE, which is worse than the contributions of a DH, which are zero in the field. Kent had 7 seasons in which his defensive value was negative, based on dWAR. His career dWAR was -0.7. He would have been a more valuable player if he had not played the field at all. Yet you're crediting him, despite far lesser offensive numbers, simply because he occupied a place on the field typically occupied by weak offensive players.

Good lord, that's incredibly stupid.

Says the person who thinks that sitting on the bench doing nothing helps more than being in the field and in the lineup. 

You are forgetting that below average fielders are rarely in the field unless they can put up excelent offense.  Kent was by no means a terrible fielder.  Him being in the field certainly was NOT a negative.  No way no how.  Sure, he lacked the range of other fielders but he was steady and handled very well what came his way.  You are knocking his defense as if he was no better than a little leaguer. 
Of course I am crediting him against others of his ilk.  Should I compare him to pitchers?  Please....   You were saying something about incredibly stupid comments?

1/9/14   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

ML31 wrote:
"He doesn't feel like a Hall of Famer."

It actually means quite a bit.  It refers to intangibles.  Something sabermetric people at times refuse to accept because one cannot quantify it.

No, it's just a meaningless buzz phrase. It means the person saying it didn't bother to do any modicum of research. What do intangibles have to do with it, and what does that have to do with you not wanting to vote for say, Bagwell?

1/9/14   |   Pat   |   5138 respect

ML31 wrote:
Being mediocre defensively still places a player as more useful than a DH. Who by definition contributes NOTHING defensively.     Playing ANY field position scores more points than ANY DH. Had Thomas played more in the field, and if he put up the same #'s he gets my vote for sure. However, there is no guarentee he would put up the same numbers had he played the field. We just don't know. I'm only working with what the did. Not with what they could have done.  

Further, you are forgetting that I'm not comparing kent to the likes of Bagwell.  I'm comparing him to other 2nd basemen of his time.  Again, he was tops among them for some time.  That earns the Hall in my book. Far more so than being the top DH.  

Being mediocre isn't useful, when you're taking the place of a player who could offer superior performance. When a player is below average in the field, his contributions in the field can be NEGATIVE, which is worse than the contributions of a DH, which are zero in the field. Kent had 7 seasons in which his defensive value was negative, based on dWAR. His career dWAR was -0.7. He would have been a more valuable player if he had not played the field at all. Yet you're crediting him, despite far lesser offensive numbers, simply because he occupied a place on the field typically occupied by weak offensive players.

Good lord, that's incredibly stupid.

1/9/14   |   ML31   |   3616 respect

Pat wrote:
So you're holding it against Thomas that he played DH for a while, but giving Kent bonus points for being a mediocre fielding second baseman? So Thomas could have gotten your vote if he had played 1B poorly for a longer time?

Oh.

Being mediocre defensively still places a player as more useful than a DH. Who by definition contributes NOTHING defensively.     Playing ANY field position scores more points than ANY DH. Had Thomas played more in the field, and if he put up the same #'s he gets my vote for sure. However, there is no guarentee he would put up the same numbers had he played the field. We just don't know. I'm only working with what the did. Not with what they could have done.  

Further, you are forgetting that I'm not comparing kent to the likes of Bagwell.  I'm comparing him to other 2nd basemen of his time.  Again, he was tops among them for some time.  That earns the Hall in my book. Far more so than being the top DH.  

1/9/14   |   Pat   |   5138 respect

ML31 wrote:
I'll give you there is a case for Thomas.  But the fact that he DH'd so much just doesn't sit well with me.  It's my bias.  I know.  But I have it.  He is borderline and I keep forgetting that he really is borderline at times.  Sorry...
Kent is in there because I am comparing him to other 2nd basemen.  And he matches up VERY well against them.  Even against those already in the Hall.  I had to think about him for a bit but in the end decided he belonged.  Yes.  Even ahead of Bagwell.  I just expect more from first basemen than I do of 2nd basemen.  For example, I'm good with Sandberg being in...

Why do you say I'm "hitter heavy"?  Because Maddux is the only pitcher I would vote for here?  That's just circumstance.  There are no other deserving pitchers on the ballot.  What should I do?  Add a pitcher I can't justify being there just to add another pitcher to the group?

So you're holding it against Thomas that he played DH for a while, but giving Kent bonus points for being a mediocre fielding second baseman? So Thomas could have gotten your vote if he had played 1B poorly for a longer time?

Oh.

1/9/14   |   ML31   |   3616 respect

Eric_ wrote:
Thanks, but you still had to deal with me and this quixotic obsession of mine, and we all know I'm not the easiest person in the world to deal it.

I forgot one another argument that drives me nuts: "He doesn't feel like a Hall of Famer." Does that even mean anything?

I'm just glad Pat that in the end we did some differences, even if one of those was us going homer on the Mussina/Schilling question (thanks vote limit!).

"He doesn't feel like a Hall of Famer."

It actually means quite a bit.  It refers to intangibles.  Something sabermetric people at times refuse to accept because one cannot quantify it.

1/8/14   |   ML31   |   3616 respect

Pat wrote:
It's rather puzzling that you think Kent is in that next tier, but fail to mention Thomas or Bagwell. It's also remarkable that you're so hitter-heavy in your assessment. Very interesting to me.

I'll give you there is a case for Thomas.  But the fact that he DH'd so much just doesn't sit well with me.  It's my bias.  I know.  But I have it.  He is borderline and I keep forgetting that he really is borderline at times.  Sorry...
Kent is in there because I am comparing him to other 2nd basemen.  And he matches up VERY well against them.  Even against those already in the Hall.  I had to think about him for a bit but in the end decided he belonged.  Yes.  Even ahead of Bagwell.  I just expect more from first basemen than I do of 2nd basemen.  For example, I'm good with Sandberg being in...

Why do you say I'm "hitter heavy"?  Because Maddux is the only pitcher I would vote for here?  That's just circumstance.  There are no other deserving pitchers on the ballot.  What should I do?  Add a pitcher I can't justify being there just to add another pitcher to the group?

1/8/14   |   kantwistaye   |   4201 respect

Great job guys. I still find it maddening that Bonds and Clemens aren't in. No one disagrees that they're the best of their generation. Put them in.

1/8/14   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

Pat wrote:
FWIW, here's my far-too-early ballot for 2015:
Bonds
Clemens
Piazza
Biggio
Schilling
Bagwell
E. Martinez
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
John Smoltz

Yeah, I'm not ready to do a 2015 ballot yet. cheeky

1/8/14   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

Pat wrote:
Thanks. The credit definitely goes to Eric for taking the lead on this. I helped post a few of them and offered my take, but Eric did the lion's share of the work and took the initiative.

Thanks, but you still had to deal with me and this quixotic obsession of mine, and we all know I'm not the easiest person in the world to deal it.

I forgot one another argument that drives me nuts: "He doesn't feel like a Hall of Famer." Does that even mean anything?

I'm just glad Pat that in the end we did some differences, even if one of those was us going homer on the Mussina/Schilling question (thanks vote limit!).

1/8/14   |   Pat   |   5138 respect

FWIW, here's my far-too-early ballot for 2015:
Bonds
Clemens
Piazza
Biggio
Schilling
Bagwell
E. Martinez
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
John Smoltz

1/8/14   |   Pat   |   5138 respect

ML31 wrote:
Only voted for 8. The most ever thanks to quality players being kept out recently.  There are only three "no brainers" who should be on 100% of the ballots in my opinion. Bonds. Clemens. Maddox.  Then there are the next tier who should be in.  McGwire. Raines. Biggio. Sosa.  Kent.  There are a few borderliners but I tend to lean on the "no" side for them. 

 

It's rather puzzling that you think Kent is in that next tier, but fail to mention Thomas or Bagwell. It's also remarkable that you're so hitter-heavy in your assessment. Very interesting to me.

1/8/14   |   ML31   |   3616 respect

Only voted for 8. The most ever thanks to quality players being kept out recently.  There are only three "no brainers" who should be on 100% of the ballots in my opinion. Bonds. Clemens. Maddox.  Then there are the next tier who should be in.  McGwire. Raines. Biggio. Sosa.  Kent.  There are a few borderliners but I tend to lean on the "no" side for them. 

 

1/8/14   |   Dan_B   |   1066 respect

gobigblue1960 wrote:
Good post, although I dont vote for ped users. Jack Morris, Alan Trammell better go in before any steroids guys...Posted my ballot on my baseball blog, as a member of the Baseball Bloggers Alliance...http://johnsbigleaguebaseballblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/my-bba-hall-of-fame-ballot.html

I forgot to mention Trammell. He absolutely belongs. 

1/8/14   |   Pat   |   5138 respect

marcus_nyce wrote:
You guys REALLY did a good job with this.

Thanks. The credit definitely goes to Eric for taking the lead on this. I helped post a few of them and offered my take, but Eric did the lion's share of the work and took the initiative.

1/8/14   |   gobigblue1960   |   4802 respect

Good post, although I dont vote for ped users. Jack Morris, Alan Trammell better go in before any steroids guys...Posted my ballot on my baseball blog, as a member of the Baseball Bloggers Alliance...http://johnsbigleaguebaseballblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/my-bba-hall-of-fame-ballot.html

1/8/14   |   Dan_B   |   1066 respect

Yeah, seriously awesome job. I have thought long and hard about this, and I think my ballot would be the same as Eric's. Schilling, Martinez and a few others (McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa) belong in my mind, but there is unfortunately that 10 player limit. 

1/8/14   |   marcus_nyce   |   26042 respect

You guys REALLY did a good job with this.