FanIQ

  • join now
  • login
  • Login
You Might Like




More Polls By: gearhead

Who liked it? 41
... and 41 other fans
 Skip to Next Poll »
41
2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot
Who would you vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame, if you had a vote for this year's ballot. 75% is required for induction.
Featured by: Pat at 11/27/09 6:48PM
| Closed on 01/06/10 at 12:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | MLB | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
Team Breakout:
110 Fans 
 1. Roberto Alomar (0 points)
75%a. Yes
25%b. No
 2. Kevin Appier (0 points)
5%a. Yes
95%b. No
 3. Harold Baines (0 points)
35%a. Yes
65%b. No
 4. Bert Blyleven (0 points)
64%a. Yes
36%b. No
 5. Ellis Burks (0 points)
14%a. Yes
86%b. No
 6. Andre Dawson (0 points)
77%a. Yes
23%b. No
 7. Andres Galarraga (0 points)
25%a. Yes
75%b. No
 8. Pat Hentgen (0 points)
7%a. Yes
93%b. No
 9. Mike Jackson (0 points)
8%a. Yes
92%b. No
 10. Eric Karros (0 points)
7%a. Yes
93%b. No
 11. Ray Lankford (0 points)
10%a. Yes
90%b. No
 12. Barry Larkin (0 points)
68%a. Yes
32%b. No
 13. Edgar Martinez (0 points)
53%a. Yes
47%b. No
 14. Don Mattingly (0 points)
63%a. Yes
37%b. No
 15. Fred McGriff (0 points)
54%a. Yes
46%b. No
 16. Mark McGwire (0 points)
48%a. Yes
52%b. No
 17. Jack Morris (0 points)
54%a. Yes
46%b. No
 18. Dale Murphy (0 points)
54%a. Yes
46%b. No
 19. Dave Parker (0 points)
35%a. Yes
65%b. No
 20. Tim Raines (0 points)
49%a. Yes
51%b. No
 21. Shane Reynolds (0 points)
3%a. Yes
97%b. No
 22. David Segui (0 points)
5%a. Yes
95%b. No
 23. Lee Smith (0 points)
52%a. Yes
48%b. No
 24. Alan Trammell (0 points)
39%a. Yes
61%b. No
 25. Robin Ventura (0 points)
22%a. Yes
78%b. No
 26. Todd Zeile (0 points)
6%a. Yes
94%b. No

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#2 | 1275 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

Looking at the results I agree with the majority on all but Dawson, and I might change just that one. But honestly, even the three I said yes to (Alomar, Larkin, Byleven) are borderline calls. I say yes to Alomar and Larkin because they were the dominant players at their positions (at least in their respective leagues) during most of their careers, and Byleven because he's in the top 10 in several major pitching categories, but hasn't made it yet due to 1) being shy of 300 wins (287) and 2) never winning a Cy Young. 

Honestly, though, I really am kind of an elitist and feel there should be no borderline calls. There are good players, great players, and Hall of Fame players, which is a step above "great." Everyone in this list is a good-to-great player; none are automatic HoF'ers in my opinion. There's no one here on par with Ripken, Gwynn, or other recent inductees, even Rickey Henderson. Mark McGwire will never make it, and I don't think he should. His achievements don't overshadow his stigma, and even with all the home runs, he was a career .263 hitter. However... When Bonds comes up, I will unequivocally support his induction. The difference is that you could have stopped his career before the 1999 season, when the steroid use is supposed to have begun, and it would still be a Hall of Fame career. He made an unfortunate decision(s) and was a total prick to the media and most fans and teammates, but none of that can diminish the fact that he was simply one of the greatest players in the history of baseball.
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. Yes  5. No  6. No  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. Yes  13. No  14. No  15. No  16. No  17. No  18. No  19. No  20. No  21. No  22. No  23. Yes  24. No  25. No  26. No  
6

  
26 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1275 days ago

 I think Roberto Alomar is in no doubt.  He was the best second baseman of his time.  Barry Larkin should get in, although his vast amount of injuries may hamper his chances.  Also, Larkin would have had a lot more gold gloves if he didn't play when Ozzie Smith played.  It will be interesting to see what the hall of fame committee thinks of Edgar Martinez.  I think he should get in, but playing DH for a majority of his career might cause voters to say no.
1. Yes  2. No  3. Yes  4. Yes  5. No  6. Yes  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. Yes  13. Yes  14. Yes  15. Yes  16. Yes  17. Yes  18. Yes  19. Yes  20. Yes  21. No  22. No  23. Yes  24. Yes  25. Yes  26. No  
1

#2 | 1275 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

Looking at the results I agree with the majority on all but Dawson, and I might change just that one. But honestly, even the three I said yes to (Alomar, Larkin, Byleven) are borderline calls. I say yes to Alomar and Larkin because they were the dominant players at their positions (at least in their respective leagues) during most of their careers, and Byleven because he's in the top 10 in several major pitching categories, but hasn't made it yet due to 1) being shy of 300 wins (287) and 2) never winning a Cy Young. 

Honestly, though, I really am kind of an elitist and feel there should be no borderline calls. There are good players, great players, and Hall of Fame players, which is a step above "great." Everyone in this list is a good-to-great player; none are automatic HoF'ers in my opinion. There's no one here on par with Ripken, Gwynn, or other recent inductees, even Rickey Henderson. Mark McGwire will never make it, and I don't think he should. His achievements don't overshadow his stigma, and even with all the home runs, he was a career .263 hitter. However... When Bonds comes up, I will unequivocally support his induction. The difference is that you could have stopped his career before the 1999 season, when the steroid use is supposed to have begun, and it would still be a Hall of Fame career. He made an unfortunate decision(s) and was a total prick to the media and most fans and teammates, but none of that can diminish the fact that he was simply one of the greatest players in the history of baseball.
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. Yes  5. No  6. No  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. Yes  13. No  14. No  15. No  16. No  17. No  18. No  19. No  20. No  21. No  22. No  23. Yes  24. No  25. No  26. No  
6

#3 | 1275 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

 Also, thanks for making this poll... so I didn't have to. Because I was planning on it. 
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. Yes  5. No  6. No  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. Yes  13. No  14. No  15. No  16. No  17. No  18. No  19. No  20. No  21. No  22. No  23. Yes  24. No  25. No  26. No  
1

#4 | 1274 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
Looking at the results I agree with the majority on all but Dawson, and I might change just that one. But honestly, even the three I said yes to (Alomar, Larkin, Byleven) are borderline calls. I say yes to Alomar and Larkin because they were the dominant players at their positions (at least in their respective leagues) during most of their careers, and Byleven because he's in the top 10 in several major pitching categories, but hasn't made it yet due to 1) being shy of 300 wins (287) and 2) never winning a Cy Young. 

Honestly, though, I really am kind of an elitist and feel there should be no borderline calls. There are good players, great players, and Hall of Fame players, which is a step above "great." Everyone in this list is a good-to-great player; none are automatic HoF'ers in my opinion. There's no one here on par with Ripken, Gwynn, or other recent inductees, even Rickey Henderson. Mark McGwire will never make it, and I don't think he should. His achievements don't overshadow his stigma, and even with all the home runs, he was a career .263 hitter. However... When Bonds comes up, I will unequivocally support his induction. The difference is that you could have stopped his career before the 1999 season, when the steroid use is supposed to have begun, and it would still be a Hall of Fame career. He made an unfortunate decision(s) and was a total prick to the media and most fans and teammates, but none of that can diminish the fact that he was simply one of the greatest players in the history of baseball.
best take on the thr Hall Of Fame I have ever read.........being that I am one for doing away with HOF since from here on every person whose name come's up for consideration come's with that one big fat question mark. I like I liked Barry Bonds when he first came up in Pittsburgh but then you started getting the feeling he was a prima donna.I will add one more thing.....I think if we are going to allow Barry into the HOF for justice to be done all the way around then it's time to start to put the Rose issue behind us also......steroid's gambling all a form of cheating on some level.
1. Yes  2. No  3. Yes  4. Yes  5. No  6. Yes  7. No  8. Yes  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. No  13. No  14. Yes  15. No  16. No  17. Yes  18. Yes  19. No  20. No  21. No  22. Yes  23. No  24. Yes  25. Yes  26. No  
3

#5 | 1274 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

rags684 wrote:
best take on the thr Hall Of Fame I have ever read.........being that I am one for doing away with HOF since from here on every person whose name come's up for consideration come's with that one big fat question mark. I like I liked Barry Bonds when he first came up in Pittsburgh but then you started getting the feeling he was a prima donna.I will add one more thing.....I think if we are going to allow Barry into the HOF for justice to be done all the way around then it's time to start to put the Rose issue behind us also......steroid's gambling all a form of cheating on some level.
Thank you. I understand your perspective, but I think there's still a difference between Rose and Bonds. Remember that although the use of steroids without prescription is against the law of the land, it wasn't, technically speaking, against the rules of baseball until 2003. "You shall not gamble on the game" is essentially the first commandment of baseball, and goes back to the earliest days. The rules and consequences are so strict because the Black Sox scandal almost brought down the professional game in a way the steroids scandal never would have. Rose engaged in his activities knowing full well he was risking a lifetime ban, whereas Bonds knew that the worst that could happen was a suspension for a positive test, and that only after mandatory testing began in '03. It's apples and oranges.
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. Yes  5. No  6. No  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. Yes  13. No  14. No  15. No  16. No  17. No  18. No  19. No  20. No  21. No  22. No  23. Yes  24. No  25. No  26. No  
1

#6 | 1274 days ago

 rags684 wrote:
best take on the thr Hall Of Fame I have ever read.........being that I am one for doing away with HOF since from here on every person whose name come's up for consideration come's with that one big fat question mark. I like I liked Barry Bonds when he first came up in Pittsburgh but then you started getting the feeling he was a prima donna.I will add one more thing.....I think if we are going to allow Barry into the HOF for justice to be done all the way around then it's time to start to put the Rose issue behind us also......steroid's gambling all a form of cheating on some level.
I do know and understand what you are saying........but there is no such a thing as a greater or lesser sin,sin is sin and beside's as an old man I would love to see the greatest hitter in baseball in the HOF.
1. Yes  2. No  3. Yes  4. Yes  5. No  6. Yes  7. No  8. Yes  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. No  13. No  14. Yes  15. No  16. No  17. Yes  18. Yes  19. No  20. No  21. No  22. Yes  23. No  24. Yes  25. Yes  26. No  
2

#7 | 1274 days ago

 The only player on this list that I had to sit and think about was Barry Larkin.  I really want to let him in just for playing for one team his entire career!  But do his numbers justify him being a Hall of Famer?  I don't know.  I went down the list and just answered based on my initial impression to the name.  That is, do I recall the player as dominant at his position for the better part of his career?
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. No  5. No  6. No  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. No  13. No  14. No  15. No  16. Yes  17. No  18. No  19. No  20. Yes  21. No  22. No  23. No  24. No  25. No  26. No  
1

#8 | 1274 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
Thank you. I understand your perspective, but I think there's still a difference between Rose and Bonds. Remember that although the use of steroids without prescription is against the law of the land, it wasn't, technically speaking, against the rules of baseball until 2003. "You shall not gamble on the game" is essentially the first commandment of baseball, and goes back to the earliest days. The rules and consequences are so strict because the Black Sox scandal almost brought down the professional game in a way the steroids scandal never would have. Rose engaged in his activities knowing full well he was risking a lifetime ban, whereas Bonds knew that the worst that could happen was a suspension for a positive test, and that only after mandatory testing began in '03. It's apples and oranges.
This is the most clear and concise statement of the steroid/gambling issue I have seen to date.  This should put to rest the 'if Rose can't be in the HOF than Bonds should not either' argument (But it won't).
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. Yes  5. No  6. Yes  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. No  13. No  14. Yes  15. No  16. No  17. No  18. Yes  19. Yes  20. No  21. No  22. No  23. No  24. No  25. No  26. No  
1

#9 | 1274 days ago

 I see in a different light than most if you think it's cheating or believe it's cheating and you take steps to cover up what you are doing then it must be cheating and I do understand what you are saying and I respect what you are saying,but I happen to be one those people who believe's what Rose said when he said there was a back room deal cut with old Bart then Bart up and died (probably because of all the stress Rose put him under) is the truth, and now we'll never know the whole story.I only believe about half of what Rose is saying and about half of what baseball is saying.
1. Yes  2. No  3. Yes  4. Yes  5. No  6. Yes  7. No  8. Yes  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. No  13. No  14. Yes  15. No  16. No  17. Yes  18. Yes  19. No  20. No  21. No  22. Yes  23. No  24. Yes  25. Yes  26. No  
1

#10 | 1274 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

rkonkol78 wrote:
This is the most clear and concise statement of the steroid/gambling issue I have seen to date.  This should put to rest the 'if Rose can't be in the HOF than Bonds should not either' argument (But it won't).
Thanks. And please understand, I'm not endorsing the use of steroids by any means. I would prefer there be no cheating of any kind tainting the game. I merely mean to point out to the long line of Rose defenders that what he did was much more heinous in the eyes of Major League Baseball.
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. Yes  5. No  6. No  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. Yes  13. No  14. No  15. No  16. No  17. No  18. No  19. No  20. No  21. No  22. No  23. Yes  24. No  25. No  26. No  

#11 | 1274 days ago

 (Edited by ML31)
rags684 wrote:
I see in a different light than most if you think it's cheating or believe it's cheating and you take steps to cover up what you are doing then it must be cheating and I do understand what you are saying and I respect what you are saying,but I happen to be one those people who believe's what Rose said when he said there was a back room deal cut with old Bart then Bart up and died (probably because of all the stress Rose put him under) is the truth, and now we'll never know the whole story.I only believe about half of what Rose is saying and about half of what baseball is saying.
I just don't see how there could have been any kind of back room deal with Giamatti.  Bart was such a lover of the game it is hard to fathom him letting Rose off in any way. 

If there was a "back room deal" it was likely to keep the evidence private.  So Rose's fans would be spared the gory details of his transgressions.  When one year came and went, and he wasn't reinstated, the entire world knew he bet on the Reds.  If he bet on every other team BUT the Reds, he would have served his suspension and be in the Hall today.
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. No  5. No  6. No  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. No  13. No  14. No  15. No  16. Yes  17. No  18. No  19. No  20. Yes  21. No  22. No  23. No  24. No  25. No  26. No  

#12 | 1273 days ago

 Dawson should be in, Blyleven too. McGwire, in spite of the cloud, still hes never been proven(except by a sellout loser who I still think lied about Big Mac because he was jealous). Even if you go by his numbers,they are comparable to Harmon Killebrews, who Ive never heard that he doesnt belong. Raines should be in. Martinez will be an interesting case. I think he belongs, but spending most of his career as a DH and one dimensional player could hurt him. Alomar and Larkin probaly deserve it, but probaly wont get in this year. McGriff probaly belongs, but I think missing the 500 homer plateau could hurt him. Morris probaly belongs, but I dont see him getting in until Blyleven does. Parker is kind of borderline, but probaly belongs. Then theres Mattingly. I like Mattingly and think he is close, but until Gil Hodges, Steve Garvey and Keith Hernandez get in, I dont see him getting in.
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. Yes  5. No  6. Yes  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. Yes  13. Yes  14. No  15. Yes  16. Yes  17. Yes  18. No  19. Yes  20. Yes  21. No  22. No  23. Yes  24. No  25. No  26. No  
1

#13 | 1273 days ago

 This group is an interesting mix.  Of the new guys, Alomar is a lock and I believe Larkin deserves it.  As was mentioned, it's tough being a great NL Short Stop during Ozzie Smith's career.  I'm hoping Jack Morris gets his respect this year, but we'll just have to see.
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. Yes  5. No  6. No  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. Yes  13. No  14. No  15. No  16. Yes  17. Yes  18. No  19. No  20. No  21. No  22. No  23. No  24. No  25. No  26. No  
1

#14 | 1270 days ago

 Jack Morris should be a lock to get in. He has more wins than any other pitcher in the 80's, and won World Series with Detroit, Minnesota, and Toronto.
1. No  2. No  3. No  4. No  5. No  6. No  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. No  13. No  14. No  15. No  16. No  17. Yes  18. No  19. No  20. No  21. No  22. No  23. No  24. No  25. No  26. No  
1

#15 | 1270 days ago

 Miguel94 wrote:
Jack Morris should be a lock to get in. He has more wins than any other pitcher in the 80's, and won World Series with Detroit, Minnesota, and Toronto.
How is that a "lock"?  Wins are the one stat the pitchers have almost NO control over.  And World Series wins are more a function of a team than a single guy.
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. No  5. No  6. No  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. No  13. No  14. No  15. No  16. Yes  17. No  18. No  19. No  20. Yes  21. No  22. No  23. No  24. No  25. No  26. No  

#16 | 1270 days ago

 (Edited by derousse_4)
Lee Smith should be 100% yes as one of the best closers of all time
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. Yes  5. No  6. Yes  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. Yes  12. Yes  13. Yes  14. Yes  15. Yes  16. Yes  17. Yes  18. Yes  19. Yes  20. No  21. No  22. No  23. Yes  24. No  25. No  26. No  
2

#17 | 1268 days ago

 If HOF voters think like those who answered this poll, then only Alomar will be elected.  I was more liberal in my voting.  In addition to Alomar, I chose Larkin, Blyleven, Dawson, Martinez and Trammell.  Of those, I feel strongly only about Larkin and Blyleven.  Larkin is one of the premier shortstops of his time.  Blyleven, in addition to winning almost 300 games, is among the all time career leaders in both strikeouts and shutouts.  Why he hasn't been inducted before now is beyond me.  Dawson, I feel, is somewhat overrated and I won't be bothered if he doesn't get in.  Martinez I chose purely for sentimental reasons.  As for Trammell, he was a darn good shortstop, but not quite in Larkin's class.  Still, he deserves more respect than he's received.  If I had to make a choice between having Alan Trammell or Ozzie Smith on my team, I'd choose Trammell, because of his superior combination of offense and defense. Of those I didn't choose, my first consideration would be Tim Raines.  He is possibly the second best lead-off hitter ever, behind Rickey Henderson. 
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. Yes  5. No  6. Yes  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. Yes  13. Yes  14. No  15. No  16. No  17. No  18. No  19. No  20. No  21. No  22. No  23. No  24. Yes  25. No  26. No  
1

#18 | 1263 days ago

  
1

#19 | 1263 days ago

 mikecubbie69 wrote:
Dawson should be in, Blyleven too. McGwire, in spite of the cloud, still hes never been proven(except by a sellout loser who I still think lied about Big Mac because he was jealous). Even if you go by his numbers,they are comparable to Harmon Killebrews, who Ive never heard that he doesnt belong. Raines should be in. Martinez will be an interesting case. I think he belongs, but spending most of his career as a DH and one dimensional player could hurt him. Alomar and Larkin probaly deserve it, but probaly wont get in this year. McGriff probaly belongs, but I think missing the 500 homer plateau could hurt him. Morris probaly belongs, but I dont see him getting in until Blyleven does. Parker is kind of borderline, but probaly belongs. Then theres Mattingly. I like Mattingly and think he is close, but until Gil Hodges, Steve Garvey and Keith Hernandez get in, I dont see him getting in.
I agree, but there are still some other egregious omissions from the HOF, and if Kirby Puckett, Don Drysdale and Jim Bunning are in then how is it justified that: Blyleven, Santo, Gil Hodges- on Hodges:  No player has ever received more votes from the writers without getting in. He is the only person ever to get more than 60 percent of the Hall vote without eventually getting in. In the past during his years on the ballot he finished ahead of 21 different future Hall of Famers; including easily beating out former teammate Pee Wee Reese all eight times they were on the same ballot.

The revamped Veterans Committee essentially named him the [BPNYI] Best Player Not Yet In, by giving Hodges the most support in each of its two elections; he missed getting in by 11 votes and then by eight votes. To find a good comparison try thinking of him as a better version of Hall of Famer Tony Perez.  Hodges had better plate discipline, better power and a better glove. He outslugged Perez (.487, .463), reached base more often (.359, .341), made more All-Star teams (eight, seven), won more Gold Gloves (three, zero) and had just as many 100-RBI seasons (seven).

At the time of his retirement Hodges was the all-time NL leader in home runs among right-handed hitters. He was the premier defensive first baseman of his era also as part of his overall contribution to the game, which must be considered, later he was a highly respected manager who crafted one of the most unlikely world championships in history (the 1969 Mets) and he was known for his integrity and character.

Blyleven was hurt by playing on mostly bad teams, put him on the Dodgers, A's, Yankees, or even Royals of the late 60-early 80's and he likely blows by 300 wins and also would probably have one or more Cy Youngs; additionally Blyleven ranks third in wins, first in strikeouts, innings and shutouts among pitcher eligible but not yet enshrined.

Santo once had tied Hodges at the top of the Veterans Committee balloting; both were named on 52 of the 80 ballots submitted. That's appropriate, because both played with consistency at the plate and in the field that went under-appreciated. They also had similar batting averages (Hodges: .273, Santo: .277), OBP (.359, .362) and slugging percentages (.487, .464). Santo made nine All-Star teams and won five Gold Gloves and rarely missed a game during his 15-year career. 

And Carl Mays who sadly is best known as the pitcher who threw the pitch that hit and fatally wounded Ray Chapman. He retired with a .622 winning percentage after finishing in the Top 10 in Wins seven times in his career and in the Top 10 in ERA six times. I hope that with time his relation to the Chapman accident will cease to detract from his chances of being voted in eventually by the Veterans Committee.

Tony "Baby Bull" Oliva, 'Smoky Joe Wood, and Wes Ferrell, Minnie Minoso and Curt Flood also deserve serious consideration. 

#20 | 1263 days ago

 I am a believer that the argument of "Player X is in, therefore player Y should be in too" is a flawed argument.  As in my opinion there are many players who shouldn't be in to begin with.  Often, that argument is used using a player who is in but should't be.
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. No  5. No  6. No  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. No  13. No  14. No  15. No  16. Yes  17. No  18. No  19. No  20. Yes  21. No  22. No  23. No  24. No  25. No  26. No  

#21 | 1263 days ago

 I really don't know, but this is quite an interesting class.  We're at the cusp of the "steriod era", and here's where it starts getting interesting... before it becomes such a deluge that it's sickening.

The only one I really have any strong feelings for is Robbie Alomar, and I think he's safe.

And I also approve of the statement that wins are a massively overrated stat.

#22 | 1263 days ago

 I'll give me piece on one guy who will probably never get in, Alan Trammell.
He was one of the best shortstops of his time. He could hit anf field. And I agree with the poster above me that said he would take Trammell over Ozzie Smith. Ozzie may be a better glove, but Trammell was a plus defender, and his bat was much better than Smith ever was.
Too bad he couldn't do back flips or else he may have gotten more votes.
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. No  5. No  6. Yes  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. Yes  13. No  14. No  15. No  16. Yes  17. No  18. Yes  19. No  20. Yes  21. No  22. No  23. No  24. Yes  25. No  26. No  

#23 | 1247 days ago

 Mattingly, Dawson, Murphy; in that order.  I don't think that any of the three are shoe-ins.  This can't be the entire list, is it?
1. No  2. No  3. No  4. No  5. No  6. Yes  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. No  13. No  14. Yes  15. No  16. No  17. No  18. Yes  19. Yes  20. No  21. No  22. No  23. No  24. No  25. No  26. No  
1

#24 | 1245 days ago

 There is no way that Shane Reynolds should go in the Hall of Fame.
1. Yes  2. No  3. Yes  4. No  5. No  6. Yes  7. No  8. Yes  9. Yes  10. No  11. Yes  12. Yes  13. Yes  14. No  15. No  16. Yes  17. Yes  18. Yes  19. No  20. Yes  21. No  22. No  23. Yes  24. Yes  25. No  26. Yes  

#25 | 1242 days ago

 Barry Larkin is in for me-was elite for years and years at his position. His numbers compare to a guy like Joe Cronin. Alomar is the same deal..... best player at his position for more than a decade. Edgar Martinez is in simply because he is the best DH of all time... DH is a position in baseball, correct?? So shouldn't the best ever be in the Hall?? Career BA of .312 and a career OBP of .418... easy call to me. Mattingly is a no way for me, I don't even understand that. McGriff is in.... just short of 500 HR/1500 RBI/2500 hits gets you in in my book (compare to Orlando Cepeda, Willie McCovey or Willie Stargell). Parker/Dawson/Smith/Blylevin are absolute "yes"es for me. Morris' ERA hovers around 4.... he, trammell, baines, murphy, and galaragga are close but no cigar to me. They aren't HALL OF FAME great, ya know?? The combination of numbers, personality, and X factor just aren't there. Kirby Puckett, Don Drysdale, Pee Wee Reese, Flash Gordon, Bill Mazeroski, Jim Bunning, and loads of old school veterans' committe players don't deserve to be in the hall, but let's not water it down further by inducting everyone who meets their credentials.
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. Yes  5. No  6. Yes  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. Yes  13. Yes  14. No  15. Yes  16. No  17. No  18. No  19. Yes  20. No  21. No  22. No  23. Yes  24. No  25. No  26. No  

#26 | 1241 days ago

 Larkin, Alomar, and McGwire. I'm 70/30 on Martinez and Donnie Baseball. Martinez for primarily playing DH. But seeing as Frank Thomas is my favorite player from the 90's, my stance will change when his time comes due(we as sport fans are allowed to be fickle, aren't we?) As for McGwire, who knows if he was dirty or clean, as with the rest of MLB. But I think he goes in if for nothing else, for helping to save the game with the "great home run chase" he and Sosa put on. Even casual observers of the game became riveted watching so 2 slug it out.
1. Yes  2. No  3. No  4. No  5. No  6. No  7. No  8. No  9. No  10. No  11. No  12. Yes  13. No  14. No  15. No  16. Yes  17. No  18. No  19. No  20. No  21. No  22. No  23. No  24. No  25. No  26. No  


Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
•Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
•Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
•Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
•Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
Polls You Might Like

MLB*Chasing Joe D*The FanIq Hitting Streak*5/28
Asked by Michael G | MLB, SF, BOS | 3 questions asked Today
15 predictions | Last by Matt1986
MLB*Chasing Joe D*The FanIq Hitting Streak*5/27
Asked by Michael G | MLB, SF, BOS | 3 questions asked Yesterday
33 predictions | Last by Matt1986
"Kings Felix Conquest" vs Texas Rangers - 5/25/13
Asked by Dream_Machine | MLB, SEA, TEX | 8 questions asked 05/21/13
48 predictions | Last by Matt1986 | 9 hours left
Seattle Mariners vs. Texas Rangers - 5/25/13
Asked by Dream_Machine | MLB, SEA, TEX | 8 questions asked 05/21/13
64 predictions | Last by Matt1986 | 9 hours left
NL Pitchers Individual Over/Under - 5/25
Asked by Scott | MLB, STL | 16 questions asked 05/23/13
176 predictions | Last by Matt1986 | 2 hours left