PDA

View Full Version : 2009 HOF Class



AWA85
01-12-2009, 02:24 PM
We all knew Henderson was in, anyone a little surprised about Rice sneaking in?

Dawson still remains out, not sure that he should be in ever. Time to shift our focus to Barry Larkin in the class of 2010 :D

chakes89
01-12-2009, 02:30 PM
Forget Larkin

VOTE CONCEPCION!

frikativ54
01-12-2009, 02:31 PM
We all knew Henderson was in, anyone a little surprised about Rice sneaking in?

If Rice is in, shouldn't Bagwell be in?

chakes89
01-12-2009, 02:33 PM
He didn't reach any of the milestones his position almost demands in regards to getting into the Hall of Fame

ndevlin
01-12-2009, 02:33 PM
I liked Bagwell, but he has no chance. Neither does Larkin. I think Dawson deserves to be in before Rice.

both-teams-played-hard
01-12-2009, 02:35 PM
Of course Jim Rice is in. Haven't you heard of "east coast media bias". Many of the writers were kids living on the East Coast when Rice was at his best. Sounds like a nostalgia trip. Just let everyone in who ever made an all-star team.
If you make orange juice from concentrate and add more water and sugar, then you make a few more glasses...

skyking26
01-12-2009, 02:35 PM
I agree with Nate. Dawson before Rice. If Rice made it, it is because he was on his last chance before vets committee I believe.

chakes89
01-12-2009, 02:36 PM
I liked Bagwell, but he has no chance. Neither does Larkin. I think Dawson deserves to be in before Rice.
Ozzie Smith got in

Barry Larkin should go in as well

He was a much better player than Smith

AWA85
01-12-2009, 02:39 PM
I liked Bagwell, but he has no chance. Neither does Larkin. I think Dawson deserves to be in before Rice.


Larkin NO Chance, really? 2,340 hits, 198 HR, .295 AVG, and something Dawson could not even sniff a .371 OBP. 12 time All Star, MVP, 3 Gold Gloves, and maybe most importantly CUBS fans ;) he won a WS. At this time offense was not huge from shortstops, something to think about.

AWA85
01-12-2009, 02:42 PM
Ozzie Smith got in

Barry Larkin should go in as well

He was a much better player than Smith

Don't even get me started on Ozzie, maybe one of the most overrated players of all time. Same amount of hits, but the avg. obp. and home runs are not even close to Larkin. Ozzie got in because of his glove, and Larkin was right behind Ozzie with the glove. Larkin has to be in.

frikativ54
01-12-2009, 02:42 PM
He didn't reach any of the milestones his position almost demands in regards to getting into the Hall of Fame

So if people like Thomas and Thome are padding their numbers by DHing in the AL, then those people are more deserving of a HOF spot? I mean, Bagwell was definitely a more complete player than the 500 HR club member Jim Thome.

AWA85
01-12-2009, 02:45 PM
So if people like Thomas and Thome are padding their numbers by DHing in the AL, then those people are more deserving of a HOF spot? I mean, Bagwell was definitely a more complete player than the 500 HR club member Jim Thome.

But those players kept playing and kept adding to their numbers, something Bagwell did not do. He played his 15 seasons or whatever and was done. I don't think he will get in.

skyking26
01-12-2009, 02:52 PM
I've always liked Thome. I speak with thomecollector almost daily. We had a conversation yesterday about this. My stance is if Thome does not reach 600 HR, he's in maybe on 2nd or 3rd try based on numbers AND his contributions on and off the field. Thome is well liked and respected in either area and has since his early days always held charitable events etc. 600+ HRS and he's a lock. Drawback on Thome is he's always played for crap clubs, small market, and he's an under the radar guy. The way baseball is with competition - numbers are what keeps him in a lineup, not his smile.

When it comes to HOF election, it's numbers first, and player contributions on/off field thereafter. I'm personally unfamiliar with Bagwell so can't comment. Regarding Ozzie Smith, I never thought he was a Hall of Famer. All glove no hit, but that is me. Regarding Rice, he's in because he exhausted his reg. tries. Now that he is in, eventually Dawson will follow. Sure thing.

chakes89
01-12-2009, 02:53 PM
I hope Dawson gets in

It will make a potential impending purchase of mine go up in value slightly

AWA85
01-12-2009, 02:57 PM
I've always liked Thome. I speak with thomecollector almost daily. We had a conversation yesterday about this. My stance is if Thome does not reach 600 HR, he's in maybe on 2nd or 3rd try based on numbers AND his contributions on and off the field. Thome is well liked and respected in either area and has since his early days always held charitable events etc. 600+ HRS and he's a lock. Drawback on Thome is he's always played for crap clubs, small market, and he's an under the radar guy. The way baseball is with competition - numbers are what keeps him in a lineup, not his smile.

When it comes to HOF election, it's numbers first, and player contributions on/off field thereafter. I'm personally unfamiliar with Bagwell so can't comment. Regarding Ozzie Smith, I never thought he was a Hall of Famer. All glove no hit, but that is me. Regarding Rice, he's in because he exhausted his reg. tries. Now that he is in, eventually Dawson will follow. Sure thing.

The one thing I think Thomas has going for him, is that for awhile he was the most feared hitter in the league. Those 93 and 94 numbers are just amazing, didn't he have an OBP above .480 :eek:

skyking26
01-12-2009, 02:59 PM
Rice should pave the way for Dawson. May take time, but now it is only right as Dawson's numbers are better. Look at the gold gloves too. MVP. Dawson is HOF no doubt if Rice gets in. Dawson had misfortune like Thome of playing for poor clubs...........

AWA85
01-12-2009, 02:59 PM
Class of 2010 Candidates

Alomar
Larkin
Edgar M.
Crime Dog

Dawson

Interesting group, let the DH talk begin for Edgar.

bigtruck260
01-12-2009, 02:59 PM
Don't even get me started on Ozzie, maybe one of the most overrated players of all time. Same amount of hits, but the avg. obp. and home runs are not even close to Larkin. Ozzie got in because of his glove, and Larkin was right behind Ozzie with the glove. Larkin has to be in.

Ozzie in his defensive prime vs. Larkin in his prime - I'm taking Ozzie.
Oz was also on three world series teams in the 80's...and won't even talk about the Gold Gloves.

No argument about the offense - Larkin was a better hitter hands down.

The thing about OZ is - he was the guy in the 1980's who was the top vote getter AS type. He was the guy who won games with his glove, and could bring a stadium to it's feet with a play every night. His HOF nod was simply for the hustle and drama.

I would not have voted for OZ to be in the Hall of Fame. I think that it's an all-around nod to great players who had ALL of the tools or most of them. Baseball was different in the 80's and late 70's...it was a speed era, no power really to speak of but the occasional 40 HR season. But he has his fans...and a few critics :)

Ozzie was 2nd in MVP voting in 1987 with ZERO homers and 75 RBI - He barely got to .300 with the BA too...only .303. That's nutty...but so were the 80's.

skyking26
01-12-2009, 03:01 PM
The one thing I think Thomas has going for him, is that for awhile he was the most feared hitter in the league. Those 93 and 94 numbers are just amazing, didn't he have an OBP above .480 :eek:
We weren't talking about Frank Thomas, but his numbers are fantastic as well...

AWA85
01-12-2009, 03:03 PM
Dave- first off congrats on the baby, just read in another thread ;)

I agree Ozzie was ahead of Larkin in the defensive side, thing is Larkin was a very good defender who wasn't miles behind Ozzie though. Did not realize that 2nd in MVP voting, pretty funny and I agree with you, fan support can go a long way.

AWA85
01-12-2009, 03:04 PM
We weren't talking about Frank Thomas, but his numbers are fantastic as well...

Sorry, I was thinking of Friks comments on Thome and Thomas.

skyking26
01-12-2009, 03:07 PM
one Thought We All Have To Keep In Mind Here - The Hof Is Supposed To Be About Greatness. The Top Of The Crop. A System Of Election By Guys That Never Played The Game On A Professional Level (sportswriters) Is Somewhat Strange To Begin With.... Their Association Is That They "wrote About It......."

brianborsch
01-12-2009, 03:14 PM
Anyone think Edgar Martinez will get in on his first try? While he was aDH most of his career, he was one of the most amazing hitters during his stay with the M's. It's too bad he had a late start, otherwise it would be more of a lock.

BB

thomecollector
01-12-2009, 03:14 PM
So if people like Thomas and Thome are padding their numbers by DHing in the AL, then those people are more deserving of a HOF spot? I mean, Bagwell was definitely a more complete player than the 500 HR club member Jim Thome.
Bet Thome gets in before Bagwell does though. Everyone that counts like him. His stats aren't that bad either.:D

buc
01-12-2009, 03:24 PM
I'd like to point out I'm glad everyone on here can argue a point without bias.

frikativ54
01-12-2009, 03:38 PM
Bet Thome gets in before Bagwell does though. Everyone that counts like him. His stats aren't that bad either.:D

The thing is that Bagwell was much more of a complete player than Thome is. Think of baserunning. Think of defense. How many MVPs has Thome won?

earlywynnfan
01-12-2009, 03:56 PM
I'd like to point out I'm glad everyone on here can argue a point without bias.


Oh, yeah, Buc?? Well I think you're a real piece of $^&$% for making comments like that!!


All kidding aside, I agree with Dawson over Rice, although Rice did have that "fear factor" that really scary hitters give off.

I view Ozzie vs. Larkin almost like Brooks vs. Schmidt. Do you take flash and a couple dozen runs saved over the course of a year? (and really, that's being generous.) Or do you take a very above-average defensive player who produces a hundred runs more per year (at minimum, in Schmidt's case.)? I want Ozzie to be my teams ambassador of publice relations, but if I'm starting a team, give me Larkin.

No, sorry, Edgar doesn't come close to the HOF. And if Dawson is on the outside, McGriff is in line behind him.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

Rob L
01-12-2009, 03:59 PM
No Blyleven, unbelievable.

Vintagedeputy
01-12-2009, 05:05 PM
Blyleven and Dawson missing out is not right. They deserve it. I would have thought Raines would have scored higher too.

chakes89
01-12-2009, 05:12 PM
Thome and Bagwell shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence together let alone be compared

Thome was far and above the superior player

And as for the whole he's a DH arguement he's the breakdown;

Jim Thome has only been primarily a DH the past 3 or so seasons

His first 6 seasons with the Indians he was a 3rd basemen

And the most games he appeared as a DH while with the Indians was 48 in 2000

He has played 1,101 games at first, 527 as a DH and 492 as a 3rd basemen

AWA85
01-12-2009, 05:16 PM
Blyleven and Dawson missing out is not right. They deserve it. I would have thought Raines would have scored higher too.


Not saying I thought he would be in, but also thought Raines votes would have been higher.

ndevlin
01-12-2009, 05:52 PM
Larkin has no chance of getting, Im sorry guys.

You really cant compare Bagwell with Thome. The fact is, when people get older, they move to DH. Thome is still playing, Bagwell is not. Thome is still hitting 30+ HR's every year. Bagwell was done in 2005?, not playing? Thome is still playing having decent numbers, DH or not. Its not like hes played DH his whole career. David Ortiz on the other hand, will have no chance because he only plays DH.

I loved Bagwell, but just no chance. If you put him in, why not Juan Roidzalez? He was a good defender too with good homerun power. Very compariable to Bagwell.

AWA85
01-12-2009, 06:20 PM
Larkin has no chance of getting, Im sorry guys.

You really cant compare Bagwell with Thome. The fact is, when people get older, they move to DH. Thome is still playing, Bagwell is not. Thome is still hitting 30+ HR's every year. Bagwell was done in 2005?, not playing? Thome is still playing having decent numbers, DH or not. Its not like hes played DH his whole career. David Ortiz on the other hand, will have no chance because he only plays DH.

I loved Bagwell, but just no chance. If you put him in, why not Juan Roidzalez? He was a good defender too with good homerun power. Very compariable to Bagwell.


Nate- i may be showing some bias, but what makes you think Larkin has no chance?

Nathan
01-12-2009, 06:36 PM
one Thought We All Have To Keep In Mind Here - The Hof Is Supposed To Be About Greatness. The Top Of The Crop. A System Of Election By Guys That Never Played The Game On A Professional Level (sportswriters) Is Somewhat Strange To Begin With.... Their Association Is That They "wrote About It......."

Oddly enough, the BBWAA has only made two egregiously bad choices: Catfish Hunter and Jim Rice.

The Veterans Committee, on the other hand....

ndevlin
01-12-2009, 06:37 PM
Nate- i may be showing some bias, but what makes you think Larkin has no chance?


Haha, I know, I know. I guess I shouldnt say he doesnt have a chance. More like I personally dont believe he will get in.

Dont get me wrong, I really liked Larkin. I thought he was a good player, but not great. He just wasnt a player that gave me that spark when he was on the field.

I also know sometimes people have a different take on players when they watched them growing up, or were able to see them play live in their area. It kind of gives you a different aspect to the player.

Its hit and miss with the HOF. Some players arent worthy of it and get in, some are and get crapped on.

frikativ54
01-12-2009, 07:04 PM
Larkin has no chance of getting, Im sorry guys.

You really cant compare Bagwell with Thome. The fact is, when people get older, they move to DH. Thome is still playing, Bagwell is not. Thome is still hitting 30+ HR's every year. Bagwell was done in 2005?, not playing? Thome is still playing having decent numbers, DH or not. Its not like hes played DH his whole career. David Ortiz on the other hand, will have no chance because he only plays DH.

I loved Bagwell, but just no chance. If you put him in, why not Juan Roidzalez? He was a good defender too with good homerun power. Very compariable to Bagwell.

DH is a joke. Some of these guys would be retired if they were not playing DH. Would that you could remove the DH numbers from that person's stats, because it's not a true position and it's bad for the game of baseball. Bagwell did the right thing by walking away from the game and retiring as an Astro than he would have done for an AL team as DH.

AWA85
01-12-2009, 07:14 PM
DH is a joke. Some of these guys would be retired if they were not playing DH. Would that you could remove the DH numbers from that person's stats, because it's not a true position and it's bad for the game of baseball. Bagwell did the right thing by walking away from the game and retiring as an Astro than he would have done for an AL team as DH.


Frik, I know we all feel strongly about certain players... but didn't Bagwell walk away from the game because of health? If I remember he left in his late 30's and his numbers were beginning to fall?

ndevlin
01-12-2009, 07:16 PM
DH is a joke. Some of these guys would be retired if they were not playing DH. Would that you could remove the DH numbers from that person's stats, because it's not a true position and it's bad for the game of baseball. Bagwell did the right thing by walking away from the game and retiring as an Astro than he would have done for an AL team as DH.

I dont even think Bagwell could have played DH. He was having trouble at the plate and was time to go. So I dont think DH was an option.

ndevlin
01-12-2009, 07:17 PM
.......health trouble that is.

frikativ54
01-12-2009, 07:32 PM
Frik, I know we all feel strongly about certain players... but didn't Bagwell walk away from the game because of health? If I remember he left in his late 30's and his numbers were beginning to fall?

That's true, but I just don't understand why certain arbitrary milestones mean so much in the game of baseball. In the prime of his career, Bagwell compares to any of the other people you're talking about.

ndevlin
01-12-2009, 07:36 PM
Les, I kinda see your point.

But lets say Bagwell gets in. Then would you feel someone like Juan Gonzalez that has similar numbers should get in? Or how about Dave Kingman, McGriff or Delgado?

AWA85
01-12-2009, 07:37 PM
That's true, but I just don't understand why certain arbitrary milestones mean so much in the game of baseball. In the prime of his career, Bagwell compares to any of the other people you're talking about.

Baseball is all about numbers, unlike other sports there are just certain records and milestones people know. 3,000 hits, 300 wins, 500 home runs.... certain numbers stand out to people because baseball is numbers (pete rose hits, hank aarons home runs, Cal ripkens games played and on and on)

sylbry
01-12-2009, 07:37 PM
The problem with Bagwell is he played his entire career in the steriod era and yet didn't accomplish big numbers in comparison to others. If Fred McGriff can't get in, Bagwell certainly won't.

This story won't help. Even if it is untrue it places the suggestion in people's minds that he used. And he certainly does look the part, big arms and all.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/05/24/2008-05-24_sources_kelly_blair_made_boasts_about_ju.html

And for the conspiracy theorists there is this story. Keep in mind it was written as a satire piece.

http://baseballevolution.com/asher/bagwellconspiracy.html

jonincleve
01-12-2009, 09:17 PM
i am curious...why do you think thurman munson has never been elected to hall of fame? he basically played 10 seasons, was an all-star for 6, won an mvp award, has the post season accomplishments. he was dominant at his position for the time he played. he died at age 32, he still had at least 4-5 good years left. addie joss only played 9 years when he died but he is in the hof. sandy koufax played 12 years and out of the 12 he had 6 good years and he is in the hof. growing up a cleveland indians fan i hate the yankees, but i just do not get that one.

take care
john

skyking26
01-12-2009, 10:11 PM
DH is a joke. Some of these guys would be retired if they were not playing DH. Would that you could remove the DH numbers from that person's stats, because it's not a true position and it's bad for the game of baseball. Bagwell did the right thing by walking away from the game and retiring as an Astro than he would have done for an AL team as DH.
Say what you want about the DH, it has been around since 74 and differentiates itself from the NL that way. I hate watching a pitcher bat, it's just one of those controversial subjects.

AWA85
01-12-2009, 10:30 PM
Say what you want about the DH, it has been around since 74 and differentiates itself from the NL that way. I hate watching a pitcher bat, it's just one of those controversial subjects.


We must agree to disagree, I love watching Bronson Arroyo jack one out on the Cubs!

redoctober
01-12-2009, 11:39 PM
Bottom line to me is where did the player stand amongst his peers in the same era? Nothing else should matter.

To me, Larkin was amongst the best in his era. Would i take jeter, ARod, etc now?? Yes, but Larking was among the best at the time.

Using the best of era method would include some steroid era players though -- ie (Clemens, Bonds, etc). Personally, I would be tighter with a vote during this time frame, but how do you exclude Clemens or Bonds?? Pre-steroids, they were the best!

Without "best of era" status, how will any pitchers be admitted going forward?? Once The Big Unit reaches 300, nobody else will. Is it fair to use only numbers??? In this example,clearly not.

Also, way too much bias is given to longevity. Dominance in a specific timeframe is the key to me, not total numbers.

Nathan
01-13-2009, 01:37 AM
i am curious...why do you think thurman munson has never been elected to hall of fame? he basically played 10 seasons, was an all-star for 6, won an mvp award, has the post season accomplishments. he was dominant at his position for the time he played. he died at age 32, he still had at least 4-5 good years left. addie joss only played 9 years when he died but he is in the hof. sandy koufax played 12 years and out of the 12 he had 6 good years and he is in the hof. growing up a cleveland indians fan i hate the yankees, but i just do not get that one.

take care
john

(Black ink) / (Gray Ink) / (HOF Monitor) / (HOF Standards)

The average catcher in Cooperstown is 3.4/65.8/122.3/34

Munson is 0/48/89.5/20.9
Ted Simmons is 0/95/124.5/38.9

Now, if you throw out the catchers who really shouldn't be there (Schalk, Ferrell, and Bresnahan), the average score adjusts to 4.2/80.7/141/37.9

Munson's career was on the downswing as it was, and his knees and back were disintegrating. He might have played another three years and then DHed, but he wasn't a good enough hitter to DH.

For me personally, the first criteria for inducting someone would be "Is he the best player at his position not in the Hall?" I think, among eligible players, that would be Ted Simmons. A case could be made for Torre, but he spent an awful lot of time in the field as well.

cohibasmoker
01-13-2009, 09:49 AM
Mark McGwire, stigmatized by accusations he used performance-enhancing drugs, received just 118 votes (21.9 percent) in his third year of eligibility, down from the 128 votes he got in each of his first two tries.


Jim

momen55
01-13-2009, 10:26 AM
what about oldie but goodie manny sanguillen? he had good numbers and was a good hitter too? he is a good friend and it is a shame he didn't get in. :(

joelsabi
01-13-2009, 10:54 AM
I liked Bagwell, but he has no chance. Neither does Larkin. I think Dawson deserves to be in before Rice.

its about the position they played. you gotta put in mattingly before bagwell among other first basemans. maybe dawson has a chance now with Rice in and Dawson eligibility running out. Look at Rice getting in when his eligibility was at the maximum attempts allowed.

joelsabi
01-13-2009, 11:00 AM
Can your candidate pass the 15 question that Bill James proposed below? anyways its an interesting read imho.



In a book written about the Hall of Fame, in 1994, Bill James predicted that Jim Rice would be inducted along with Mike Schmidt into the Hall in 1995. He has a list of a series of subjective questions which he uses to try to figure out how worthy a candidate is. Here is the list:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
--Yes! He won an MVP, Hank Aaron stated he thought Rice had the best chance of hitting 755, and there were several magazine articles with titles such as "The Case for Jim Rice - Why He's the Greatest", "Jim Rice - The Best in Baseball" and others. So, I would say that for a period of time, he was regarded, at least by some, as the best player in baseball.
2. Was he the best player on his team?
--During his career, he was a teammate of several stars including Yaz, Fisk and Perez, who are already in the Hall (and later Boggs, and Clemens who will get in) as well as other deserving players such as Dewey Evans, Luis Tiant, and more. Nonetheless, although some of the others may have had better careers overall, I believe, at his peak, Rice was the best player on the Red Sox.
3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
--Yes! His MVP, and AP all star selections, show that certain years he was regarded as such. In fact, most lists of the best players of his era, will include very few if any other leftfielders.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
--Well, not too many. Him and Fred Lynn certainly led the team to the pennant in '75, and without him, not as many people would remember Bucky Dent, as Boston would have been nowhere close to the Yankees in 1978. He had an MVP-type season again in 1986 when Boston next made a playoff appearance, but credit for that has to go to the Roger Clemens-led pitching staff.
5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
--Well, depends on definition of prime. If his prime is considered when he was at his peak from 1977-1979, he certainly had some great years long after that. In 1986 at the age of 33, he still managed 200 hits, 110 RBIs and a .324 BA, while continuing to field well. However, he dropped off sharply after that, and by 1989 hit .234 and so no action in the field.
6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
--No. There are several other very worthy candidates that the Hall has passed up. I don't want to mention any, because I don't want to insult someone I miss from the list. But it's not a large list, 5-8 players max. On the other hand, just about every year, they let in players that are not as deserving as Rice.
7. Are most of the players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
--There are not a lot of players with very comparable stats. Orlando Cepeda has similar numbers, and he is in.
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
--Yes. He meets 43% of the Hall of Fame standards. The standards are set so that the average scores 50%. 60% of all players who have met 40% or more of the standards are in. (For comparison, Cepeda met 37, Perez 39)
9. Is there evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his stats?
--I don't think so. A case could be made that he played in a hitter's park which inflated his numbers. But I don't believe that is enough to say he was significantly worse.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
--Yes. Looking at Hall of Fame standards numbers, the left-fielders who come closest to Rice are Bob Johnson and Al Oliver. Mike Greenwell was the only other left-fielder on this year's ballot. Enough said.
11. How many MVP-Type season did the player have? Did he ever win an MVP?
--He won the MVP in 1978, and had 5 other MVP type seasons, as judged by his number of top 5 finishes.
12. How many all-star type seasons did the player have? How many ASG did he play in?
--He was voted or selected to play in the game 8 seasons. Looking at his yearly statistics, I would say he probably got in on his reputation in 1980, but did deserve to be named the other 7 years.
13. If this man were the best on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennat?
--YES. No doubt a team with Rice as its star could win the pennant. Many teams with lesser stars have won.
14. What impact did he have on baseball history?
--Nothing significant comes to mind.
15. Did he uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character?
--Tough to answer. Many media people did not like him, and found him to be uncooperative. He did almost punch his 57 year old manager, when he was pinch hit for. Well, one minor incident shouldn't affect his reputation (think George Brett - most fans still remember him - rightly so - as a nice guy.). He is certainly not at the same low level of character as several recent stars (I don't want to bad-mouth anyone, so the names previously listed here have been removed). Remember the incident where he saved a child's life. That alone shows more about his positive character, than being snotty to some pushy sportswriters.

bigtruck260
01-13-2009, 11:47 AM
The DH is fine - as long as it is exclusive to the American league. The pitcher making a sacrifice (or in cases like Owings, Zambrano and Wainwright - going deep) is exciting to me. It probably produces just as many runs as a DH who hits .230 and flies out to end an inning.

Bagwell - Excellent player. IF he would have had 4 more years at 30 HR 90+ RBI - he's in. He still may get in, but I wouldn't bank on it Frik.

There are TONS of players that define greatness in baseball (it is a nod to how good they are just to be in a MLB uniform) - but guys like Andres Gallaraga, Vinny Castillo, Ken Boyer, Steve Garvey, Dwight Evans, etc. that are awesome to watch, and have great numbers - but won't make the hall because you don't usually put them in an essay about greatness the way you do Rickey Henderson, Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, Willie Mays and Nolan Ryan....

cjclong
01-13-2009, 12:03 PM
There is a difference between great players and very good players and I think we are starting to get some very good players in the HOF as opposed to great ones. Of course there will be an argument as to whether a player is great or just very good. If we particularly like a player we tend to view him as great. I think some players are getting in because the sports writers feel they need to vote someone in every year even if there is no one who meets the great category. I think a number of players being mentioned are very good players, all star players, but they don't meet the final step to an all time great player.

Nathan
01-13-2009, 12:06 PM
Bill James also said in the "New Historical Abstract" that Rice:

-- Ranks #27 among left fielders, behind a few guys who will never get in
-- Was "probably the most overrated player of the last thirty years"

Nathan
01-13-2009, 12:10 PM
its about the position they played. you gotta put in mattingly before bagwell among other first basemans. maybe dawson has a chance now with Rice in and Dawson eligibility running out. Look at Rice getting in when his eligibility was at the maximum attempts allowed.

Mattingly is basically Cecil Cooper or Wally Joyner with the extra "pinstripe aura". Neither of them will ever come close, and although Mattingly's glove helps, I don't think it's enough.

Bagwell I'd vote for in a heartbeat.

mwbosoxfan
01-13-2009, 01:03 PM
Can your candidate pass the 15 question that Bill James proposed below? anyways its an interesting read imho.



In a book written about the Hall of Fame, in 1994, Bill James predicted that Jim Rice would be inducted along with Mike Schmidt into the Hall in 1995. He has a list of a series of subjective questions which he uses to try to figure out how worthy a candidate is. Here is the list:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
--Yes! He won an MVP, Hank Aaron stated he thought Rice had the best chance of hitting 755, and there were several magazine articles with titles such as "The Case for Jim Rice - Why He's the Greatest", "Jim Rice - The Best in Baseball" and others. So, I would say that for a period of time, he was regarded, at least by some, as the best player in baseball.
2. Was he the best player on his team?
--During his career, he was a teammate of several stars including Yaz, Fisk and Perez, who are already in the Hall (and later Boggs, and Clemens who will get in) as well as other deserving players such as Dewey Evans, Luis Tiant, and more. Nonetheless, although some of the others may have had better careers overall, I believe, at his peak, Rice was the best player on the Red Sox.
3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
--Yes! His MVP, and AP all star selections, show that certain years he was regarded as such. In fact, most lists of the best players of his era, will include very few if any other leftfielders.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
--Well, not too many. Him and Fred Lynn certainly led the team to the pennant in '75, and without him, not as many people would remember Bucky Dent, as Boston would have been nowhere close to the Yankees in 1978. He had an MVP-type season again in 1986 when Boston next made a playoff appearance, but credit for that has to go to the Roger Clemens-led pitching staff.
5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
--Well, depends on definition of prime. If his prime is considered when he was at his peak from 1977-1979, he certainly had some great years long after that. In 1986 at the age of 33, he still managed 200 hits, 110 RBIs and a .324 BA, while continuing to field well. However, he dropped off sharply after that, and by 1989 hit .234 and so no action in the field.
6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
--No. There are several other very worthy candidates that the Hall has passed up. I don't want to mention any, because I don't want to insult someone I miss from the list. But it's not a large list, 5-8 players max. On the other hand, just about every year, they let in players that are not as deserving as Rice.
7. Are most of the players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
--There are not a lot of players with very comparable stats. Orlando Cepeda has similar numbers, and he is in.
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
--Yes. He meets 43% of the Hall of Fame standards. The standards are set so that the average scores 50%. 60% of all players who have met 40% or more of the standards are in. (For comparison, Cepeda met 37, Perez 39)
9. Is there evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his stats?
--I don't think so. A case could be made that he played in a hitter's park which inflated his numbers. But I don't believe that is enough to say he was significantly worse.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
--Yes. Looking at Hall of Fame standards numbers, the left-fielders who come closest to Rice are Bob Johnson and Al Oliver. Mike Greenwell was the only other left-fielder on this year's ballot. Enough said.
11. How many MVP-Type season did the player have? Did he ever win an MVP?
--He won the MVP in 1978, and had 5 other MVP type seasons, as judged by his number of top 5 finishes.
12. How many all-star type seasons did the player have? How many ASG did he play in?
--He was voted or selected to play in the game 8 seasons. Looking at his yearly statistics, I would say he probably got in on his reputation in 1980, but did deserve to be named the other 7 years.
13. If this man were the best on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennat?
--YES. No doubt a team with Rice as its star could win the pennant. Many teams with lesser stars have won.
14. What impact did he have on baseball history?
--Nothing significant comes to mind.
15. Did he uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character?
--Tough to answer. Many media people did not like him, and found him to be uncooperative. He did almost punch his 57 year old manager, when he was pinch hit for. Well, one minor incident shouldn't affect his reputation (think George Brett - most fans still remember him - rightly so - as a nice guy.). He is certainly not at the same low level of character as several recent stars (I don't want to bad-mouth anyone, so the names previously listed here have been removed). Remember the incident where he saved a child's life. That alone shows more about his positive character, than being snotty to some pushy sportswriters.

Joel, nice post. That was a very interesting read. The HOF, to a lesser extent, takes on some of the same criticisms that the MVP balloting is sited for. What are the standards and please define them. Nevertheless, Rice was a borderline candidate or it wouldn’t have taken 15 years. I do, for the most part, like the fact that at least Bill James has come up with some type of measuring criteria, which mostly applies to the borderline types of candidates. It’s a pretty good litmus test.

How about one of the writers that didn't vote for Henderson and said, "Uhm, I'm just not a Henderson guy." What the hell does that mean? Sounds like a great criteria for HOF voting!!

John

joelsabi
01-13-2009, 01:28 PM
Joel, nice post. That was a very interesting read. The HOF, to a lesser extent, takes on some of the same criticisms that the MVP balloting is sited for. What are the standards and please define them. Nevertheless, Rice was a borderline candidate or it wouldn’t have taken 15 years. I do, for the most part, like the fact that at least Bill James has come up with some type of measuring criteria, which mostly applies to the borderline types of candidates. It’s a pretty good litmus test.

How about one of the writers that didn't vote for Henderson and said, "Uhm, I'm just not a Henderson guy." What the hell does that mean? Sounds like a great criteria for HOF voting!!

John

just to clarify the answer to each question was not the opinion of bill james but was the opionion of some writer on a forum who was using the criteria that james set up as questions to answer. i will get the original link so there is context. sorry for misinformation.

joelsabi
01-13-2009, 01:53 PM
How about one of the writers that didn't vote for Henderson and said, "Uhm, I'm just not a Henderson guy." What the hell does that mean? Sounds like a great criteria for HOF voting!!

John

JOhn

Do you know what Herderson Vote % was compared to other first balloter? That would be interesting.

mwbosoxfan
01-13-2009, 02:01 PM
JOhn

Do you know what Herderson Vote % was compared to other first balloter? That would be interesting.

I think it was just shy of 95% - 94 something if remember correctly.

joelsabi
01-13-2009, 02:11 PM
I think it was just shy of 95% - 94 something if remember correctly.

heres a list. where does henderson fit in