Hall of Fame

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:29 am

Just a couple of thoughts-

It is inevitable that Alomar gets in the Hall. His numbers and play on the field are just too good. At the same time, I was happy to see Alomar not get in on the first ballot. Times have changed, what you do on and off the field now goes into a Hall of Fame vote. It is the equivalent of a kid sitting in a corner for doing something stupid. Alomar's corner sitting will last a year.

Edgar Martinez getting 36% of the vote. Although this percentage may increase over the years, it sends out a signal that if you're a designated hitter, you'd have to be a very special hitter to get in the Hall.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:09 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Congratulations to Andre Dawson for making the Hall of Fame yesterday. It's a shame he had to wait more than a decade to get in, but at least the writers finally got it right.

The Hawk was the best right fielder in the game during his peak and he had a cannon for an arm. He also had speed and power, becoming only the third player (actually second at the time to Willie Mays; Barry Bonds followed) with 400+ home runs and 300+ stolen bases. I always liked him and admired him even more during his MVP season with the Cubs. He was a gamer and a tough, tough out.

Next year it's time to let Bert Blyleven in the Hall of Fame. He inched closer this year and next year it's time to put in the nastiest curveball in the game. And it's okay that Roberto Alomar didn't make it on his first ballot, but Robby will get in next year after seeing the lame first-year list for 2011. Alomar was a smooth second baseman who won two World Series titles with Toronto and deserves a spot in the Hall.

Just my two cents, but I'm glad to see Dawson in and I think it would have been even better with Blyleven joining him. Greg i agree with you happy the Hawk got in.His only negative is that 323 career obp which is hard to believe.I guess he didnt take many walks.

Blyleven should already been in and its horrible how he missed by 5 votes.The dude did have the nastiest curve ever and had a ton of career k's and im pretty sure top 5 all time.

Alomar is the smoothest 2nd baseman ive ever seen and a great hitter.Crazy he's not in on the first ballot but the spit around the world cost him a year.He will be in next year for sure.

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:58 am

blyleven should have been in a long time ago. the sportswriters had an oportunity to put in a top 5 -10 all time second basemen and a great pitcher instead they put in a real nice guy that was a real nice outfielder. ask your self this- at the age of 30 an outfielder hits .248 with an ob of .301 17 homers 73 runs 86 rbis 13 steals in 533 ab's. he had a bad year? at 31 he goes, in 528 ab's, .255 .295 23 65 91 13 . where you drafting him? that is chris young. ted williams, mays mantle ruth henderson etc would retire if they threw those 2 years up. in fact when mays threw those 2 years up he did retire at about 50 years old. like i said -class act, happy for him - but the bar has been really lowered. rice lowered it and now andre has really lowered it.

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:57 am

Originally posted by headhunters:

blyleven should have been in a long time ago. the sportswriters had an oportunity to put in a top 5 -10 all time second basemen and a great pitcher instead they put in a real nice guy that was a real nice outfielder. ask your self this- at the age of 30 an outfielder hits .248 with an ob of .301 17 homers 73 runs 86 rbis 13 steals in 533 ab's. he had a bad year? at 31 he goes, in 528 ab's, .255 .295 23 65 91 13 . where you drafting him? that is chris young. ted williams, mays mantle ruth henderson etc would retire if they threw those 2 years up. in fact when mays threw those 2 years up he did retire at about 50 years old. like i said -class act, happy for him - but the bar has been really lowered. rice lowered it and now andre has really lowered it. Last year there was a lot of talk that Rice had lowered the bar, although I bet Edgar Martinez and Fred McGriff would disagree. But to suggest that Dawson lowers it more I think is wrong. Dawson was a mix of power and speed that has rarely ever been seen, throw in 8 Gold Gloves and this man is clearly a HOFer.

Of course by now everyone has seen the stat about only three players (BaBonds, Mays & Dawson) in MLB history with 438+ HR’s, and 314+ SB’s. The negative to Dawson is his .323 OBP. If you add that stat to the mix, it’s still only the three players.

Now apply the same standard to Jim Rice. How many players equal or better his career numbers of 382 HR, 58 SB’s and an OBP of .352?

33 Players. Including Larry Walker, Darrell Evens, Jeff Bagwell, Fred McGriff and Jim Edmonds.

I’m not saying that Rice shouldn’t be in the Hall. But when it comes time for Jim Edmonds and his 8 Gold Gloves to be on the ballot, he will be comparing himself much more favorably to Rice than he will to Dawson.

TOXIC ASSETS · Post by **TOXIC ASSETS** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:47 am

Can't believe that Blyleven missed it again. A most deserving pitcher, 22 seasons, all of the numbers are there, World Series titles, etc. Would have won more than 300 games easily if he didn't pitch for so many bad teams.

Congrats to the Hawk, when you throw in 8 gold gloves along with his offensive numbers, he was deserving.

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:41 pm

navel lint- you are for sure a cub fan. gold gloves- hey i liked andre- don't get me wrong- but those are (every single gold glove ever handed out) subjective. those year 30 and 31 #'s are not subjective. if i have time i will look up all the major leaguers that hit better than that at ages 30 and 31. probably 1000. those are awful awful #'s. we just disagree. you can find plenty of stats that 3 guys did this or that. don't get me wrong. i like andre. ps- tim raines- go look his #'s up. way better- in my opinion than andres. dwight evans- same. and he was a great outfielder ( in my opinion- like gold gloves) oh- dear sportswriters- getting on base is pretty important.

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:28 pm

Originally posted by headhunters:

navel lint- you are for sure a cub fan. gold gloves- hey i liked andre- don't get me wrong- but those are (every single gold glove ever handed out) subjective. those year 30 and 31 #'s are not subjective. if i have time i will look up all the major leaguers that hit better than that at ages 30 and 31. probably 1000. those are awful awful #'s. we just disagree. you can find plenty of stats that 3 guys did this or that. don't get me wrong. i like andre. ps- tim raines- go look his #'s up. way better- in my opinion than andres. dwight evans- same. and he was a great outfielder ( in my opinion- like gold gloves) oh- dear sportswriters- getting on base is pretty important. Two things;

1) I am a Cub fan. No hiding that

2) I agree about Tim Raines. I have a post earlier in this thread about my mythical HOF ballot; Blyleven, Dawson, Raines and Alomar were on it.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:26 am

At the heart of the problem are the sportwriters themselves. Even some sportswriters admit this. Once a sportswriter has a vote, he/she does not lose it. That is wrong on so many levels. Some writers go on to other sports or simply lose interest in baseball itself, let alone nuances like on base percentage.

This is the reason why we get votes like Blyleven's where his percentage creeps up each year. Some non-active writers think, 'well heck, he must have been good enough if everybody else thinks that highly of him'. Meanwhile the Trammell's, Pinson's, and Raines are ignored.

The Hall of Fame should pull the votes from writers who are no longer active in the baseball part of writing, it would be a good start to solidifying a subjective vote.

Plymouth · Post by **Plymouth** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:28 am

A lot of truth in what you say. However; once you get rid of the guys that might be out of the baseball writing business today don't you have an issue with the fact that today's writers never had a chance to see the "old guys" play and thus the "old guys" are being discriminated against? I don't disagree that a lot of writers don't have a clue but I don't know if there is a better way to vote on players for the HOF. It is a very elite club and that's why we are all so frustrated with the results sometimes. It is a home for the very best not just the very good players. The problem is that it is impossible to compare Cy Young to Sandy Koufax because baseball rules and the way the game is played changes so much over the years. It makes for good conversation....

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:55 am

Good point.

Most writers aren't given the priviledge of voting for the Hall until they are well into their 30's. They should at least get to see most of these players while growing up.

Point taken, though.