Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

What's the cutoff? 10%?

5%...Andruw is going to be close.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

5%...Andruw is going to be close.

According to the guy with the tracker, we only know 43% of the vote, so who knows.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Figure this was the best place for this, but I have to rant for a minute on the MLB Network HOF Roundtable.

They've been doing this annually since around 2012 and I always enjoy watching it. I don't always agree with the stuff that is said, but it is cool to see the debates/discussion and hear the different viewpoints.

First off, I thought this year's was pretty mediocre. Just didn't seem like they really discussed much as they have in year's past. That's not the point of the rant, however. At one point when discussing Trevor Hoffman and the HOF, Chris Russo went off about the fact that he can't put Hoffman into the HOF because Hoffman was awful in October and single handedly lost the 1998 WS. He made the statement "game after game he came in and was awful against the Yankees". He also argued that Hoffman isn't better than Rivera (agreed), Sutter (disagree), Fingers (meh...could go either way), Eckersley (not sure), or Gossage (disagree).

Why does no one call him out on this while he's sitting there going off? Hoffman pitched ONE inning in the 1998 World Series (sure, he gave up a home run and 2 runs) and was hardly the reason the Padres lost to an all-time great team. Further more, Hoffman for his career only pitched 13 career post-season innings and had an ERA of 3.46 with a WHIP of 1.23. Nothing spectacular, but such a small sample size to judge someone on. Finally, he kept bringing up Eckersley as the kind of guy you want in the post-season. Eckersley had several "failures" in the post-season (1988, 1990, 1992). It just seemed like an odd thing to cling too...

Later, when the discussion came to Scott Rolen, Russo launched into how he can NEVER put a player into the HOF who only played 140+ games 7 times in their career into the HOF, no matter how great they were in those 7 years. I'm pretty sure that if asked, Russo would absolutely agree that Sandy Koufax belongs in the HOF, yet he's arguing against peak value of a player at an under represented position in the HOF. Again...no one calls him on it.

Finally, they discussed Andruw Jones, but each of them agreed that he's not a HOF'r and no one placed him on their ballot...yet half of them had Vizquel on their ballot!? I feel like I've taken crazy pills...I'm not saying Andruw is a slam dunk HOF'r and if he never made it in he wouldn't be the best player out of the HOF, but there is no way that Omar Vizquel belongs in the HOF ahead of Andruw Jones. I usually enjoy this roundtable, but most of the show this year was frustrating to watch.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Honestly, Chris Russo is one of the few media people that is absolutely insufferable. Like some of them annoy me, but I can derive enjoyment even while being annoyed. Chris Russo just grates in the worst way. I can't stand the over the top high pitched screaming he does at all times.

Some of the people said it was a small sample size. I think he was just saying such ignorant stuff they didn't feel the need to respond to it very strongly. In attack the save stat (attacking the stat I have no issue with) he started talking all kinds of **** about anyone being able to get the last three outs of the game, and that he could get saves in the majors. He just had no business up there.

What I didn't like was Tom Verducci talking **** on younger writers voting for Bonds and Clemens and saying that it's because "they were in middle school at the time, they can't contextualize what was happening. We knew, back then, that it was terrible" which is complete revisionist history.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Both Chris Russo and Tom Verducci are unfathomably awful. Straight cancers.

I just hope MLB Network stops the ESPNification.

[SPTO]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

First of all, Russo is a total joke and shouldn't be involved in the roundtable.

Anywho....


1. I completely agree with you on Hoffman. Sure, his numbers weren't great but he didn't have a ton of postseason opportunities and if you're going to break his balls over failing against the Yanks you need to put it in context. That was arguably the greatest team of the modern era. There's no shame in faltering against them. I think Hoffman is a HOF'er but I take the view of former Toronto Star writer Dave Perkins who revealed his ballot along with current Jays reporter Shi Davidi on the radio last night. (Bob McCown does a yearly HOF ballot reveal/discussion with those two around this time) Anyways, his view is that he thinks Hoffman is a HOF'er but he feels it'd be better to hold off until Mariano Rivera gets in as the first true blue one inning reliever to get in the Hall. As for why the other panelists don't call out Russo on his crap? Can you imagine if they did? It'd be a shouting fest all over the damn place. Our ears and sanity can only take so much.


2. As for Rolen, if that's Russo's line to keep him out of the Hall than that's just stupid. We're talking peak performance over a number of years and at a position that's lacking in the Hall. I personally see Rolen as a Hall of Very Good but I haven't really looked up his numbers. I wouldn't be against him being in the HOF to be honest with you.


3. Yeah, I dunno if I can get behind Vizquel being in the Hall over Andruw Jones. I think a lot of the love he gets is from his stellar defensive play and the fact that he seems to be well loved by media types. I think Jones may be hurt by having a rather pedestrian and lackluster end to his career. His production production slipped rather badly from his age 30-35 seasons.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Honestly, Chris Russo is one of the few media people that is absolutely insufferable. Like some of them annoy me, but I can derive enjoyment even while being annoyed. Chris Russo just grates in the worst way. I can't stand the over the top high pitched screaming he does at all times.

Some of the people said it was a small sample size. I think he was just saying such ignorant stuff they didn't feel the need to respond to it very strongly. In attack the save stat (attacking the stat I have no issue with) he started talking all kinds of **** about anyone being able to get the last three outs of the game, and that he could get saves in the majors. He just had no business up there.

What I didn't like was Tom Verducci talking **** on younger writers voting for Bonds and Clemens and saying that it's because "they were in middle school at the time, they can't contextualize what was happening. We knew, back then, that it was terrible" which is complete revisionist history.

I think that's a good point on Russo...maybe that's why this year's show was not as enjoyable. He was certainly more center stage than he has been in year's past because there were fewer people on the panel.

BTW - I agree on the Verducci stuff. I thought it was funny that he was talking about it like it was a bad thing...like or not, Bonds/Clemens are going in the HOF and very soon.

[SPTO]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

BTW - I agree on the Verducci stuff. I thought it was funny that he was talking about it like it was a bad thing...like or not, Bonds/Clemens are going in the HOF and very soon.

I generally like Verducci but the steroid stuff is definitely his blind spot. I bet he agreed with everything in that e-mail Joe Morgan sent out SMH

I think Bonds/Clemens are going to get in but it may be in their last couple years of eligibility.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Both Chris Russo and Tom Verducci are unfathomably awful. Straight cancers.

I just hope MLB Network stops the ESPNification.

I was actually surprised Verducci didn't launch into a rant about game times and how these players are responsible for dragging out the game times with their inflated offense. Seems game length is all he can talk about sometimes...

[Speedy]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

SF, completely agree about Andruw vs. Vizquel. No way Vizquel was better than Andruw both offensively or defensively. I just don't see how anyone could think that...I mean, good Lord...Andruw had almost 20+ more fwar over his career.

[GreenLightning]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Jones is a victim of having hung on too long. I guess he wanted to keep playing and that is his prerogative but I think it cost him entrance into the HOF.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Jones is a victim of having hung on too long. I guess he wanted to keep playing and that is his prerogative but I think it cost him entrance into the HOF.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't know that I can agree. What really hurt him was falling off the face of the planet when he hit 30. It isn't like he played until he was 40 or 44 or whatever...he played his last game at age 35 and didn't have a productive season after the age of 30. I have listed on this forum the reasons I think that is, but the bottom line is that if he had walked away from the game at age 30 I don't know that he would get in either (he had 368 homers).

In contrast, I DO think that Vizquel was "hanging" on. The guy played until he was 45 years old and wasn't very productive the last several years at all. I think Omar really wanted 3,000 hits (came up 123 short), but what he was doing, IMO, is the very definition of "hanging on".

[SPTO]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

In contrast, I DO think that Vizquel was "hanging" on. The guy played until he was 45 years old and wasn't very productive the last several years at all. I think Omar really wanted 3,000 hits (came up 123 short), but what he was doing, IMO, is the very definition of "hanging on".

In some respects Vizquel is the position player equivalent to Tommy John. A guy who had a strong peak but hung on way too long trying to achieve the milestone numbers. The difference is, Vizquel was an awesome fielder for most of his career and voters are definitely using that as the basis for his HOF consideration.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Latest update has Andruw at 6.1%.

According to the tracker, he's already eliminated from making it this year. But he should stay on the ballot.

The same cannot be said for Johan Santana and Johnny Damon.

[DrJones]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Remember, the ballot tracker tends to tilt toward the younger, sabermetrically-inclined HOF voters. So I'd expect the final numbers to be higher for Hoffman and Vizquel, lower for Edgar, Mussina, Bonds/Clemens. If Andruw's at 6.1% on the tracker, I doubt he's going to get 5% in the final tally.

Predictions:

2018: Chipper, Thome, Vladdy, Hoffman
2019: Rivera, Edgar
2020: Jeter, maybe Mussina

Player who will generate the most tiresome arguments over the next 5 years (aside than Vizquel): Andy Pettitte, who will likely be the first beneficiary of The "Well, Jack Morris is a HOF'er, and Pettitte's better than Morris, so..." Theorem. Said theorem will help a lot of guys with borderline cases but BIG GAME reputations (well, except for those with an extensive collection of Nazi memorabilia).

I think Bonds and Clemens will make it at some point, but not through BBWAA voting. The only way I see it happening within the next 5 years is if someone who's already been elected to the HoF is outed as a juicer. Then there'll be a year or two of hand-wringing ("Should Player X be kicked out of the HOF??" "Won't somebody please think of the children???"), followed by a year or two of "Well, if Player X juiced and is allowed to stay in the Hall, why are we keeping these other juicers (with much better stats) out?" Bound to happen eventually.