Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

[pietasterp]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

It's more about reducing the power of 50+ year old white guys who want to engage in pointless gatekeeping and refuse to view the process through any kind of objective lens and instead think it's like choosing your favorite kind of ice cream.

Until then, you're going to get things like Jim Rice getting voted in because he was FEARED!!!! and Lou Whitaker falling off the ballot after 1 year because he didn't make enough All Star games or didn't reach a completely arbitrary milestone or whatever.

Ladies and gentlemen: your baseball hall of fame voting process in a nutshell! (hold your applause....)

I'm yes on Pudge, on the fence on Mauer as of right now. I agree there is a different standard for catchers - it's such a unique position, and much of what they do is difficult to quantify as easily as other positions.

[pietasterp]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I don't see anything wrong with it...

The Hall needs guys like Jack Morris. For a pitcher, it's important that they were a Big Game Pitcher and won a lot of ballgames for their team. That they could reach into the tank, dig deep, and pitch into the occasional 10th inning in the playoffs or what have you. The Hall needs guys with decent moustaches, at least, maybe guys who doctored the ball a bit--but not cheaters--and players who oozed TWTW and willed their teams to victory. The Hall needs guys who embodied tenacity and played the game the right way all of the time.

The Hall needs guys who are gritty. Grinders of the scrappiest degree. Mudders. Guys who bust it out of the box and hustle 110% of the time. Guys you'd want on your side in a back-alley brawl. Guys who could foul off pitch after pitch. Guys who could hit .300 and knock in a bunch of RBI. The Hall needs guys like Jim Rice. Feared sluggers and RBI-men who made pitchers tremble in their stirrups out on the mound. Guys who might lean into a pitch every once in a while and glare intently out at the pitcher. Guys who played in big markets and everyone remembers their names.

The guidelines are pretty clear/fair and I don't really see the need for change...

I see you, WaitTilNextYear!

[lhslancers]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Mauer is Mattingly with less power. I would vote for Pudge and Schilling for the Hall.

[lhslancers]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I know that Jack Morris pitched some great big games in his career but look at how he compares to Schilling's ERA and WHIP. Who has to go in first?

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

The Hall of Fame is now requiring that a Hall of Fame voter actually actively covered the sport within 10 years to be eligible to vote.

A really welcome change.

I think the ballots should be made public too. I want to put names to some of these people who hold the "since Ruth wasn't unanimous, no one should be" position. It would add a little more accountability to the process since people would have to publicly defend their ballots. I'd also shorten the length of time it takes to cast HOF ballots (10 years, I think) so sabermetrically-inclined baseball writers like Keith Law and Dave Cameron can vote.

[JODYE]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I know the topic had passed, but if you're going to put Edmonds in, you have to put Andruw Jones in.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I know that Jack Morris pitched some great big games in his career but look at how he compares to Schilling's ERA and WHIP. Who has to go in first?

The old-timers tried, but Morris fell off the ballot last year.

Schilling's having a tough time because the voters think Maddux/Johnson/Clemens/Pedro-type pitchers are the norm when in fact the 90s/early 2000s were just blessed to have four of the greatest pitchers ever pitching simultaneously.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Mauer is Mattingly with less power. I would vote for Pudge and Schilling for the Hall.

I don't think catchers should be compared to other position players. If Mauer's a corner outfielder or first baseman, yeah, he's not even in the conversation, but he provided offensive value at a position where the skills needed there are completely different from the skills required at other positions. And there's alot of evidence that catching hurts your offensive numbers, so being Don Mattingly with more walks and less power is still great production.

It's just really hard to accumulate a lot of value behind the plate since you're only playing in 120-130 games a year max and you have to move out of the position completely by your early 30s. And the cumulative wear-and-tear is so much that even guys who move out of catcher break down, like Mauer. Per FanGraphs, only 7 catchers in history have career WARs over 60. Johnny Bench is tops at 74 WAR.

Mauer's a marginal player at this point, so he's probably not going to add much to his career WAR. It really comes down to how you judge his ~10 years behind the plate. They were so good that he's in the conversation for me, but the arguments against him are legitimate.

[lhslancers]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I don't think catchers should be compared to other position players. If Mauer's a corner outfielder or first baseman, yeah, he's not even in the conversation, but he provided offensive value at a position where the skills needed there are completely different from the skills required at other positions. And there's alot of evidence that catching hurts your offensive numbers, so being Don Mattingly with more walks and less power is still great production.

It's just really hard to accumulate a lot of value behind the plate since you're only playing in 120-130 games a year max and you have to move out of the position completely by your early 30s. And the cumulative wear-and-tear is so much that even guys who move out of catcher break down, like Mauer. Per FanGraphs, only 7 catchers in history have career WARs over 60. Johnny Bench is tops at 74 WAR.

Mauer's a marginal player at this point, so he's probably not going to add much to his career WAR. It really comes down to how you judge his ~10 years behind the plate. They were so good that he's in the conversation for me, but the arguments against him are legitimate.

Except for a couple of guys who played nearly their whole careers behind the plate like a Berra I agree offensive production is curtailed greatly. Like Mattingly injury has had a large effect on Mauer's numbers. Before the concussion he was considered among the best in the game.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Are any of CC Sabathia, Justin Verlander, or Tim Hudson future HoF'ers?

[TheNumber35]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Are any of CC Sabathia, Justin Verlander, or Tim Hudson future HoF'ers?

Without looking at any numbers, I'd say no to the first two...and a maybe to Hudson. My gut says he was pretty good for a long time and should be in. But voters are dumb and his stats could tell a different story than I'm remembering.

[redsox4evur]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Are any of CC Sabathia, Justin Verlander, or Tim Hudson future HoF'ers?

Yes, no, maybe respectively. Verlander has fallen apart and is only 32. If could have sustained the MVP season a little longer he would be a maybe. CC should make it in just over 200 wins, 3.69 ERA and over 2500 Ks. The only concerning number there is the ERA. But I would put him in. Also has a WAR of 54.0. And Smoltz had a war of 66.5 for a comparison. The K's might hurt Hudson just over 2000, 2069 to be exact.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Are any of CC Sabathia, Justin Verlander, or Tim Hudson future HoF'ers?

"Will they get in?": Right now, no on all three. Sabathia has the best chance of the three and he still has plenty of work to do.

"Should they get in?": I would vote for Sabathia. No on the other two. Hudson's peak wasn't good enough for me and Verlander just hasn't been able to sustain his greatness.

[pietasterp]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Yeah, it's tough...it's one of those things where if there was a "Hall of Very Good", they'd be first-ballot guys, but tough to make a case for all-timers for any of them as of right now. And for all 3, their best days are clearly (firmly) in the rear-view mirror at this point.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Lance Berkman??