This year's Hall of Fame ballot

The following players are eligible this year (although only a portion of them will be on the actual ballot):

Code:

---

Harold Baines
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Tommy John
Don Mattingly
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Tim Raines
Jim Rice
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
Rickey Henderson
Steve Avery
Jay Bell
Jason Bere
Mike Bordick
John Burkett
David Cone
Omar Daal
Ron Gant
Joe Girardi
Mark Grace
Mark Guthrie
Joey Hamilton
Bill Haselman
Darren Holmes
Trenidad Hubbard
Todd Hundley
Brian L. Hunter
Félix José
Chad Kreuter
Graeme Lloyd
Keith Lockhart
Albie Lopez
Pat Mahomes
Al Martin
Orlando Merced
Charles Nagy
Denny Neagle
Troy O'Leary
Jesse Orosco
Lance Painter
Dean Palmer
Craig Paquette
Dan Plesac
Tom Prince
Jeff Reboulet
Rick Reed
Rich Rodriguez
Terry Shumpert
Luis Sojo
Greg Vaughn
Mo Vaughn
Dave Veres
Matt Walbeck
Matt Williams
Mike Williams
Kevin Young

---

I'd vote for Blyleven, Henderson, McGwire, Raines, and Trammell.

Of the non-Henderson first-timers, I think only David Cone and Mark Grace will get enough votes (5%) to stay on the ballot.

Lance Painter, Jeff Reboulet, Matt Walbeck... and TRENIDAD HUBBARD! LOL

WTF is Joe Girardi is there? Wasn't he a backup catcher for the Yankees?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fish Troll

WTF is Joe Girardi is there? Wasn't he a backup catcher for the Yankees?

---

Yes?

To be eligible for the Hall of Fame, all that is required is to have played in at least 10 years, and have been retired for 5. The actual ballot will be stripped down from that list and will be composed of the returning players from last year's ballot, plus a selection of the new eligible players that a screening committee chooses.

But really, of all the players on that list, Joe Girardi is the one that makes you say "WTF?" Not, I don't know, Trenidad Hubbard?

Wow Girardi was a shitty player.

gant will get a few votes too... he might get the 5% definatly not a HOF'er but he might get the 5%

I would Elect Baines, Tommy John, Blevylen, Trammel, McGwire, and Henderson , not all on this ballot of course

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

I would Elect Baines, Tommy John, Blevylen, Trammel, McGwire, and Henderson , not all on this ballot of course

---

why not on this ballot??? whats the difference if its this ballot or next years...

and id give it to Henderson and maybe baines... i havent looked at their #'s in a while. Tommy MAYBE but im not sure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

why not on this ballot??? whats the difference if its this ballot or next years...

and id give it to Henderson and maybe baines... i havent looked at their #'s in a while. Tommy MAYBE but im not sure

---

Because that is too many for one ballot, at least for the BBWAA to comprehend. And Raines is basically a poorman's(But not that poor even) Henderson, and Tommy John should be in already *EDIT I Meant Raines, not Baines. Though both deserve electoin, and Baines offensive stats were simular to Henerson, just lesser, and with no speed

Oh, and Dave Parker belongs in the HOF as well

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/parkeda01.shtml Parker had nearly 3,000 hits, over 300 homers, and won several Gold Gloves

http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnto01.shtml Tommy John Won 288, had a 3.34 ERA, ERA+ of 110, and threw nearly 5,000 innings

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/baineha01.shtml Had Rickey Henderson's Bat, just not his speed, had 2,866 hits and an OPS+ of 120

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/raineti01.shtml This guy was even more like Rickey Henderson, stealing 808 bases, posting a .385 OBP, and hitting 2606 hits

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/blylebe01.shtml Blyleven had vitually the same stats as Tommy John.


http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/trammal01.shtml Trammell topped 2,300 hits, had some pop, and an amazing glove.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mcgwima01.shtml McGwire had an OPS+ of 162, 'nuff said.

So yeah, hope this helps. These are who I feel should be elected

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Because that is too many for one ballot, at least for the BBWAA to comprehend. And Baines is basically a poorman's(But not that poor even) Henderson, and Tommy John should be in already

---

Yayy...I love HOF debates. Tommy John? no.

He has a career ERA+ of only 110. He's higher up on the career BB's allowed then he is on the SO's (both in the 40's) He's 15th in Earned Runs allowed. 10th in hits allowed. And his black ink-grey ink and HOF standards are below average.

And if you say anything about his surgery i'll hit you.

um... NO on big Mac

Tommy and Blyleven im torn on... the # is 300 for a reason... if we let in 285 wins... then 275-280's will complain and then we start getting just ok guys... the HOF is for the ELITE players, not the really good ones.

if you put Blyleven in you have to put Tony Mullane only 2 less wins but 30 less losses. There are cases when you can ignore the #'s (pedro for example) due to dominance but medeocre pitchers do not belong because they got CLOSE to the "magic" numbers. He never lead in ANYTHING. Dont get me wrong he was a good pitcher but certainly not what I would call Hall of Famer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

And if you say anything about his surgery i'll hit you.

---

I was waiting for that to be mentioned... my pimp hand is up as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

um... NO on big Mac

Tommy and Blyleven im torn on... the # is 300 for a reason... if we let in 285 wins... then 275-280's will complain and then we start getting just ok guys... the HOF is for the ELITE players, not the really good ones.

if you put Blyleven in you have to put Tony Mullane only 2 less wins but 30 less losses. There are cases when you can ignore the #'s (pedro for example) due to dominance but medeocre pitchers do not belong because they got CLOSE to the "magic" numbers. He never lead in ANYTHING. Dont get me wrong he was a good pitcher but certainly not what I would call Hall of Famer

---

Ninth alltime in shutouts, fifth...FIFTH are you kidding me? fifth in strikeouts. A miniscule career WHIP of 1.19.

W-L mean nothing in this case. Look at his time in Texas?!

lol of all things I forgot to look at it was strikeouts

If Chad Kreuter doesn't make the HOF, Chan Ho Park won't be able to make it either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

um... NO on big Mac

Tommy and Blyleven im torn on... the # is 300 for a reason... if we let in 285 wins... then 275-280's will complain and then we start getting just ok guys... the HOF is for the ELITE players, not the really good ones.

if you put Blyleven in you have to put Tony Mullane only 2 less wins but 30 less losses. There are cases when you can ignore the #'s (pedro for example) due to dominance but medeocre pitchers do not belong because they got CLOSE to the "magic" numbers. He never lead in ANYTHING. Dont get me wrong he was a good pitcher but certainly not what I would call Hall of Famer

---

Stop using wins and losses.

Blyleven finished in the top 10 in his league in ERA+ 12 times, with 1 time leading the league and 7 times in the top 5. He finished in the top 5 in strikeouts 12 times.

Blyleven is a victim of playing on relatively poor teams.


http://www.baseballanalysts.com/ - Check out the "Bert Blyleven series" on the side.

Tony Mullane should be in, but he played in an era where players like him were more common. And Blev is one of the most underrated players ever. Stop being like Metsguy and using the W/L arguement, because it is flawed, as has been proved and stated many times on here

And why no on McGwire? He hit nearly 600 homeruns, walked a ton, had a career OPS+ of 162, which is higher then most players single season bests

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

And why no on McGwire? He hit nearly 600 homeruns, walked a ton, had a career OPS+ of 162, which is higher then most players single season bests

---

Because he allegedly used steroids.

(I 100% disagree with that argument against him, but it's the only legitimate argument against him).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Because he allegedly used steroids.

(I 100% disagree with that argument against him, but it's the only legitimate argument against him).

---

and because he's a red-head

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Because he allegedly used steroids.

(I 100% disagree with that argument against him, but it's the only legitimate argument against him).

---

I also disagree with the arguement against him, and yes, I am sure that is Poets complaint. Though I am sure some will say he had too few hits or played to short or something gay

My Choices:

Harold Baines
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Tommy John
Don Mattingly
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Tim Raines
Jim Rice
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
Rickey Henderson
David Cone
Mark Grace

Woah-oh, Big Hall guy here...:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

My Choices:

Harold Baines
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Tommy John
Don Mattingly
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Tim Raines
Jim Rice
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
Rickey Henderson
David Cone
Mark Grace

---

I bolded the ones that I think stand any chance at all at appealing to the BBWAA

I'd vote for Henderson, Raines, Blyleven, McGwire, probably Dawson. I'd give some serious consideration to Lee Smith, and not just because of the saves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

and because he's a red-head

---

bingo

Henderson and McGwire, definitely.

Tim Raines, probably. Best pure leadoff hitter of his generation.

Blyleven? A career 118 ERA+ (very good, but not legendary) and never a better finish than third in Cy Young voting, with only 4 top-10 finishes in 23 seasons? I just can't get behind him as a HOFer. Big career stats but nothing making him stand out as one of the greatest of his generation.

If Dale Murphy hasn't been voted in by now, he shouldn't be, although I think he belongs, by a hair. If he's not in, Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Harold Baines, and pretty much everyone else on this list doesn't belong.

David Cone? Why? His career is underwhelming. Parker, no. Mattingly, absolutely no. Trammell, kinda close, but no. Mark Grace, no. Everyone else, no.

I tend to feel strongly about very strict HOF standards. I don't like seeing very good players squeak by on account of "almost having 3000 hits" or "a career ~.300 AVG." Names like Grace, Baines and Cone don't belong with names like Gehrig, Ruth, Cobb, Musial, Koufax, etc.

I think too many very-good-but-not-phenomenal players tend to be over-glorified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanewguy

Blyleven? A career 118 ERA+ (very good, but not legendary) and never a better finish than third in Cy Young voting, with only 4 top-10 finishes in 23 seasons? I just can't get behind him as a HOFer. Big career stats but nothing making him stand out as one of the greatest of his generation.

---

He deserved anywhere from 1-3 Cy Young awards, but was victimized by playing on poor teams and thus having poor won-loss records. He's also sort of the Mike Mussina of his generation - near the top of the league for a very long team but rarely ever AT the top. And I think Mussina deserves to be in the HOF.

Henderson - definitely. McGwire - probably, though I think walks are overvalued for middle-of-the-order type hitters such as him. Raines and Blyleven - I think so - that is about where I draw the line. I wouldn't be disappointed if neither was in.

Other than that - not interested. I prefer a small HOF - and moving the bar a little lower just lets in too many players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

Henderson - definitely. McGwire - probably, though I think walks are overvalued for middle-of-the-order type hitters such as him. Raines and Blyleven - I think so - that is about where I draw the line. I wouldn't be disappointed if neither was in.

Other than that - not interested. I prefer a small HOF - and moving the bar a little lower just lets in too many players.

---

agreed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

He deserved anywhere from 1-3 Cy Young awards, but was victimized by playing on poor teams and thus having poor won-loss records. He's also sort of the Mike Mussina of his generation - near the top of the league for a very long team but rarely ever AT the top. And I think Mussina deserves to be in the HOF.

---

Though I don't agree, your arguments for both these players make sense to me. I could live with Blyleven as a HOFer because he was an outstanding pitcher with special numbers. Personally though, if I had a vote he wouldn't be on my ballot.

One problem I have with "near the top of the league for a long time but rarely at the top" is that it expands the boundaries and makes things muddier. If Mussina goes in, then what about David Wells, Jack Morris and Jamie Moyer? Certainly these are NOT Hall of Famers, but what separates them from Mussina?

I wouldn't mind drawing the line between Blyleven and Mussina.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanewguy

One problem I have with "near the top of the league for a long time but rarely at the top" is that it expands the boundaries and makes things muddier. If Mussina goes in, then what about David Wells, Jack Morris and Jamie Moyer? Certainly these are NOT Hall of Famers, but what separates them from Mussina?

---

The difference is that Wells, Morris, and Moyer weren't always near the top of the league. They were always solid pitchers that had a couple years at the top of the league sprinkled in.

ERA+:

105 (Morris)
106 (Moyer)
108 (Wells)
118 (Blyleven)
123 (Mussina)

It's a clear gap.

Yea there are definately worse players on there than Girardi.

As much as I love him Terry Shumpert was worse than Girardi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

The difference is that Wells, Morris, and Moyer weren't always near the top of the league. They were always solid pitchers that had a couple years at the top of the league sprinkled in.

ERA+:

105 (Morris)
106 (Moyer)
108 (Wells)
118 (Blyleven)
123 (Mussina)

It's a clear gap.

---

I knew Mussina has a higher ERA+, but I'm just unsure where the line should be drawn. My question was more rhetorical than it was outright asking "Why him and not them?"

The difference, obviously, is that Mussina was on the bubble of being a top-5 pitcher in his LEAGUE for about half of his career, where the others didn't spend as much time near the top (although Wells and Morris were first/second tier starters for quite some time). But I'm big on the concept of HOFers needing to be at or near the very top of their class during the era in which they played (Randy Johnson), or at the very, very top for a stretch of seasons (Sandy Koufax). Even in Mussina's best season (by ERA+, '94), he was outpitched by Cone, Johnson, Maddux, Saberhagen and Drabek. The closest he came to winning a Cy Young ('99, second place) was right in the middle of Pedro Martinez pitching like a freak, and was actually an unspectacular season in HOF terms (134 ERA+ for the best [theoretically] league-comparative season of his career? Hmm...).

I'm not sure Mussina was a clear top-10 pitcher (both leagues) for more than maybe 2 or 3 or seasons. These weren't even consecutive seasons. It also doesn't help him that his peers were some of the greatest pitchers baseball has ever seen (Clemens, Maddux, Pedro).

It's simply a tough sell because of what was going on around him at the time. And the numbers don't really scream HOF to me anyway.

Mussina is the Jim Rice of pitchers.

Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Don Mattingly
Jim Rice
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
Rickey Henderson

that's my ballot

Mussina had the misfortune of pitching during a time in which we saw a near-unprecedented run of pitching talent with the likes of Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, Pedro, etc. I don't think that necessarily should keep him out of the Hall.

For me, a HOF pitcher can come in a variety of forms. You have the all-time greats like Maddux and Johnson that combine fantastic peaks with long careers. You have the guys that lack a long career but had fantastic peaks, like Pedro. You have the pitchers with great career value but no peak, like Nolan Ryan. Then you have the pitchers that were consistently well above-average but never at the very top of their league, like Mussina.

Mussina gets in for me on the back of great career value. He's clearly far below the level of Maddux and the like, but he's above the established standard of pitchers in the Hall.

Jay Jaffe of Baseball Prospectus developed the "JAWS" system to measure HOF candidacy, based on Wins Above Replacement. It takes a player's career WARP score and mixes it with his peak WARP score (best 5 or 7 seasons, I forget) to get his JAWS score. He then compares it to that of the average HOF pitcher.

Here's a look at a bunch of the modern pitchers:

Code:

---

Pitcher        Career  Peak    JAWS
Roger Clemens    199.6  83.9  141.8
Greg Maddux      180.3  86.0  133.2
Randy Johnson    147.0  77.3  112.2
Tom Glavine      137.4  63.7  100.6
Pedro Martinez  118.0  68.8    93.4
Mike Mussina    117.8  64.3    91.1
John Smoltz      122.8  58.5    90.7
Curt Schilling  110.3  65.9    88.1
Avg HoF SP      106.0  67.2    86.6

---

Mussina is below the peak threshhold, but solidly above the career threshhold, which jives with what I said about him being consistently well above average for a long time, but never incredibly great.

I'd personally vote for each of those pitchers (not solely because of this), and I don't consider myself a "large hall" type of guy. But, considering the size of the league now with 30 teams, I don't think 8 Hall of Fame pitchers from one generation is all that out of whack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

But, considering the size of the league now with 30 teams, I don't think 8 Hall of Fame pitchers from one generation is all that out of whack.

---

Don't you have to figure that in...the dilution of batting talent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

Don't you have to figure that in...the dilution of batting talent?

---

Talent is "diluted" after any expansion year, but tends to even out. Not sure what exactly you're trying to say here.