2010 BBWAA HOF Ballot

[rocket]

will clark was my favorite player growing up. he certainly should be in the hall for that.

 

was he your favorite player in 1989 you dick

 

I WAS 6 MAN I DIDN'T KNOW ANY BETTER

[SouthSideRyan]

will clark was my favorite player growing up. he certainly should be in the hall for that.

 

was he your favorite player in 1989 you dick

 

Yeah, what the hell is wrong with you rocket??

[CubbieBum]

Will Clark should have gotten a lot more support than he did. I wouldn't be outraged with him as a HOFer. The problem with that is Clark picks up some serious value with his defense.

 

This isn't the NFL or Basketball HOF. Baseball's is very very hard to get into and Will Clark is nowhere near a HOFer. He had less than 300 HR's, only 4 seasons of 100+ RBIs, two seasons of 100+ runs, only 6 seasons of 20+ HR's and only 1 GG (back when it was somewhat viable). Sure he had a good average and great OBP but nothing else is HOF worthy.

[NCCubFan]

I think the only qualifications to get on the ballot is that you played 10 years and have been retired for 5.

Yes. Players are automatically on the ballot their first year of eligibility; there's no judgment involved. Beyond that they must receive a minimum percentage of votes (I believe it's 5%) to remain on the ballot.

[rocket]

will clark was my favorite player growing up. he certainly should be in the hall for that.

 

was he your favorite player in 1989 you dick

 

Yeah, what the hell is wrong with you rocket??

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0JJYKUNLE8

 

GO WILL GO

[OleMissCub]

will clark was my favorite player growing up. he certainly should be in the hall for that.

 

was he your favorite player in 1989 you dick

 

Yeah, what the hell is wrong with you rocket??

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0JJYKUNLE8

 

GO WILL GO

 

Dude should get in the HOF for his swing alone. He might have had the most perfect swing ever in baseball. Holy crap that's a thing of beauty.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Should've covered your mouth, Greg.

[rocket]

maybe omc is on to something. keith olbermann gave his hof opinions, and they're awful for the most part.

 

http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/11/hall_of_famers_and_numbers_wit.html

[OleMissCub]

maybe omc is on to something. keith olbermann gave his hof opinions, and they're awful for the most part.

 

http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/11/hall_of_famers_and_numbers_wit.html

 

I actually really like Olbermann's baseball stuff and read his blog all the time.

 

However...he's just dead wrong on so many things in this post.

 

I don't see how you can turn Alomar down. His resume:

 

2700+ hits

lifetime .300/.371/.443

almost 500 steals

12 All Star Appearances

10 Gold Gloves

4 Silver Sluggers

 

Harold Baines: Yes, just barely. He's hurt by the 2,866 hits

 

No, he's hurt by the fact that he was a DH for 13 seasons.

 

Barry Larkin: A great player and one of my favorites, but I don't recall ever during his playing career having had even that Alomarian sense that this could be a Hall-of-Famer.

 

Never crossed your mind when seeing him in 12 All Star Games? It certainly crossed my mind at the time.

 

If we're looking to put a Reds shortstop in Cooperstown, it should be David Concepcion.

 

OK, Joe. I don't care what era you are from, .267/.322/..357, 88 OPS+ vs. .295/.371/.444, 116 OPS+ at the same position is a no-contest, first round knockout.

 

Edgar Martinez: The first test of how the DH-as-position will resonate through history. I can see electing pure DH's but to me the batting bar is a little higher for them than other batsmen who field. Two batting championships and a RBI title is not sufficient.

 

But Harold Baines' ZERO batting titles and ZERO RBI titles are sufficient from mostly the same position?

 

Dale Murphy:.....and he's not in because he hit 398 homers and not 400?

 

No, he's not in because he had a terrific peak but no longevity. HOF voters usually want both.

[chopsx9]

maybe omc is on to something. keith olbermann gave his hof opinions, and they're awful for the most part.

 

http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/11/hall_of_famers_and_numbers_wit.html

 

I actually really like Olbermann's baseball stuff and read his blog all the time.

 

However...he's just dead wrong on so many things in this post.

 

I don't see how you can turn Alomar down. His resume:

 

2700+ hits

lifetime .300/.371/.443

almost 500 steals

12 All Star Appearances

10 Gold Gloves

4 Silver Sluggers

 

 

 

 

 

I agree. He always annoyed me as a player but we probably shouldn't hold that against him. I was a little disapointed by the end of his career; I'd always figured he would soar past 3,000 hits you just never know when a players going to fade.

[SouthSideRyan]

The Concepcion is the most indefensible in the entry. Just awful.

[AlwaysaCub]

So all of you would vote for 6-7 people. I agree with the consensus, but the BBWAA will only let in 2, 3 tops in my opinion. In regards to that I can't see more than Dawson and one of Robert Alomar and Barry Larkin, but I doubt both.

 

It's kind of odd that everyone would vote for many people but none of them except maybe Raines are statistical slam dunks.

[SouthSideRyan]

I think Larkin and Alomar are pretty close to statistical slam dunks when considering position.

[OleMissCub]

I've actually always considered Dawson pretty close to a statistical slam dunk. He's extremely close to not one, but two definitive milestones: 2774 hits and 438 HR. Then you throw in the 8 Gold Gloves, the MVP, and the 8 All Star appearances and there is no way that a guy like that, at least on paper alone, shouldn't be a slam dunk.

[Guest]

Blyleven should be a slam dunk.

[Little Slide Rooter]

will clark was my favorite player growing up. he certainly should be in the hall for that.

 

was he your favorite player in 1989 you dick

 

I WAS 6 MAN I DIDN'T KNOW ANY BETTER

 

And who can forget his race war with Jeffrey Leonard.

[Guest]

Blyleven should be a slam dunk.

 

 

Agreed. 8 of the 10 players that are most similar to Blyleven on baseball-reference are all hall of famers. Only Tommy John and Jim Kaat are not, and an argument can be made for both of them.

[NCCubFan]

Blyleven should be a slam dunk.

 

 

Agreed. 8 of the 10 players that are most similar to Blyleven on baseball-reference are all hall of famers. Only Tommy John and Jim Kaat are not, and an argument can be made for both of them.

I think John should for being the first to successfully undergo the surgery now named for him and return to elite status.

[champaignchris]

Roberto Alomar

Bert Blyleven

Andre Dawson

Barry Larkin

Mark McGwire

Tim Raines

Alan Trammell

 

Those would be my votes. Larkin and Trammell are borderline for me. Someone would have to explain to me why they'd vote for one, but not the other.

 

If you put Dawson in a Red Sox or Yankees uniform for any significant amount of time, he's not only a first ballot Hall of Famer, he'd be talked of as one of the great legends of the game. Despite playing his best seasons in Montreal, Rookie of the Year, MVP, runner up twice, another top 10 finish, 8 all-stars, 8 GG's. 438 pre-steroid home runs. A reputation for being, not only a great competitor and team mate, but also an all-around nice guy... The list of eligible players with more hits than Andre Dawson who are not in the HoF are as follows: Harold Baines. Of course Dawson was, in addition to being a comparable offensive player to Baines, a very good base-stealer and an elite outfielder, two things that Baines was definitely not.

 

If someone wanted to argue with me that Morris should be in, I could probably be convinced.

 

As much of a homer as I am for him, I just can't quite pull the trigger on Lee Smith. Compare his numbers to Hoffman, Rivera, or Wagner, and he just doesn't measure up.

[AlwaysaCub]

I've actually always considered Dawson pretty close to a statistical slam dunk. He's extremely close to not one, but two definitive milestones: 2774 hits and 438 HR. Then you throw in the 8 Gold Gloves, the MVP, and the 8 All Star appearances and there is no way that a guy like that, at least on paper alone, shouldn't be a slam dunk.

 

Anyone with a .323 career OPB is not a statistical slam dunk, especially not a right fielder. I like the guy, but no.

 

I'll agree that Blyleven is though

[OleMissCub]

Anyone with a .323 career OPB is not a statistical slam dunk, especially not a right fielder. I like the guy, but no.

 

When talking about "statistical slamdunks" we are talking about the statistics that matter mainly to voters, not to us (Dawson's low OBP does trouble me personally). I have read that some voters have problems with Dawson's OBP, but that really isn't what we are talking about here. We are talking about the nebulous idea of "Hall of Fame stats" and those stats don't generally include rate stats unless you are talking about the ".300" hitter...but most of the lifetime .300 hitters are going to be guys with 3,000 hits or damn close to 3,000 anyways.

 

Ripken had an OBP of just .340 and Young was at .342, which are hardly HOF-ish OBP numbers. But they each had 3,000 hits. So they punched their ticket. True, they played a more valuable position than Dawson, but Dawson's position doesn't (or shouldn't) effect him as much as other outfielders because of his excellence in the field.

[Rob]

Blyleven, Raines, Alomar, Larkin, and Trammell should be no doubters unless you're hung up on the spitting or coke or dutch sounding name or whatever other personal issues they may have had.

 

McGwire absolutely deserves to be in, but I understand not voting for him based on steroid stuff. The occasional rationalization you'll see based on his lack of fielding prowess and ability to hit for average are absurd though. He's got the career value.

 

Edgar is an interesting test case for the DH. His batting numbers are absolutely at a good enough level, but I have a hard time justifying voting for a player with absolutely no defensive value. I probably wouldn't be able to decide whether or not I'd vote for him until I actually was mailing in the ballot.

 

Dawson is a hard case, I know in my mind that he falls in that range where he should probably be on the outside looking in, and forever be resigned to being one of the best players not in the hall... but my personal feelings would dictate I'd vote for him regardless. McGriff is in the same situation, but wouldn't get the hometown vote.

 

Oh, and I wouldn't vote for Jack Morris if you held a gun to my head. Carlos Zambrano already has the same amount of career value, and he hasn't even turned 29 yet.

[Guest]

Blyleven, Raines, Alomar, Larkin, and Trammell should be no doubters unless you're hung up on the spitting or coke or dutch sounding name or whatever other personal issues they may have had.

 

McGwire absolutely deserves to be in, but I understand not voting for him based on steroid stuff. The occasional rationalization you'll see based on his lack of fielding prowess and ability to hit for average are absurd though. He's got the career value.

 

Edgar is an interesting test case for the DH. His batting numbers are absolutely at a good enough level, but I have a hard time justifying voting for a player with absolutely no defensive value. I probably wouldn't be able to decide whether or not I'd vote for him until I actually was mailing in the ballot.

 

Dawson is a hard case, I know in my mind that he falls in that range where he should probably be on the outside looking in, and forever be resigned to being one of the best players not in the hall... but my personal feelings would dictate I'd vote for him regardless. McGriff is in the same situation, but wouldn't get the hometown vote.

 

Oh, and I wouldn't vote for Jack Morris if you held a gun to my head. Carlos Zambrano already has the same amount of career value, and he hasn't even turned 29 yet.

 

Martinez is a tough call. The DH is listed as a position in the major leagues. If it wasn't available in either league, what would Martinez' career look like? He probably wouldn't have played nearly as long. He was essentially nothing but a DH for the last 11 years of his career.

 

All totaled between his defense at 1b and 3b, he doesn't have a full 4 seasons of statistics, so he must have been a tremendously horrible fielder.

[SouthSideRyan]

Martinez could've been ok-below average as a fielder if he ever stayed healthy. He flat out couldn't in the field. Defense matters, and if you're flat out incapable of playing defense then you're not allowed in my hall of fame.

[OleMissCub]

and if you're flat out incapable of playing defense then you're not allowed in my hall of fame.

 

THIS x 1,000