or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Baseball HOF
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Baseball HOF

post #1 of 93
Thread Starter 

A committee known as the Expansion Era Committee has voted unanimously to elect Joe Torre, Tony LaRussa and Bobby Cox to the HOF.

 

The 16-member Expansion Era electorate consisted of Hall of Famers Rod Carew, Carlton Fisk, Whitey Herzog, Tommy Lasorda, Paul Molitor, Joe Morgan, Phil Niekro, and Frank Robinson; Major League executives Paul Beeston of the Blue Jays, Dave Montgomery of the Phillies, Jerry Reinsdorf of the White Sox and Andy MacPhail, formerly of the Twins, Cubs and Orioles. They were joined by historians Steve Hirdt of Elias Sports Bureau, Bruce Jenkins of the San Francisco Chronicle, Jack O'Connell, secretary-treasurer of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, and Jim Reeves, recently retired from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

 

 

Still no on Marvin Miller. It is impossible for baseball executives to be objective about him. Love him or hate him, that is egregious.

post #2 of 93
Thread Starter 

The BBWAA have elected Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas to the baseball HOF.

 

Craig Biggio got 74.8% of the vote, needing 75%. They round up batting averages. We round up handicaps. Can't they round that up?

post #3 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

The BBWAA have elected Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas to the baseball HOF.

 

Craig Biggio got 74.8% of the vote, needing 75%. They round up batting averages. We round up handicaps. Can't they round that up?

 

Good to see Maddux and Glavine going in together. Two pieces of one of the best (if not the best) pitching rotations the game has ever seen. 

post #4 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

The BBWAA have elected Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas to the baseball HOF.

 

Craig Biggio got 74.8% of the vote, needing 75%. They round up batting averages. We round up handicaps. Can't they round that up?

Seriously.  He missed by two votes, and when you consider that there are voters out there who flat out will not vote for players from the steroid era, that has to be pretty frustrating.  I'm sure he'll get in eventually, perhaps even next year, but I also wish he got in this year.  Looks like there were 3 others who got over 50% ... Mike Piazza (62), Jack Morris (61), and Jeff Bagwell (54).

 

Here's the whole list: http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2014.shtml

 

Armando Benitez, Kenny Rogers, and Jacque Jones all got a vote!!!

post #5 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

The BBWAA have elected Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas to the baseball HOF.

 

Craig Biggio got 74.8% of the vote, needing 75%. They round up batting averages. We round up handicaps. Can't they round that up?

 

Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Seriously.  He missed by two votes, and when you consider that there are voters out there who flat out will not vote for players from the steroid era**, that has to be pretty frustrating.  I'm sure he'll get in eventually, perhaps even next year, but I also wish he got in this year.  Looks like there were 3 others who got over 50% ... Mike Piazza (62), Jack Morris (61), and Jeff Bagwell (54).

 

**  This guy didn't even vote for Maddux because he played in the steroid era:

 

Here's the whole list: http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2014.shtml

 

Armando Benitez, Kenny Rogers, and Jacque Jones all got a vote!!!

 

Jack Morris is done. This was his 15th year on the ballot.

post #6 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

 

Jack Morris is done. This was his 15th year on the ballot.

Yeah, but the good news for Jack Morris is that he'll be on the Veterans Committee ballot in 2017, and will likely get in then.  Because, per this article, ...

 

Quote:

 Every player not still on the ballot who received 50 percent of the vote from the BBWAA has eventually been elected to the Hall, either by the BBWAA or the Veterans Committee, with the exception of Gil Hodges.

post #7 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Seriously.  He missed by two votes, and when you consider that there are voters out there who flat out will not vote for players from the steroid era**, that has to be pretty frustrating.  I'm sure he'll get in eventually, perhaps even next year, but I also wish he got in this year.  Looks like there were 3 others who got over 50% ... Mike Piazza (62), Jack Morris (61), and Jeff Bagwell (54).

 

**  This guy didn't even vote for Maddux because he played in the steroid era:

 

Here's the whole list: http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2014.shtml

 

Armando Benitez, Kenny Rogers, and Jacque Jones all got a vote!!!


The big problem with trying to define "the steroid era" is that nobody knows when it started and when (or if) it stopped. People were taking Dianabol when I was in high school (and that was late 60s to early 70s).

 

Even if there was a date to define such an "era" there are players with no suspicion whatsoever against them whose careers overlapped into that supposed "era".

 

Nobody could seriously think PEDs helped Maddux throw those 80 mph changeups on the outside corner that nobody could hit.

post #8 of 93
If you guys haven't seen it, there's a great website that graphs the trajectories of everyone who has been on baseball HOF ballots.

http://cscheid.net/static/mlb-hall-of-fame-voting/

FWIW, I'm in the "vote everyone in" camp when it comes to PEDs. I don't think you can say when the "Steroid Era" began, and it's never going to really end. IMO, the worst thing you can do it try to parse which players of the 90s/00s did or didn't do steroids, absent a failed test or a Mitchell Report-type situation.

Barry Bonds is one of the most spectacularly talented humans to ever hit a baseball, and that's good enough for me.

But I try not to get too worked up about it, otherwise the fact that some people left Greg Maddux off their ballots would drive me insane.
post #9 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 


The big problem with trying to define "the steroid era" is that nobody knows when it started and when (or if) it stopped. People were taking Dianabol when I was in high school (and that was late 60s to early 70s).

 

Even if there was a date to define such an "era" there are players with no suspicion whatsoever against them whose careers overlapped into that supposed "era".

 

Nobody could seriously think PEDs helped Maddux throw those 80 mph changeups on the outside corner that nobody could hit.

I totally agree.  Is Dianabol the same thing as "greenies?"  (Nope, just googled it and the stuff you're talking about is a type of steroid and the stuff I'm talking about is basically speed)  They always talk about that stuff having been prevalent in baseball all throughout the 70's and 80's (and maybe 60's) yet nobody had a problem with that.  And nevermind the relative performance-enhancement caused by not allowing black players in the league for several decades.  These guys pretend like this little window of time was the only time people tried to gain an edge.

 

And for the record, I would assume that the "steroid era," as arbitrarily defined by these writers, is going to be circa 1998 through circa 2003.

post #10 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

I totally agree.  Is Dianabol the same thing as "greenies?"  (Nope, just googled it and the stuff you're talking about is a type of steroid and the stuff I'm talking about is basically speed)  They always talk about that stuff having been prevalent in baseball all throughout the 70's and 80's (and maybe 60's) yet nobody had a problem with that.  And nevermind the relative performance-enhancement caused by not allowing black players in the league for several decades.  These guys pretend like this little window of time was the only time people tried to gain an edge.

 

And for the record, I would assume that the "steroid era," as arbitrarily defined by these writers, is going to be circa 1998 through circa 2003.


Yeah. I shake my head when somebody mentions "before the steroid era". I also shook my head this morning when a reporter said Mike Piazza was undoubtedly the best hitting catcher of all time. Anytime "the best hitting catcher of all time" is mentioned Josh Gibson at least deserves to be in the conversation. It's a shame those guys didn't get to play in the Major Leagues.

post #11 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 


Yeah. I shake my head when somebody mentions "before the steroid era". I also shook my head this morning when a reporter said Mike Piazza was undoubtedly the best hitting catcher of all time. Anytime "the best hitting catcher of all time" is mentioned Josh Gibson at least deserves to be in the conversation. It's a shame those guys didn't get to play in the Major Leagues.

Honourable mention to Gary Carter. :-)

post #12 of 93

Two votes shy is two votes shy.

 

An 89.8% shouldn't round to an A (on the lame grading scale where 90 = A). You didn't get 90%. You fell short.

 

If your ball stops one dimple away from going in, it isn't the same as in. Tap it in for a two, but you don't get to "round up" to a hole in one. Unless you're that one guy here who claims to have made a hole in one with his second ball from the tee… :P

post #13 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

Two votes shy is two votes shy.

 

An 89.8% shouldn't round to an A (on the lame grading scale where 90 = A). You didn't get 90%. You fell short.

 

If your ball stops one dimple away from going in, it isn't the same as in. Tap it in for a two, but you don't get to "round up" to a hole in one. Unless you're that one guy here who claims to have made a hole in one with his second ball from the tee… :P

While I don't disagree (I was just saying that it's too bad he didn't make it) ... I don't really think it's a fair comparison.  Any test where you get 89.8% correct is almost certainly going to be a collection of questions with objective answers.  And sports have very specific rules.  But Hall of Fame voting isn't a sport, and his 74.2% is compiled from a collection of completely arbitrary and subjective opinions.  An essay in English class is going to be graded with letters, or at least round numbers, unless you have the weirdest English teacher on the planet.  But if you got 89.8% on your physics test, then its because you flat-out got X number of questions wrong.  In this case, where you have dumbshits voting for Armando frickin Benitez, I think it's pretty fair to say that there is nothing objective about it, and, therefore, tenths of a percent are pretty arbitrary and are debatable.

 

Again, dont disagree ... but basically I'm saying the same thing we were saying to geauxforbroke the other day in the Tiger thread regarding your comparisons.  Apples and oranges.

 

P.S.  I totally agree that any grading scale where you had to get 90% to get an A is lame. :-P I would have preferred it be something closer to 75%=A.  (Then I would have had a "stellar" college GPA!!!):beer:

post #14 of 93
It's not apples and oranges at all. The line is drawn at 75%. Anything short should not be rounded up or else you create an ambiguous grey area.

If you want to set it at 74%, just set it at 74%. For all you know, line should be at 80% and so they allow "rounding up" from 75%.
post #15 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

It's not apples and oranges at all. The line is drawn at 75%. Anything short should not be rounded up or else you create an ambiguous grey area.

If you want to set it at 74%, just set it at 74%. For all you know, line should be at 80% and so they allow "rounding up" from 75%.

OK fine.  Then it's ...

 

 

Stick that in your head for awhile!!!!  (I love this song) :beer:

post #16 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

The BBWAA have elected Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas to the baseball HOF.

 

Craig Biggio got 74.8% of the vote, needing 75%. They round up batting averages. We round up handicaps. Can't they round that up?

 

Really, he was that close. I never found him to be that impressive. He isn't even close to a .300 hitter. Though he does have 3000 hits. It just seem that impressive to me. He never stood out as someone who would be HOF worthy. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 


The big problem with trying to define "the steroid era" is that nobody knows when it started and when (or if) it stopped. People were taking Dianabol when I was in high school (and that was late 60s to early 70s).

 

Even if there was a date to define such an "era" there are players with no suspicion whatsoever against them whose careers overlapped into that supposed "era".

 

Nobody could seriously think PEDs helped Maddux throw those 80 mph changeups on the outside corner that nobody could hit.

 

 

But it could gave him an extra 5+ years of viable playing time. That is what most people don't get. Steroids doesn't have to be for hitting home runs or throwing faster baseballs. It can be used to diminish wear and tear. 

 

I am not saying Maddux took steroids, but longevity has been a crucial part for getting into the HOF. If steroids gives you an extra 5 years, that could be the difference in breaking the 500 HR mark or not. 

post #17 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

Really, he was that close. I never found him to be that impressive. He isn't even close to a .300 hitter. Though he does have 3000 hits. It just seem that impressive to me. He never stood out as someone who would be HOF worthy.

In looking at the whole list of voting, it seems like they might just pay a lot of attention to the "magic" numbers.  In Biggio's case, 3000 hits.  In Frank Thomas' case, 500 homers.  Maddux and Glavine both reached the magic 300 win number, whereas Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, and Mike Mussina did not.

 

The reason I say that is because Thomas got in on his first try with 84% (that's right, I rounded up! ;)) of the vote (478 votes), whereas Luis Gonzalez got 5 votes.  Luis Gonzalez' numbers are, for the most part, lower than Thomas', although he does have more hits, but they don't seem enough different to justify only 5 votes if Thomas is getting 478.

 

Similarly, I'm surprised that Jeff Kent only got 15% vs. Biggios 74%, since he is one of the best hitting (power hitting at least) second basemen of all time.

 

However, I do not recall if perhaps Luis Gonzalez was a steroid guy ... and maybe that's why he got so little love?

post #18 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

However, I do not recall if perhaps Luis Gonzalez was a steroid guy ... and maybe that's why he got so little love?

I think he was always suspected in the same way Bagwell was. Gonzalez had 57 homers in 2001 (and IIRC was on pace with Bonds through the All Star break), but that was his only season above 31.

He gets my vote for the 2001 World Series though. a3_biggrin.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Baseball HOF