Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Have you actually checked the stats?In terms of awards, by 1997, the guy had three MVP awards and 7 top 5 finishes.Consistently at or above .600 SLG with OBP from the .430's to .460.He was a monster, if not a home run megastar... surely HOF caliber though. And I don't like the guy (then again, who does)
No question Alomar was HoF caliber. He was the best 2nd Baseman in the game for a good while. Offense, defense, clutch... everything you'd want from that position. Had he not fallen off the cliff, it wouldnt be a question in anyone's mind, though for anyone that watched him play, don't see how he didnt get in last year.Bly on the other hand was an accumulators accumulator.
Blyleven's numbers haven't changed but the context of pitching statistics have shifted.No question Alomar was HoF caliber. He was the best 2nd Baseman in the game for a good while. Offense, defense, clutch... everything you'd want from that position. Had he not fallen off the cliff, it wouldnt be a question in anyone's mind, though for anyone that watched him play, don't see how he didnt get in last year.Bly on the other hand was an accumulators accumulator.
The context at the end of his career, when his accomplishments were fresh in everyones mind was that he was not a HoFer and it was not that close. Sure, now that no one gets 250 wins 287 seems like a great feat in context, but compared to his peers, he was not considered HoF material. Don't see why that should have changed, personally. What in his stats has changed in terms of context in your opinion?Blyleven's numbers haven't changed but the context of pitching statistics have shifted.No question Alomar was HoF caliber. He was the best 2nd Baseman in the game for a good while. Offense, defense, clutch... everything you'd want from that position. Had he not fallen off the cliff, it wouldnt be a question in anyone's mind, though for anyone that watched him play, don't see how he didnt get in last year.Bly on the other hand was an accumulators accumulator.
I think his career numbers (his accumulations if you will) look better from the perspective of 2011 than 1995. There's also much greater acceptance of modern stats like ERA+ and WAR that help Blyleven's case.A lot of the griping about Blyleven increasing from <20% to >75% over the years is criticism of an obviously flawed process rather than Blyleven himself. But in some ways, I think the 15 year debate about his qualifications have been a good thing for Blyleven and his reputation, just as it has for someone like Jack Morris. It's kept these players alive in the memories of voters and fans. It's become an annual holiday ritual to talk about Tim Raines' qualifications. Once Blyleven goes in, he'll be forgotten in some respects until his name gets brought up in the debate around Mike Mussina. I never liked the guy but it's too bad Kevin Brown is off the ballot because his record is pretty much permanently off anyone's radar.The context at the end of his career, when his accomplishments were fresh in everyones mind was that he was not a HoFer and it was not that close. Sure, now that no one gets 250 wins 287 seems like a great feat in context, but compared to his peers, he was not considered HoF material. Don't see why that should have changed, personally. What in his stats has changed in terms of context in your opinion?Blyleven's numbers haven't changed but the context of pitching statistics have shifted.No question Alomar was HoF caliber. He was the best 2nd Baseman in the game for a good while. Offense, defense, clutch... everything you'd want from that position. Had he not fallen off the cliff, it wouldnt be a question in anyone's mind, though for anyone that watched him play, don't see how he didnt get in last year.Bly on the other hand was an accumulators accumulator.
this is a direct result of increased sabermetric influence on a bunch of guys who needed to get out of the dark ages
never understood why this bothers people. so some stray writer threw a bone to a player he liked.
Yep. I'm surprised Koya doesn't get this.
It bothers me because it's misuse of the scarce commodity of HoF votes. It wouldn't be so bad if the top three voter getters got inducted every year, but the 75% requirement coupled with the 10 vote limit changes things. A vote for Surhoff isn't just a vote for Surhoff but it's a lost vote for somebody more deserving. Barry Stanton voted for BJ but not Raines or Morris or whomever. The occasional yahoo who turns in a blank ballot becomes a vote against everyone rather than a vote for no one.ETA: Of course Barry Stanton voted for Morris
Seems like he's a fan of the classic "HOF stats" and awards like gold gloves and silver sluggers, which is a little disappointing for a new voter for me. It's neat to look at what goes through a guy's mind though when he votes.
I read him all the time as a Nats fan. He's definitely well aware of the sabermetric perspective, and I'd say even leans that way a bit. I was also surprised that he cited things like RBIs so much in his analysis. I'm guessing being new to the voting made him trend more old-school/conservative, and that he'll soften on that as he gets comfortable. You can see that he's clearly OK with the sabermetric view because he has no problem with Blyleven.
hardly any voter uses all 10 spots. and even if they did, those guys aren't the problem. it's a non-issue
except that he didn't vote for him
Very good players don't win 3 out of 4 MVPs like Bonds did from 90-93. He was the best player in baseball before the steroid years.
Because his peers were wrong and looking at the wrong numbers, like say, pitcher wins.The context at the end of his career, when his accomplishments were fresh in everyones mind was that he was not a HoFer and it was not that close. Sure, now that no one gets 250 wins 287 seems like a great feat in context, but compared to his peers, he was not considered HoF material. Don't see why that should have changed, personally. What in his stats has changed in terms of context in your opinion?Blyleven's numbers haven't changed but the context of pitching statistics have shifted.No question Alomar was HoF caliber. He was the best 2nd Baseman in the game for a good while. Offense, defense, clutch... everything you'd want from that position. Had he not fallen off the cliff, it wouldnt be a question in anyone's mind, though for anyone that watched him play, don't see how he didnt get in last year.Bly on the other hand was an accumulators accumulator.
I remember watching Alomar make spectacular defensive plays and his reputation for defense was off the charts, but looking back the newer metrics aren't nearly as favorable to him as you'd expect. Not enough for me to say he wasn't HOF worthy given the current standards, but enough to think that maybe more information was necessary. And you're just wrong about Blyleven.
Bonds was a HOF caliber player even before he started juicing. Once he started juicing he became arguably the greatest player to ever play. I think he deserves to be in the HOF."I think we can all agree, however, that ERA remains the best tool to evaluate pitchers."Umm, no, no we cannot.
I think its an embarressment that Blyleven didn't get in sooner. Had he played in New York he would have been a first ballot HOF. Easily would had eclipsed 300 wins if he hadn't pitched some years for such pathetic hitting teams like the Indians and the Twins(during the Calvin Griffith era) Dr Hook had one of the finest looking curve balls ever.
I never thought the spitting thing would keep him out. But I sure thought the two different lawsuits from from his ex-girlfriend (which he settled out of court) and current wife(lawsuit pending) claiming he knowingly concealed his HIV status so he could have unprotected sex with them would surely do him in.
Maybe it's because BBWAA members have more experience with spitting than they do with having sex
How can we even pretend to know when he started juicing? He coulda been juicing his whole career. Thats the big problem imo. I would not put him in on first ballot for sure and probably never could vote for him personally. Maybe on his last year. Maybe I would do the last year eligible vote for all the steriod era potential hof's now that I think about it. Thespeeches would be fun to watch probably. At that age they may even come clean to get it off their chests. Maybe not.Snotbubbles said:dparker713 said:Bonds was a HOF caliber player even before he started juicing. Once he started juicing he became arguably the greatest player to ever play. I think he deserves to be in the HOF.
I don't see any way you can rationally argue to keep Bonds out of the HoF. It's just not possible unless you want to toss out anyone who did steroids...but how come so many other players who we know took steroids never approached Bonds' level?How can we even pretend to know when he started juicing? He coulda been juicing his whole career. Thats the big problem imo. I would not put him in on first ballot for sure and probably never could vote for him personally. Maybe on his last year. Maybe I would do the last year eligible vote for all the steriod era potential hof's now that I think about it. Thespeeches would be fun to watch probably. At that age they may even come clean to get it off their chests. Maybe not.
I don't see any way you can rationally argue to keep Bonds out of the HoF. It's just not possible unless you want to toss out anyone who did steroids...but how come so many other players who we know took steroids never approached Bonds' level?How can we even pretend to know when he started juicing? He coulda been juicing his whole career. Thats the big problem imo. I would not put him in on first ballot for sure and probably never could vote for him personally. Maybe on his last year. Maybe I would do the last year eligible vote for all the steriod era potential hof's now that I think about it. Thespeeches would be fun to watch probably. At that age they may even come clean to get it off their chests. Maybe not.
Bonds was great no doubt. But where do you draw the line? I think there will just have to be a big fat * wrapped around 1985 until 2015 (when I am hoping they will actually get an hgh test) and you will have to try and decide who gets in. like I said though I personally would make all the big hitters wait until there last year of eligibility to get in. Fill it with Tigers middle infielders every year until then if you have too. I would have a hard time EVER voting in bonds and Clemens and Pal though regardless.
This is where I'm confused. What line needs to be drawn that is different from any other era? If you're a giant amongst the peers of your era over an extended period of time you're in the Hall. Seems simple to me.I don't see any way you can rationally argue to keep Bonds out of the HoF. It's just not possible unless you want to toss out anyone who did steroids...but how come so many other players who we know took steroids never approached Bonds' level?How can we even pretend to know when he started juicing? He coulda been juicing his whole career. Thats the big problem imo. I would not put him in on first ballot for sure and probably never could vote for him personally. Maybe on his last year. Maybe I would do the last year eligible vote for all the steriod era potential hof's now that I think about it. Thespeeches would be fun to watch probably. At that age they may even come clean to get it off their chests. Maybe not.
Yes, Alomar should definitely be the first player to wear the Jays logo in the hall of fame.I'll probably never be as big a fan of any player in any sport as I was of Alomar in the early 90's. I was a kid and every wall in my room was covered in Alomar posters and baseball cards. I had his Panzerotto Pizza poster. I had his Hawaiian Punch poster. I had a few "Starline" posters. I had a signed baseball that is still around somewhere. I had every baseball card of his that existed from 1987-1994 or so, before each comapny started putting out 30 sets a year and made it impossible to stay on top of everything (also before the trade/spitting incident). His home run off Eckersley is one of my favourite Jays memories. I have no doubt he's the greatest Blue Jay of all time... at least on the field.Nice to finally see a player get into the Hall with a Jays cap.That is, as long as no funny business happens...
Well counterpoint is that steriods have been around for a long, long time. They were definitely being used as long ago as the late 60s by bodybuilders for strength and muscle gain. So should we assume that anyone from say 1970 on were using steriods? Now onto Bonds. I seriously doubt that he was juicing in his early years if he was, where was the weight gain? From 86-96 his weight fluctuated from 185-190lbs. It wasn't until 1997 that he started gaining weight. So I feel very comfortable saying that at the least, anything pre-1997 was done without the aid of steriods. You don't use steriods with the intention of building strength and mass without gaining any weight.By 1997 Bonds had already won 3 MVP awards, 6 gold gloves and 6 silver slugger awards.Compare that to Roberto Alomar who never won an MVP, had 10 gold gloves and 4 silver slugger awards.How can we even pretend to know when he started juicing? He coulda been juicing his whole career. Thats the big problem imo. I would not put him in on first ballot for sure and probably never could vote for him personally. Maybe on his last year. Maybe I would do the last year eligible vote for all the steriod era potential hof's now that I think about it. Thespeeches would be fun to watch probably. At that age they may even come clean to get it off their chests. Maybe not.Snotbubbles said:dparker713 said:
I do, but I just don't quite see it with Bly. That said, I looked at his stats yesterday and I do understand your point a bit more now.
I was just going to post that link too. Perhaps the greatest argument against the 5% rule.
The US Government made steriods illegal in the early 90s. MLB cannot make them legal to use.
I believe one of the new provisions in the new CBA after the 1981 strike was a section banning performance enhancing drugs. The problem became that they didn't specify which ones were banned, what they would test for, and what the penalties would be.Theoretically, a commissioner today could go back that far and if players were found to have been juicing they could make each player wear a Scarlett Letter so to speak.I have no idea why baseball wanted to try to expose so much rather than just sweep everything under the rug. Life would have been so much easier if they didn't go poking their collective noses into people's dirty laundry.As far as a lot of HOF voters are concerned, they view steroids and PEDs as cheating and they won't vote for cheaters. So guys like Clemens or Bonds who would have been HOFers based on their pre-roid numbers may not get in if those voters still think they cheated.
In the end, I'm coming to the conclusion that it just doesn't matter. The game survived the steroid era more-or-less intact; the HoF will survive the post-steroid-era in much the same way. The honor is still important but probably a bit less life changing for a man who made $100M during his playing days than for an ex-player selling insurance or working a farm.
I believe Mazeroski got in because of one AB. Likewise, I think Jack Morris should get in for one CG.
Morris is pretty likely to eventually get selected by some veteran's committee or other. Almost everybody who gets as high a percentage from the writers as Morris has gets in.But Whitaker is closer to the HoF cutline IMO than Morris is.
I thought his inclusion was the HOF finally recognizing the importance of defensive play.Mazeroski was considered one of the top defensive infielders for most of his time in the league.
Except for all the guys that used speed. And white cocaine users. And Gaylord Perry.
This is my biggest problem with the new defensive metrics. Their rating of Alomar is just completely off base. Happens for other guys too (Hunter is the one who comes to mind).I remember watching Alomar make spectacular defensive plays and his reputation for defense was off the charts, but looking back the newer metrics aren't nearly as favorable to him as you'd expect. Not enough for me to say he wasn't HOF worthy given the current standards, but enough to think that maybe more information was necessary. And you're just wrong about Blyleven.
