This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You know, on second thought, sub Tim Raines in for Mattingly. I went back and forth on these two at first, but I think Raines was better for longer.
I'm curious if being one of the best of your generation equates to being a HOFer. Over the years there have been guys that I thought were good to great for their timeframe but not necessarily HOFers. Morris and Mattingly fit that mold for me. Others include Steve Garvey, Ted Simmons, Dave Parker, Andre Dawson, Dwight Evans, Dale Murphy, McGriff, Blyleven, Mike Mussina, etc. I wouldn't lose any sleep if any of these guys made it in, but I would consider all them borderline.Michael Brown said:
I don't fully get all the love for Raines. Sure, he was good for many years . . . but inexcusable for not getting in?His similarity scores are grouped with Johnny Damon, Kenny Lofton, Willie Davis, Jose Cruz, and Julio Franco. Are those guys clear cut HOFers (or worthy of discussion)? (To be fair, there are a few HOFers in that group including Lou Brock .)
Who is arguably one of the weakest HoF members.
Raines had half of a HoF career. When the Expos traded him after the 1990 season, Raines was 31, had a career .301/.390/.438 line, an OPS+ of 131, almost 1600 Hs and 634 SBs. After that, he only had two seasons with more than 600 PAs. He was still good enough to play until he was 42 and got to play MLB ball with his son, but he peaked early and fell off a cliff in his 30s. That's not good enough for the Hall.
i think there's a decent chance that NO ONE gets elected this year. Neither Larkin nor Alomar are the sort of obvious first-ballot picks, and the highest returning vote-getter (Dawson) was in the mid-60s last year. However, based on past voting trends, Dawson should be close to 75% this year, perhaps especially because of the newcomers. Blyleven could also jump up from his 63% last year.It will be really interesting to see how the vote shakes out.
To me, Alomar's on field performance makes him a slam dunk hof'er. It's the extra curricular stuff (spitting and alleged infidelity) that places black marks against him. 12 time all star, .300 lifetime hitter, 200 hr/400 sb's, and all of this plus he was considered the best fielding second baseman around (most gold gloves ever at second base).....5 times to 10 MVP voting, that's plenty good enough for me.Barry Larkin's offensive pedigree is just a touch below Alomar, and I always liked Larkin, seemed like a solid guy, I have no issue with him getting voted in.
IMO, stolen bases is one of the more overrated categories out there, much like saves. Sure, it's impressive that some guys have a lot of either, but does that make someone HOF worthy?Clearly Raines was not a big bopper type OFer like many others. His job was to get on base and score runs. But Raines only scored 100 runs 6 times in 23 seasons. He also ranked top 10 in OBP 5 times and top 5 in OPS 4 times.
Did you even bother to read any of the articles I linked? 85% SB success rate. Reached base more often than Gwynn. Collusion and strikes cost him nearly a full season at the height of his career. His '87 season is one of the best of all time.Is he the greatest HoFer of all time? No, but he deserves induction as much as Molitor or Gwynn or any number of other recent inductees.
i would vote for both of those guys. to be clearer, i was speaking about what i expect the writers to do with their vote. I'm a HOF geek, and study the voting patterns. A reasonable comp for Alomar is Ryne Sandberg. Similar stats, similar # of gold gloves and all-star appearances. Alomar has the better profile, imo, but Sandberg has the MVP and better peripherals (personality, etc). Sandberg got in on his 3rd ballot. I think it will take Alomar at least two ballots.Larkin will be compared to both Alomar and to a returning guy on the ballot: Alan Trammell. I also think Larkin has a better case than Trammell, but he's closer to Trammell than to, say, Ripken. Trammell hasn't come close in the voting and will probably need the VC, if he gets in at all, whereas Ripken was mid-90s on his first ballot. I think Larkin takes at least 3 ballots.guru_007 said:
Law's argument:1. Great base stealer: no debate
I would have said no to McGwire previously, but in light of situations with ARod, Clemens, and Manny, who I'm sure will all get in, why not McGwire?guru_007 said:shuke said:Blyleven and Raines I'm torn on, because they are so on the fence for me. Neither has anything specifically that pushes them into the HOF, so I'd tend to just wait until a weaker ballot year comes around and maybe give one or both of them my vote.
These are both very good points.And I loved Sandberg too, one of my favorite players growing up. To be honest though, Sandberg's one of those guys that got a lot of gold gloves on reputation alone and not be sheer skills. I think Alomar was an all-time great defensive second baseman and had very solid offensive numbers. It wouldn't surprise me if it took a few ballots for Alomar to get in, but judging by the relative weakness of this year's ballot, I think a first ballot induction is more likely than not.On Larkin vs Trammell, that's a tough one for me because I guess I never saw the greatness of a HOF caliber player out of Trammell. He was very solid for a very long time, but I mean 2 seasons over 20 homers and 185 lifetime homers? 1 season over 100 rbi's? and 1 season over 25 sb's? In fact Trammell was a below average base stealer with less than 70% success ratio. And although Larkin never had monster home run/rbi years either, I think he was a superior fielder and a very good baserunner and the MVP doesn't hurt. I dunno, just comparing the two, to me, Larkin is better than Trammell in every category
Larkin's OPS blows Trammells away (.815 to .767)guru_007 said:These are both very good points.And I loved Sandberg too, one of my favorite players growing up. To be honest though, Sandberg's one of those guys that got a lot of gold gloves on reputation alone and not be sheer skills. I think Alomar was an all-time great defensive second baseman and had very solid offensive numbers. It wouldn't surprise me if it took a few ballots for Alomar to get in, but judging by the relative weakness of this year's ballot, I think a first ballot induction is more likely than not.On Larkin vs Trammell, that's a tough one for me because I guess I never saw the greatness of a HOF caliber player out of Trammell. He was very solid for a very long time, but I mean 2 seasons over 20 homers and 185 lifetime homers? 1 season over 100 rbi's? and 1 season over 25 sb's? In fact Trammell was a below average base stealer with less than 70% success ratio. And although Larkin never had monster home run/rbi years either, I think he was a superior fielder and a very good baserunner and the MVP doesn't hurt. I dunno, just comparing the two, to me, Larkin is better than Trammell in every category
I can't tell, are you arguing that the voters won't find him valuable or that you personally don't find him deserving?
I was trying to counter Keith Law's argument that suggested Raines was an overwhelmingly deserving candidate. I always liked Raines when he played but I think he's a borderline HoFer. He put up impressive numbers over his long career but the second half of it was pretty ordinary. He's also a unique collection of talents that doesn't really lend itself to Larkin=Trammell, Blyleven=Morris if/then comparisons.
This argument short changes McGwire quite a bit. He was terrific at getting on base. He had a career .394 OBP. He had over 100 walks 5 times and led the league twice. He was an on base machine. From Neyer:
It's fair enough to point out McGwire's OBP. It's an important stat. However, while .394 is very good, it's not *amazing*. McGwire's OBP ranks him 78th all time, which is definitely good, but not crazy in an of itself. Guys like John Kruk, Nick Johnson and John Olerud are all 1B's who have slightly higher career OBP - but their career OPS+ are all in the 125-135 range. Those guys aren't going to get any HOF play because of their OBP. If you are going to be 78th all time in OBP, you need something else to get you into the upper echelon of all time players. Which McGwire does - in the form of 583 HR and a career 162 OPS+.Additionally, though I definitely can't definitively prove it, it would seem to me that McGwire's OBP went up with the number of HR's he it, really mostly after he hit his 30s. When he started hitting a ton of bombs, he drew more walks. This would make sense since opposing pitchers would no doubt pitch around him more then they used to. Now, it is definitely to his credit that he took those walks as opposed to hacking away anyway. But, I think the fact that he was hitting 40-70 HRs year after year probably had something to do with his number of walks. So, in that way, I feel like his alleged use of PED's probably had a large impact on his OBP, as well.whoknew said:
i found it interesting that you wax rhapsodic about Raines' on-base skills, and pooh-pooh McGwire's. When Big Mac has a higher career OBP.And don't forget the McGwire led the league in homers as a 23 year old rookie. And led the league in Walks as a 26 year old in 1990.
i've long felt that ERA was of lesser importance for a closer. I'm flummoxed that he is getting 40+% of the vote (though he hasn't moved in 7 years), when guys like Trammell and Raines languish around 20%.eta: meant to say this first, but thanks for posting your picks. makes the thread that much better when folks do that, especially ones like you who have put a lot of thought into it.Chairshot said:
my predictions:Alomar - 76Dawson - 72Blyleven - 69Larkin - 42Smith - 40Morris - 40Raines - 33McGwire - 28Trammell - 22
kudos to the voters here. got the order just about exactly right...1. Alomar2. Larkin3. Blyleven4. McGwire5. RainesI just thought it was interesting to note that we have had 60 votes as of the time of this post and if we were the voters, Robbie Alomar would be the only inductee this year, getting the 75% needed by 2 votes.Kevin Appier, Ellis Burks, Pat Hentgen, Eric Karros, Ray Lankford, Shane Reynolds, David Segui, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile, Dave Parker (I guess I'm the only one!) and Harold Baines would all fall off for failing to get 5% of the vote.Tough crowd.
Except for Brad Lidge, it's not that difficult for modern closers to put up impressive ERA numbers. They typically enter the game with a lead of three runs or less and have built in damage control to big innings at least half of the time. Comparing Smith's ERA to the other HoF relievers is flawed because Gossage, Fingers and Sutter were used differently as relievers of their time, and Eckersley spent half his career as a starter. By the same token, it's not fair to compare Smith's ERA vs. current pitchers who are used in an even more restrictive fashion. But his ERA+ of 131 doesn't stack up with non-HoF RPs like Keith Foulke, John Wetteland.I think WHIP and ERC are better measures of reliever prowess than ERA (or even SV for that matter
). But SVs are what most people care about and Smith had a lot of them. I think much of this is because he was very durable and held the closer's role for a long time.I'm not a small Hall guy by any means but I do have high standards when it comes to relief pitchers. Somebody who used only 60-80 IP/yr better be dominant and I don't think Smith really was.
Well, as far as comparing the 2 players in general, I wouldn't really do that. Very different players. However, I was talking about Raines career times on base - a counting stat, not a percentage. Raines got on 3977 times. More then Tony Gwynn, Roberto Clemente, Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, guys like that. McGwire's TOB is 3018, so they really aren't in the same league that way. Again, I'm not taking anything away from McGwire's OBP, but virtually no one is getting in the Hall based on OBP alone. McGwire is getting into the Hall, rightly or wrongly, based on his HRs. And, unfortunately, that's exactly the stat that is suspect for him.
I think this is pretty fair, too. I've only come around on Smith in the past year or two, so I get the arguments against him. I think most of them have merit. I do believe that the save is over rated. Not as over rated as pitcher wins, but still over rated.However, Smith's role was to close games. That's what he was asked to do. And, quite frankly, he did it really well. It's hard to know exactly how to treat RP/Closers, but they play a specific and critical role. They do pitch far fewer innings then SPs, but they are also usually pitching in highly leveraged innings, very important innings. A mistake by a closer usually gives a team little time, if any, to make up for it. Those 60-80 IP are generally 60-80 of the most important innings pitched all year.It's probably the most interesting debate going on surrounding the HOF right now, that of how to treat RP/Closers. I'm inclined to give them their due. They play a very important role to a teams success these days and that should be acknowledged, I believe.Except for Brad Lidge, it's not that difficult for modern closers to put up impressive ERA numbers. They typically enter the game with a lead of three runs or less and have built in damage control to big innings at least half of the time. Comparing Smith's ERA to the other HoF relievers is flawed because Gossage, Fingers and Sutter were used differently as relievers of their time, and Eckersley spent half his career as a starter. By the same token, it's not fair to compare Smith's ERA vs. current pitchers who are used in an even more restrictive fashion. But his ERA+ of 131 doesn't stack up with non-HoF RPs like Keith Foulke, John Wetteland.I think WHIP and ERC are better measures of reliever prowess than ERA (or even SV for that matter). But SVs are what most people care about and Smith had a lot of them. I think much of this is because he was very durable and held the closer's role for a long time.I'm not a small Hall guy by any means but I do have high standards when it comes to relief pitchers. Somebody who used only 60-80 IP/yr better be dominant and I don't think Smith really was.
Gammons votes and a few other here.Looks like Alomar is a lock.kudos to the voters here. got the order just about exactly right...1. AlomarI just thought it was interesting to note that we have had 60 votes as of the time of this post and if we were the voters, Robbie Alomar would be the only inductee this year, getting the 75% needed by 2 votes.
Kevin Appier, Ellis Burks, Pat Hentgen, Eric Karros, Ray Lankford, Shane Reynolds, David Segui, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile, Dave Parker (I guess I'm the only one!) and Harold Baines would all fall off for failing to get 5% of the vote.
Tough crowd.
2. Larkin
3. Blyleven
4. McGwire
5. Raines
