What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Baseball Forum HoF ballot (1 Viewer)

Which returning candidates deserve election?


  • Total voters
    65

Tom Servo

Nittany Beavers
1. This is a public poll; anyone attempting voting shtick will be harrassed.

2. Names taken from the Winter 2011 issue of Memories & Dreams - the Baseball HoF's magazine.

3. Each returning candidate has their # of times on the ballot in parentheses after their name.

Vote and discuss.

 
Last year's vote totals of returning candidates:

Barry Larkin - 62.1%

Jack Morris - 53.5%

Lee Smith - 45.3%

Jeff Bagwell - 41.7%

Tim Raines - 37.5%

Edgar Martinez - 32.9%

Alan Trammell - 24.3%

Larry Walker - 20.3%

Mark McGwire - 19.8%

Fred McGriff - 17.9%

Dave Parker - 15.3% <-- no longer eligible after 15 tries

Don Mattingly - 13.6%

Dale Murphy - 12.6%

Raffy Palmeiro - 11.0%

Juan Gonzalez - 5.2%

 
bernie williams :lol:

Honestly on the first year guys, I'm not sure any make it back onto the ballot next year.

Returning players are tougher.

I gave my votes to Jack Morris and Jeff Bagwell. But, could make a case for a lot more of those players...I probably should have voted Larkin too, I think he makes it this year.

 
bernie williams :lol:Honestly on the first year guys, I'm not sure any make it back onto the ballot next year.Returning players are tougher.I gave my votes to Jack Morris and Jeff Bagwell. But, could make a case for a lot more of those players...I probably should have voted Larkin too, I think he makes it this year.
I'm with you on the 1st year guys. Prolly half drop off with the other half in the upper single digits/low teens. I'm sure the Yankee honks will make the case for BW.I went with Larkin, Morris & Smith.
 
You can vote for up to ten players because that's how high most BBWAA members can count while sober and with their shoes on.

 
I forget some times how unbelievable Larry Walker was for a few years there in the 90's.

:shock: In '97 he hit .366 with 49 homeruns, 130 RBIs, 33 Stolen Bases

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Larkin and Lee Smith are no brainers to me.
Why is Larkin a no-brainer but Alan Trammell isn't? I'm not picking on you either, this seems to be prevailing shtick and bad shtick at that. They were almost the same exact player, have no idea why Larkin gets more love.
Code:
Rk 	Player 	WAR/pos 	From 	To 	Age 	G 	PA 	R 	H 	2B 	3B 	HR 	RBI 	BB 	SO 	BA1 	Barry Larkin 	68.9 	1986 	2004 	22-40 	2180 	9057 	1329 	2340 	441 	76 	198 	960 	939 	817 	.2952 	Alan Trammell 	66.9 	1977 	1996 	19-38 	2293 	9375 	1231 	2365 	412 	55 	185 	1003 	850 	874 	.285
Trammell has four gold gloves, Larkin three. Larkin won an MVP award, Trammell was robbed of one. Trammell was a World Series MVP, Larkin stole more bases.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Larkin and Lee Smith are no brainers to me.
Why is Larkin a no-brainer but Alan Trammell isn't? I'm not picking on you either, this seems to be prevailing shtick and bad shtick at that. They were almost the same exact player, have no idea why Larkin gets more love.
Code:
Rk 	Player 	WAR/pos 	From 	To 	Age 	G 	PA 	R 	H 	2B 	3B 	HR 	RBI 	BB 	SO 	BA1 	Barry Larkin 	68.9 	1986 	2004 	22-40 	2180 	9057 	1329 	2340 	441 	76 	198 	960 	939 	817 	.2952 	Alan Trammell 	66.9 	1977 	1996 	19-38 	2293 	9375 	1231 	2365 	412 	55 	185 	1003 	850 	874 	.285
Trammell has four gold gloves, Larkin three. Larkin won an MVP award, Trammell was robbed of one. Trammell was a World Series MVP, Larkin stole more bases.
Not sure if it is valid reasoning or not, but Larkin has the top two SS-WAR seasons in the NL when he was playing and 4 of the top-10 NL SS WAR seasons between 86-04. I think Larkin also is remembered as the best SS in the NL after Ozzie Smith started to fall off.Trammell has the top WAR season amongst AL SS's during his time in the league, but he suffers in comparison to Yount and Ripken, two AL SS's already in the Hall.I think it comes down to the fact that people are much more ready to put in arguably the best NL SS over a 20 year period than a guy who is pretty solidly entrenched in people's minds as the third best AL SS over basically the same time period.Larkin also has 12 AS games to Trammell's 6, namely because Larkin didn't go against Yount and Ripken every year.Barry also has 9 Silver Sluggers to Alan's 3. That is wholly attributable to the different competition faced by each guy. An interesting question is if Larkin had played on the Tigers and Trammell on the Reds, would Alan be the sure-fire Hall of Famer?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Larkin and Lee Smith are no brainers to me.
Why is Larkin a no-brainer but Alan Trammell isn't? I'm not picking on you either, this seems to be prevailing shtick and bad shtick at that. They were almost the same exact player, have no idea why Larkin gets more love.
Code:
Rk 	Player 	WAR/pos 	From 	To 	Age 	G 	PA 	R 	H 	2B 	3B 	HR 	RBI 	BB 	SO 	BA1 	Barry Larkin 	68.9 	1986 	2004 	22-40 	2180 	9057 	1329 	2340 	441 	76 	198 	960 	939 	817 	.2952 	Alan Trammell 	66.9 	1977 	1996 	19-38 	2293 	9375 	1231 	2365 	412 	55 	185 	1003 	850 	874 	.285
Trammell has four gold gloves, Larkin three. Larkin won an MVP award, Trammell was robbed of one. Trammell was a World Series MVP, Larkin stole more bases.
Not sure if it is valid reasoning or not, but Larkin has the top two SS-WAR seasons in the NL when he was playing and 4 of the top-10 NL SS WAR seasons between 86-04. I think Larkin also is remembered as the best SS in the NL after Ozzie Smith started to fall off.Trammell has the top WAR season amongst AL SS's during his time in the league, but he suffers in comparison to Yount and Ripken, two AL SS's already in the Hall.I think it comes down to the fact that people are much more ready to put in arguably the best NL SS over a 20 year period than a guy who is pretty solidly entrenched in people's minds as the third best AL SS over basically the same time period.Larkin also has 12 AS games to Trammell's 6, namely because Larkin didn't go against Yount and Ripken every year.Barry also has 9 Silver Sluggers to Alan's 3. That is wholly attributable to the different competition faced by each guy. An interesting question is if Larkin had played on the Tigers and Trammell on the Reds, would Alan be the sure-fire Hall of Famer?
They had essentially the same numbers and Larkin played in a time when hitting numbers were beginning to explode. It does boil down to Trammell having to play at the same time as Yount and Ripken for certain, but I'm not sure how fair that is. By most standards Trammell is a top 12 SS ever, Larkin is right about the same place. I'm fine with Larkin having a slightly better resume but I'm just having an issue with the statement above where Larkin is a no brainer and Trammell isn't even on the radar. At worst Trammell is borderline.Plus the whole Lou Whitaker thing still pisses me off. He was off the ballot after one year yet Sandberg was in on the first ballot and their numbers were not so different. And I don't think Whitaker was a hall of famer, but he should have at least been on the ballot for a few years. Just because the guy lived in his own little world and wasn't good with the media cost him a chance to at least be on the ballot for awhile, which he most certainly deserved.
 
Larkin and Lee Smith are no brainers to me.
Why is Larkin a no-brainer but Alan Trammell isn't? I'm not picking on you either, this seems to be prevailing shtick and bad shtick at that. They were almost the same exact player, have no idea why Larkin gets more love.
Code:
Rk 	Player 	WAR/pos 	From 	To 	Age 	G 	PA 	R 	H 	2B 	3B 	HR 	RBI 	BB 	SO 	BA1 	Barry Larkin 	68.9 	1986 	2004 	22-40 	2180 	9057 	1329 	2340 	441 	76 	198 	960 	939 	817 	.2952 	Alan Trammell 	66.9 	1977 	1996 	19-38 	2293 	9375 	1231 	2365 	412 	55 	185 	1003 	850 	874 	.285
Trammell has four gold gloves, Larkin three. Larkin won an MVP award, Trammell was robbed of one. Trammell was a World Series MVP, Larkin stole more bases.
Not sure if it is valid reasoning or not, but Larkin has the top two SS-WAR seasons in the NL when he was playing and 4 of the top-10 NL SS WAR seasons between 86-04. I think Larkin also is remembered as the best SS in the NL after Ozzie Smith started to fall off.Trammell has the top WAR season amongst AL SS's during his time in the league, but he suffers in comparison to Yount and Ripken, two AL SS's already in the Hall.I think it comes down to the fact that people are much more ready to put in arguably the best NL SS over a 20 year period than a guy who is pretty solidly entrenched in people's minds as the third best AL SS over basically the same time period.Larkin also has 12 AS games to Trammell's 6, namely because Larkin didn't go against Yount and Ripken every year.Barry also has 9 Silver Sluggers to Alan's 3. That is wholly attributable to the different competition faced by each guy. An interesting question is if Larkin had played on the Tigers and Trammell on the Reds, would Alan be the sure-fire Hall of Famer?
They had essentially the same numbers and Larkin played in a time when hitting numbers were beginning to explode. It does boil down to Trammell having to play at the same time as Yount and Ripken for certain, but I'm not sure how fair that is. By most standards Trammell is a top 12 SS ever, Larkin is right about the same place. I'm fine with Larkin having a slightly better resume but I'm just having an issue with the statement above where Larkin is a no brainer and Trammell isn't even on the radar. At worst Trammell is borderline.Plus the whole Lou Whitaker thing still pisses me off. He was off the ballot after one year yet Sandberg was in on the first ballot and their numbers were not so different. And I don't think Whitaker was a hall of famer, but he should have at least been on the ballot for a few years. Just because the guy lived in his own little world and wasn't good with the media cost him a chance to at least be on the ballot for awhile, which he most certainly deserved.
I actually agree with you that Trammell should be close if not in, but if you're going to look at the competition (Yount/Ripken) for ASG, you have to do the same for GG. Larkin was a 10 time GG SS if he doesn't play at the same time as Ozzie who was unbeatable defensively. If Larkin was at least equal defensively, hitting with an OPS of .815 is actually a pretty big step up from .767. Its a big advantage for HOF votes to have an MVP trophy and the "1st 30/30 SS" claim as well.I think they both deserve a similar bump for intangibles and leadership that should help them. These guys were Jeter playing somewhere without a 200M payroll.
 
Larkin and Lee Smith are no brainers to me.
Why is Larkin a no-brainer but Alan Trammell isn't? I'm not picking on you either, this seems to be prevailing shtick and bad shtick at that. They were almost the same exact player, have no idea why Larkin gets more love.
Rk Player WAR/pos From To Age G PA R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA1 Barry Larkin 68.9 1986 2004 22-40 2180 9057 1329 2340 441 76 198 960 939 817 .2952 Alan Trammell 66.9 1977 1996 19-38 2293 9375 1231 2365 412 55 185 1003 850 874 .285Trammell has four gold gloves, Larkin three. Larkin won an MVP award, Trammell was robbed of one. Trammell was a World Series MVP, Larkin stole more bases.
Not sure if it is valid reasoning or not, but Larkin has the top two SS-WAR seasons in the NL when he was playing and 4 of the top-10 NL SS WAR seasons between 86-04. I think Larkin also is remembered as the best SS in the NL after Ozzie Smith started to fall off.Trammell has the top WAR season amongst AL SS's during his time in the league, but he suffers in comparison to Yount and Ripken, two AL SS's already in the Hall.

I think it comes down to the fact that people are much more ready to put in arguably the best NL SS over a 20 year period than a guy who is pretty solidly entrenched in people's minds as the third best AL SS over basically the same time period.

Larkin also has 12 AS games to Trammell's 6, namely because Larkin didn't go against Yount and Ripken every year.

Barry also has 9 Silver Sluggers to Alan's 3. That is wholly attributable to the different competition faced by each guy.

An interesting question is if Larkin had played on the Tigers and Trammell on the Reds, would Alan be the sure-fire Hall of Famer?
They had essentially the same numbers and Larkin played in a time when hitting numbers were beginning to explode. It does boil down to Trammell having to play at the same time as Yount and Ripken for certain, but I'm not sure how fair that is. By most standards Trammell is a top 12 SS ever, Larkin is right about the same place. I'm fine with Larkin having a slightly better resume but I'm just having an issue with the statement above where Larkin is a no brainer and Trammell isn't even on the radar. At worst Trammell is borderline.Plus the whole Lou Whitaker thing still pisses me off. He was off the ballot after one year yet Sandberg was in on the first ballot and their numbers were not so different. And I don't think Whitaker was a hall of famer, but he should have at least been on the ballot for a few years. Just because the guy lived in his own little world and wasn't good with the media cost him a chance to at least be on the ballot for awhile, which he most certainly deserved.
I actually agree with you that Trammell should be close if not in, but if you're going to look at the competition (Yount/Ripken) for ASG, you have to do the same for GG. Larkin was a 10 time GG SS if he doesn't play at the same time as Ozzie who was unbeatable defensively. If Larkin was at least equal defensively, hitting with an OPS of .815 is actually a pretty big step up from .767. Its a big advantage for HOF votes to have an MVP trophy and the "1st 30/30 SS" claim as well.I think they both deserve a similar bump for intangibles and leadership that should help them. These guys were Jeter playing somewhere without a 200M payroll.
Trammell was absolutely robbed in 1987 for the MVP vote and has a World Series MVP as well. Larkin's 30/30 is certainly nice but I'm not buying into the Gold Glove. He was average in '88 and '93 and then decidedly below average after '97. He basically lost at most two gold gloves because of Ozzie ('89 and '91) and in '93 neither won it. I don't think he would have been a ten time GG winner, maybe five or six max. Trammell had to compete with Tony Fernandez, Ozzie Guillen, Alfredo Griffin and Ripken and still ended up with four. Trammell would have had at least two more so I think they are pretty even there. As far as OPS Larkin's OPS plus was 116, Trammell's was 110. As I said I do think Larkin's resume is a little stronger, but it's pretty damn close.

 
Trammell had a hell of a year in 87, but I doubt anyone unbiased would say he was "absolutely robbed".

 
Trammell had a hell of a year in 87, but I doubt anyone unbiased would say he was "absolutely robbed".
He had a WAR of 8.4 to Bell's 5 and his OPS was just .004 less than Bell who also played a pretty ####ty OF. He was robbed.
Bell owned the traditional counting categories that year (1st in RBI, 2nd in runs and HRs). WAR didn't even exist in 1987. Boggs led the league with 9.1 WAR that year and finished 9th in the voting.
 
I see the Trammell whinedown™ has already begun.

Edit: DD, I see you didn't vote for Larkin above. :coffee:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He likes Bagwell, Larkin, Trammell, Raines, Martinez, Walker, McGwire and Murphy
Not a bad read, he managed to change my mind about Tim Raines and DD has brought me to the fence of whether or not Larkin should go in. Aren't 5 80s-90s SS's too many?I disagree that no apology would have sufficed. Both Rose and McGwire came off as completely canned and self-serving. I found A-Rod's apology more convincing and he's a weasel.

Rock for HoF

 
How does Edgar make it over mattingly in any universe?

Doc I'm with you on trammell and Whittaker, who along with Joe Carter was one of the most outrageous "one and done" guys of all time.

I also can't believe Dave Parker didn't get a bigger look. I feel like that was the coke halo

 
Player A: 5793 PA, 287/337/491, 260 HR, 112 OPS+, threw out 28% of baserunners, 27.9 WAR on baseball-reference

Player B: 7150 PA, 273/374/474, 275 HR, 121 OPS+, threw out 28% of baserunners, 44.7 WAR on baseball-reference

Player C: 9685 PA, 285/348/437, 248 HR, 117 OPS+, threw out 34% of baserunners, 50.6 WAR on baseball-reference

Player A has 1 ring and is probably a top-25 catcher all time. He would be better than a lot of catchers already in the Hall. He's on the ballot for the first time this year and probably won't get enough votes to be on next year.

Player B has 5 rings and is a top-20 catcher all time. He would be better than many catchers already in the Hall. He'll be on the ballot for the first time in about 5 years and will draw some significant support, but I'm not sure if he'll get in before the veterans committee looks at him.

Player C doesn't have any rings, but he's a borderline top-12 catcher all time. He didn't draw enough support in his first time on the ballot, and never got a second chance.

A: Javy Lopez

B: Jorge Posada

C: Ted Simmons

 
I actually agree with you that Trammell should be close if not in, but if you're going to look at the competition (Yount/Ripken) for ASG, you have to do the same for GG. Larkin was a 10 time GG SS if he doesn't play at the same time as Ozzie who was unbeatable defensively. If Larkin was at least equal defensively, hitting with an OPS of .815 is actually a pretty big step up from .767. Its a big advantage for HOF votes to have an MVP trophy and the "1st 30/30 SS" claim as well.I think they both deserve a similar bump for intangibles and leadership that should help them. These guys were Jeter playing somewhere without a 200M payroll.
GG are an even worse indicator of performance than ASG appearances, Cy Youngs, or MVP votes.
 
How does Edgar make it over mattingly in any universe?
Cause Mattingly has at most 6 elite seasons whereas Edgar has 10 or 11. Mattingly's peak wasn't as high as someone like Koufax to deserve induction just on his short peak and it just wasn't long enough to deserve induction otherwise. Unfortunately he's relegated to the 'what if' category.
 
How does Edgar make it over mattingly in any universe?
Cause Mattingly has at most 6 elite seasons whereas Edgar has 10 or 11. Mattingly's peak wasn't as high as someone like Koufax to deserve induction just on his short peak and it just wasn't long enough to deserve induction otherwise. Unfortunately he's relegated to the 'what if' category.
Please point to his "elite" seasons. I count arguably six, from 95-00. All spent sitting in the dugout for half the game. And was he truly elite based on the era? I think mattingly was undeniably the best hitter in baseball 84-88 and that is open to much debate with Edgar. All while playing gold glove d
 
How does Edgar make it over mattingly in any universe?
Cause Mattingly has at most 6 elite seasons whereas Edgar has 10 or 11. Mattingly's peak wasn't as high as someone like Koufax to deserve induction just on his short peak and it just wasn't long enough to deserve induction otherwise. Unfortunately he's relegated to the 'what if' category.
Please point to his "elite" seasons. I count arguably six, from 95-00. All spent sitting in the dugout for half the game. And was he truly elite based on the era? I think mattingly was undeniably the best hitter in baseball 84-88 and that is open to much debate with Edgar. All while playing gold glove d
Edgar had 9 seasons with a fWAR of 5.4 or greater, and a 10th with a fWAR of 4.7Mattingly only had 4 years with a fWAR of 5.5 or greater, and a 5th of 4.2. Mattingly peaked at 7.7, Edgar at 7.5.Quite frankly, whether or not Mattingly was the best hitter in baseball during that time, his bat wasn't nearly as valuable at his peak as Edgar's was at his. Oh, and Ripken, Henderson and especially Boggs all have pretty good claims as the best hitter in the AL during that stretch.As for Gold Gloves. Rafael Palmero. Enough said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How does Edgar make it over mattingly in any universe?
Cause Mattingly has at most 6 elite seasons whereas Edgar has 10 or 11. Mattingly's peak wasn't as high as someone like Koufax to deserve induction just on his short peak and it just wasn't long enough to deserve induction otherwise. Unfortunately he's relegated to the 'what if' category.
Please point to his "elite" seasons. I count arguably six, from 95-00. All spent sitting in the dugout for half the game. And was he truly elite based on the era? I think mattingly was undeniably the best hitter in baseball 84-88 and that is open to much debate with Edgar. All while playing gold glove d
Edgar had 9 seasons with a fWAR of 5.4 or greater, and a 10th with a fWAR of 4.7Mattingly only had 4 years with a fWAR of 5.5 or greater, and a 5th of 4.2. Mattingly peaked at 7.7, Edgar at 7.5.Quite frankly, whether or not Mattingly was the best hitter in baseball during that time, his bat wasn't nearly as valuable at his peak as Edgar's was at his. Oh, and Ripken, Henderson and especially Boggs all have pretty good claims as the best hitter in the AL during that stretch.As for Gold Gloves. Rafael Palmero. Enough said.
Gold glove or not, mattingly is one of the best defenders at his position in the last 25 years, probably a 1B as an option to hernandez's 1A. He remained a viable effective fielder after his injuries unlike Martinez. I'm on the phone so I don't know what these additional fwar seasons are but like I said, 95-00 looks like the peak. Mattingly gets flack for diminished totals but Martinez also has very flat totals himself. Mattingly at least has the injury to point to, which shortened his career. It was a boon to Puckett but has not held any weight for mattingly.
 
How does Edgar make it over mattingly in any universe?
Cause Mattingly has at most 6 elite seasons whereas Edgar has 10 or 11. Mattingly's peak wasn't as high as someone like Koufax to deserve induction just on his short peak and it just wasn't long enough to deserve induction otherwise. Unfortunately he's relegated to the 'what if' category.
Please point to his "elite" seasons. I count arguably six, from 95-00. All spent sitting in the dugout for half the game. And was he truly elite based on the era? I think mattingly was undeniably the best hitter in baseball 84-88 and that is open to much debate with Edgar. All while playing gold glove d
Edgar had 9 seasons with a fWAR of 5.4 or greater, and a 10th with a fWAR of 4.7Mattingly only had 4 years with a fWAR of 5.5 or greater, and a 5th of 4.2. Mattingly peaked at 7.7, Edgar at 7.5.Quite frankly, whether or not Mattingly was the best hitter in baseball during that time, his bat wasn't nearly as valuable at his peak as Edgar's was at his. Oh, and Ripken, Henderson and especially Boggs all have pretty good claims as the best hitter in the AL during that stretch.As for Gold Gloves. Rafael Palmero. Enough said.
Gold glove or not, mattingly is one of the best defenders at his position in the last 25 years, probably a 1B as an option to hernandez's 1A. He remained a viable effective fielder after his injuries unlike Martinez. I'm on the phone so I don't know what these additional fwar seasons are but like I said, 95-00 looks like the peak. Mattingly gets flack for diminished totals but Martinez also has very flat totals himself. Mattingly at least has the injury to point to, which shortened his career. It was a boon to Puckett but has not held any weight for mattingly.
But Puckett's inury happened while he was still a great player and it seemed entirely unrelated to the normal wear and tear of playing. I'm not sure Puckett belongs in the Hall anyway, but his injury certainly created different circumstances than Mattingly's bad back.
 
okay, I really enjoy talking baseball hof....and I really applaud DrD's efforts to convince others that he is HOF worthy. In fact, it was Tiger fans that pushed me over the edge on thinking that Jack Morris belongs, and who I would vote for. However, I really think Trammell is going to fall far short.

One thing that weighs against him, imho is hanger-onism. The last 5 years of his career were injury filled, partial, ineffective years.

Another thing that I think hurts is his inconsistent performances. Look at his 1982 year vs his 1983 year. Then 1989 - 1990 seasons. He would play at an all-star level for a year here and there, and then barely above replacement value the next. And these are full seasons we're talking.

At his best, he was an all-star caliber player, and deserving of mvp consideration. But there was no stretch I can really say he was the best player at his position. He just doesn't score high enough on the eye test for me to say he belongs.

I much prefer Larkin's credentials, that's just me. From 1988 - 1998, 11 seasons, he hit .296 or higher every year but one. I know everyone likes obp better, but that's pretty solid - and his OBP numbers were still good, with .360+ every year or higher but one again. And the sb's while they may not be that great to sabrematrician's, they count some in voters eyes. To me, he was just way more consistent and at a cosntant high level for a long time. Sure, he suffered from hanger-onism too, but for a consistent, long stretch of time he was an all-star every year and played as one.

And I'm sorry Yankee nation, but Mattingly is never going to be in the hof. He was a terrific offensive and defensive player, but just not a long enough time frame for him to be in the hof.

The steroids thing is just huge, and going to keep a ton of guys out of the hof. It also taints the image of some guys, probably unjustly. I would vote for McGriff and Palmeiro eventually (probably) if given a chance. I would never vote for McGwire though. Yes, I know that's very strange to vote for Raffy but not McGwire, don't ask me how my mind works.

I'd also vote for Bonds and ARod. But not Sosa :shrug:

 
Jesus, reading this thread, it's amazing guys anyone ever got elected without knowing their WAR numbers.

 
Ted Simmons is WAYYYYYYYY underrated. Even more than Lou Whitaker, and that's pretty hard to do.

Also a Cobra fan, that guy had a once in a generation arm and he hit the #### out of the ball.

I would vote for Bonds 100% for sure, McGuire most likely and I think ARod as well. Sosa and Palmeiro, a big fat no.

Mattingly no (he was one of my favorite players too FWIW), Edgar should have a statue outside the hall of the very good and I've cooled a bit on Morris although he is the quintessential borderline candidate.

Larkin and Trammell should both be in.

 
I see the Trammell whinedown™ has already begun. Edit: DD, I see you didn't vote for Larkin above. :coffee:
Hall of Fame ballot is due, and so is Tigers great TrammellBy Scott Miller | CBSSports.com Senior Baseball Columnist
I've beaten this drum for years, shouted it from the top of the mound, hollered it from the top step of the dugout.Voice hoarse, throat shot, Hall of Fame ballots due by Dec. 31 ... I'm surrendering the microphone today.Don't take from me the fact that Alan Trammell has been criminally under-supported on the ballot for years.Take it from two icons who span generations and know the game as well as anybody has ever known it."I have personally brought this up a number of times to different baseball people, front office people, owners, coaches, managers, players that knew of our time," Tony La Russa, the now-retired legendary manager, told me when we spoke a few nights ago. "I cannot believe the lack of support that Alan is receiving."The only thing I can figure is he never made big enough fuss over himself."La Russa, who ranks behind only Connie Mack and John McGraw on baseball's all-time list of winningest managers, is not yet in the Hall of Fame. But he will be one day."I think he's a player who deserves a lot of consideration," Pat Gillick, the Hall of Fame executive who was enshrined last summer, told me. "He played on a lot of great Tiger teams and he was a big part of why the Tigers were so competitive and won a World Series [1984]. It was because of Trammell and Lou Whitaker and Jack Morris and that group."Trammell was probably one of the most all-around defensive and offensive shortstops in the American League in the late 1970s and 1980s."That era included Cal Ripken, elected to the Hall in 2007 with 98.5 percent of the vote. It included Robin Yount, elected to the Hall in 1999 with 77.4 percent of the vote.It also included, over in the National League, Ozzie Smith, elected in 2002 with 91.7 percent of the vote.Trammell, now in his 11th year on the ballot, checked in at only 24.3 percent last year. And that was a good year. It was up from 22.4 percent the year before, and 17.4 percent before that.La Russa argues vehemently that Trammell is a slam-dunk Hall of Famer.Gillick, while more circumspect, spoke volumes when I asked him to step back into his old general manager's chair when he was running the Blue Jays in the 1980s while Trammell and Smith were at their peak.Would he have traded Trammell for Smith straight up?"That's a tough one," Gillick said. "That's a real tough one."Now. If you agonize like that over whether to trade a legit Hall of Famer for Trammell ... there's your answer regarding Trammell's Cooperstown qualifications.Trammell clobbers Smith across the board in nearly every statistical offensive category. It's not even close. Defensively? Even if you favor Smith here, the difference between him and Trammell is nowhere near the chasm their Hall voting totals suggest.Anyway, back to whether Gillick would have traded Trammell for Smith."They're two different type of players," Gillick said. "That's the difference. Yount, Ripken and Trammell were offensive shortstops. Smith, I'd have to say, was more a defensive player than an offensive player. The other three gave you offense. Defensively, Smith was the prototype."It depends on what your team needed. If you were looking for a combination of offense and defense, you take Trammell. If you had enough offense at first base, second base and third base and were looking for defense, you would probably look for Ozzie."But as a combination overall, those other three were better defensive and offensive players."La Russa competed against Trammell's Detroit clubs in each of his first 18 seasons as manager, first with the White Sox and then with Oakland. To this day, he calls Trammell "one of, if not my favorite, players."Best example of how much La Russa admired Trammell? Sparky Anderson, the late Tigers manager, no longer is around to verify this, but he and La Russa spoke of it often."Whenever we played the Detroit Tigers, on the road for sure, I would go out early just to watch Alan Trammell take ground balls," La Russa said. "Just to admire his mechanics, how you catch a ball, exactly how you teach. Hands low and out front, his over-the-top throw. Almost without exception, he'd hit the first baseman with the throw between the chin and his waist."It was remarkable how accurate and true his throws were. You can talk offensive stats that were impressive, he was a dynamite defensive player, and he was a clutch player and leader."La Russa was close with Anderson and says Sparky always considered Trammell the most "versatile" player on his roster, capable of hitting third or fourth if Detroit's clean-up batter was hurt. La Russa vividly recalls working against the Tigers "as a young manager, and this was a guy we feared in clutch situations, setting the table."So did Gillick, whose Toronto teams waged epic battles with the Tigers in the mid-to-late 1980s. The deep Tigers' lineup during that time included Whitaker, Darrell Evans, Lance Parrish, Chet Lemon and Kirk Gibson. But, Gillick said, "I'd have to say Alan was the toughest out in the Detroit lineup."And the fact that he not only was a good offensive player and an excellent defensive player, he also was very, very talented in the field -- he knew how to play the game, knew what to do in situations."La Russa said he ranks Trammell alongside such luminaries as Ripken, George Brett and Kirby Puckett -- all Hall of Famers -- and a few others.Yet ... 24 percent of the Hall vote last winter? When contemporaries with whom he was on the same level long since have been inducted?"Clearly, you'd take Cal, because Cal hit for more power and Cal was a clear first-ballot Hall of Famer," La Russa said. "But I don't know of anybody after Cal you'd rate as a shortstop higher than Alan Trammell."I've come out on my own about this, irritated, because I really enjoyed and respected Alan."While La Russa is adamant on the subject -- he phoned me back to talk within minutes after I left a message -- Gillick, again, was a bit more reserved. He did not flatly state that Trammell is Hall of Fame.Of course, he didn't have to. All you had to do was listen:"Basically, if you ask 10 people to rate Ozzie, Trammell, Yount and Ripken, you'd get some consensus," Gillick said. "But I don't think everyone would have the same ratings 1 through 4. I think one would prefer one over the other, and someone else would prefer one over another."It's an interesting question. They're all four great players. I'll say that."It speaks volumes. Hopefully, some folks are listening.
 
How does Edgar make it over mattingly in any universe?
Cause Mattingly has at most 6 elite seasons whereas Edgar has 10 or 11. Mattingly's peak wasn't as high as someone like Koufax to deserve induction just on his short peak and it just wasn't long enough to deserve induction otherwise. Unfortunately he's relegated to the 'what if' category.
Please point to his "elite" seasons. I count arguably six, from 95-00. All spent sitting in the dugout for half the game. And was he truly elite based on the era? I think mattingly was undeniably the best hitter in baseball 84-88 and that is open to much debate with Edgar. All while playing gold glove d
Edgar had 9 seasons with a fWAR of 5.4 or greater, and a 10th with a fWAR of 4.7Mattingly only had 4 years with a fWAR of 5.5 or greater, and a 5th of 4.2. Mattingly peaked at 7.7, Edgar at 7.5.Quite frankly, whether or not Mattingly was the best hitter in baseball during that time, his bat wasn't nearly as valuable at his peak as Edgar's was at his. Oh, and Ripken, Henderson and especially Boggs all have pretty good claims as the best hitter in the AL during that stretch.As for Gold Gloves. Rafael Palmero. Enough said.
Gold glove or not, mattingly is one of the best defenders at his position in the last 25 years, probably a 1B as an option to hernandez's 1A. He remained a viable effective fielder after his injuries unlike Martinez. I'm on the phone so I don't know what these additional fwar seasons are but like I said, 95-00 looks like the peak. Mattingly gets flack for diminished totals but Martinez also has very flat totals himself. Mattingly at least has the injury to point to, which shortened his career. It was a boon to Puckett but has not held any weight for mattingly.
But Puckett's inury happened while he was still a great player and it seemed entirely unrelated to the normal wear and tear of playing. I'm not sure Puckett belongs in the Hall anyway, but his injury certainly created different circumstances than Mattingly's bad back.
See, Puckett was 35 when he retired, with 2300 hits. I wonder if people think he was late 20s or something when he went down. Pluses for him, postseason heroics(which don't apply to Williams but fine), and we forget how RHB were perceived before Kirby. I think he was one of the first right handed batting champions in the AL or MLB in a long time when he won. He was a great hitter and a great player, no debate, no doubt. But a first ballot HOF guy?But he was also already a RF by that point, in an age of traditional decline. I don't think he would have gotten to 3000 hits, and if he did, he would have limped to a legacy damaging level to get there(as far as career BA, OBP, and OPS). He retired and he gets frozen in time.I've given up the Mattingly ghost somewhat, but the irony is, if he would have just retired instead of tried to compete he would have stood a better chance of making the hall.
 
How does Edgar make it over mattingly in any universe?
Cause Mattingly has at most 6 elite seasons whereas Edgar has 10 or 11. Mattingly's peak wasn't as high as someone like Koufax to deserve induction just on his short peak and it just wasn't long enough to deserve induction otherwise. Unfortunately he's relegated to the 'what if' category.
Please point to his "elite" seasons. I count arguably six, from 95-00. All spent sitting in the dugout for half the game. And was he truly elite based on the era? I think mattingly was undeniably the best hitter in baseball 84-88 and that is open to much debate with Edgar. All while playing gold glove d
Edgar had 9 seasons with a fWAR of 5.4 or greater, and a 10th with a fWAR of 4.7Mattingly only had 4 years with a fWAR of 5.5 or greater, and a 5th of 4.2. Mattingly peaked at 7.7, Edgar at 7.5.Quite frankly, whether or not Mattingly was the best hitter in baseball during that time, his bat wasn't nearly as valuable at his peak as Edgar's was at his. Oh, and Ripken, Henderson and especially Boggs all have pretty good claims as the best hitter in the AL during that stretch.As for Gold Gloves. Rafael Palmero. Enough said.
Gold glove or not, mattingly is one of the best defenders at his position in the last 25 years, probably a 1B as an option to hernandez's 1A. He remained a viable effective fielder after his injuries unlike Martinez. I'm on the phone so I don't know what these additional fwar seasons are but like I said, 95-00 looks like the peak. Mattingly gets flack for diminished totals but Martinez also has very flat totals himself. Mattingly at least has the injury to point to, which shortened his career. It was a boon to Puckett but has not held any weight for mattingly.
But Puckett's inury happened while he was still a great player and it seemed entirely unrelated to the normal wear and tear of playing. I'm not sure Puckett belongs in the Hall anyway, but his injury certainly created different circumstances than Mattingly's bad back.
See, Puckett was 35 when he retired, with 2300 hits. I wonder if people think he was late 20s or something when he went down. Pluses for him, postseason heroics(which don't apply to Williams but fine), and we forget how RHB were perceived before Kirby. I think he was one of the first right handed batting champions in the AL or MLB in a long time when he won. He was a great hitter and a great player, no debate, no doubt. But a first ballot HOF guy?But he was also already a RF by that point, in an age of traditional decline. I don't think he would have gotten to 3000 hits, and if he did, he would have limped to a legacy damaging level to get there(as far as career BA, OBP, and OPS). He retired and he gets frozen in time.I've given up the Mattingly ghost somewhat, but the irony is, if he would have just retired instead of tried to compete he would have stood a better chance of making the hall.
Same could be said of Dale Murphy.
 
I see the Trammell whinedown™ has already begun. Edit: DD, I see you didn't vote for Larkin above. :coffee:
Hall of Fame ballot is due, and so is Tigers great TrammellBy Scott Miller | CBSSports.com Senior Baseball Columnist
I voted for them both in the poll. Why didn't you?
:confused: Pretty sure I voted Larkin McGuire, Morris and Trammell.
So who did the write in vote for Tom Brookens? :shrug:
 
Dale Murphy back to back MVPs is an impressive accomplishment. His numbers aren't overly impressive though.

 
Code:
Name                Votes 		Yrs on ballotBarry Larkin        495 (86.4%) 		3Jack Morris 		382 (66.7%) 		13Jeff Bagwell        321 (56.0%) 		2Lee Smith   		290 (50.6%) 		10Tim Raines          279 (48.7%) 		5Alan Trammell   	211 (36.8%) 		11Edgar Martinez      209 (36.5%) 		3Fred McGriff        137 (23.9%) 		3Larry Walker        131 (22.9%) 		2Mark McGwire        112 (19.5%) 		6Don Mattingly   	102 (17.8%) 		12Dale Murphy 		83 (14.5%)          14Rafael Palmeiro 	72 (12.6%)          2Bernie Williams 	55 (9.6%)   		1Juan Gonzalez   	23 (4.0%)   		2Vinny Castilla      6 (1.0%)            1Tim Salmon          5 (0.9%)            1Bill Mueller        4 (0.7%)            1Brad Radke          2 (0.3%)            1Javy Lopez          1 (0.2%)            1Eric Young          1 (0.2%)            1Jeromy Burnitz      0 (0%)              1Brian Jordan        0 (0%)              1Terry Mulholland    0 (0%)              1Phil Nevin          0 (0%)              1Ruben Sierra        0 (0%)              1Tony Womack 		0 (0%)              1
Only Bernie Williams survived to fight next year out of all the first time candidates, and barely at that. With the crew coming in next year, I'd say he'll be off the ballot after 2013 and can resume his jazz career in peace.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
as of right now, this FGB vote would elect no one. Larkin is 1-2 votes short.
Well at least Larkin was the #1 vote getter, so we were kind of right. Morris just missed in the real vote, but did not get much love here. Morris is in next time.
 
Morris will probably make it in one of his two remaining years of elegibility. I guess I really can't complain, as Rice barely made it in and I thought he was a lock HOFer when I was a kid. I never got the sense that Morris was anything special as a pitcher but he was great at times in the post season. A regular season ERA of nearly 4.00 and an ERA+ score of 105 doesn't exactly jump off the page as a HOFer. His career post season numbers were in line with his regular season numbers, but people remember his performances in 84 and 91 while forgetting he couldn't get anyone out in the postseason in 87 or 92.

Which player doesn't appear to fit the profile of the following (Career IP/WAR)?

Pedro 37

Clemens 38

Big Unit 45

Schilling 47

Maddux 52

Smoltz 54

Blyleven 55

Eckersley 56

Ryan 64

Glavine 66

Morris 97

 
as of right now, this FGB vote would elect no one. Larkin is 1-2 votes short.
Well at least Larkin was the #1 vote getter, so we were kind of right. Morris just missed in the real vote, but did not get much love here. Morris is in next time.
With the next two incoming classes, I don't think Morris is a lock even though nearly everyone that gets that high a percentage generally gets in.
 
With the next two incoming classes, I don't think Morris is a lock even though nearly everyone that gets that high a percentage generally gets in.
only Gil Hodges got 60+ without getting in. But Morris' situation is interesting, because i don't think there's been a class anywhere nearly as good as the 2013 class (not in a long, long time anyway). So does he get overlooked?My guess: he gets in next year. I don't think he gets overlooked. There will be enough momentum from 2012, and enough moralists who want to make a statement about Bonds and Clemens.My 2013 Prediction: Jack Morris (77%) and Mike Piazza (80) are elected. Bonds (62) and Clemens (55) get a one-year timeout from the voters, before making it in 2014. Sosa (30) won't make it. Biggio (68) comes very close.I used to be very good at these HOF voting predictions, but the steroid effect has made everything wacky. I could be 20 points off (in either direction) on all those new guys.
 
With the next two incoming classes, I don't think Morris is a lock even though nearly everyone that gets that high a percentage generally gets in.
only Gil Hodges got 60+ without getting in. But Morris' situation is interesting, because i don't think there's been a class anywhere nearly as good as the 2013 class (not in a long, long time anyway). So does he get overlooked?My guess: he gets in next year. I don't think he gets overlooked. There will be enough momentum from 2012, and enough moralists who want to make a statement about Bonds and Clemens.My 2013 Prediction: Jack Morris (77%) and Mike Piazza (80) are elected. Bonds (62) and Clemens (55) get a one-year timeout from the voters, before making it in 2014. Sosa (30) won't make it. Biggio (68) comes very close.I used to be very good at these HOF voting predictions, but the steroid effect has made everything wacky. I could be 20 points off (in either direction) on all those new guys.
I think there will be a lot of symbolically blank ballots next year, although the notion of Morris getting in with Bonds and Clemens left outside makes my head hurt.
 
some discussion about how Morris stacks up to Schilling. I don't think it's close. Better question for me is how Morris stacks up to David Wells.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top