Baseball Hall of Fame Contemporary Ballot (Vote Is Dec 4)
- Thread starter selmaborntidefan
- Start date
While a lot of people say, ”Everybody used steroids during that era,” Schlling’s name hasn’t been associated with that.
So out of that list, I vote Schilling only.
No, he’s not a nice guy. But being a nice guy isn’t on the list of qualifications — see Ty Cobb, who would make Schilling look like a founding member of both the NAACP and the ADL.
No on the steroid guys — Bonds, Clemens and Palmeiro. If Mark McGwire were on the ballot, I’d say no to him for the same reason.
Murphy is close. I could be persuaded. Incredibly nice guy, numbers are close, his teammates love him. But his main success was over a relatively short period, and I’m not sure that‘s sustained enough to warrant membership. I do remember that he wasted a few years as a catcher before hitting his stride in the outfield. Numbers might have been more persuasive if he’d always been a CF.
So out of that list, I vote Schilling only.
No, he’s not a nice guy. But being a nice guy isn’t on the list of qualifications — see Ty Cobb, who would make Schilling look like a founding member of both the NAACP and the ADL.
No on the steroid guys — Bonds, Clemens and Palmeiro. If Mark McGwire were on the ballot, I’d say no to him for the same reason.
Murphy is close. I could be persuaded. Incredibly nice guy, numbers are close, his teammates love him. But his main success was over a relatively short period, and I’m not sure that‘s sustained enough to warrant membership. I do remember that he wasted a few years as a catcher before hitting his stride in the outfield. Numbers might have been more persuasive if he’d always been a CF.
Last edited:
I "get" all this.
I don't even argue with it because it IS a principled position.
Schilling is - to me - borderline but the post-season puts him over.
I think Murphy is a borderline case at best for the reasons you cite. In a way, he's like Don Mattingly in that he had an immense peak value but he didn't do enough on the front and back end of it to push his numbers into the "sure fire HOFer" zone. Keep in mind that I wouldn't put Jim Rice in the Hall, either - and for largely the same reasons.
This is my acid test:
1) Is he the best eligible player for the Hall of Fame who is not in the Hall?
Here, of course, is where one has to make a decision on steroids. For the purpose of this post, I'll adopt your assumption regarding the juicers and re-word the question - "Is Dale Murphy the best eligible player for the HOF who is NOT in the Hall AND IS NOT SUSPECTED OF JUICING?"
To me, no, he isn't, for a few reasons:
a) Schilling is a better overall selection
b) I'd also take Lou Whitaker (2B) ahead of Murphy
c) Murphy isn't even the best non-elected Atlanta Braves CF eligible since Andruw Jones beats him in nearly every category.
Andruw - and Murph both - fell right off the cliff, Andruw more insanely. When you compare them, Andruw played all of 16 more games than Murphy did (a pretty fair comparison) and had about 450 fewer plate appearances.
Andruw scored 5 more runs, 33 more doubles, 36 more HRs, 23 more RBI, and a slightly higher OPS.
Murph had about 280 more hits, 3 more triples, 95 more walks, a BA 11 points higher, a slightly higher OBP, and grounded into more double plays.
They were about the same stealing bases, had the exact same number of Ks, and Jones beats him on the WAR scale, 62.7 to 46.5.
Jones played for much better teams, but he also played in a harder park all but his first two months. And Murph was a fine fielder but Jones was on his way to being the greatest defensive CF in the history of game when he just plummeted.
Andruw MIGHT someday make the Hall when they re-visit him. He saved more runs (239) than any outfielder in the history of baseball, which might be enough. But he also hit .210 after age 30.
And bear in mind Murphy's number was the one I wrote in my royal blue 1980s Braves baseball hat. I love the guy, I just can't see him as the best eligible player at this point.
I also think Luis Tiant belongs ahead of Murphy as well.
2) Is he the best player at his position eligible who is not in the Hall?
I just covered that.
Even adjusting the offensive numbers, Murph doesn't beat Andruw overall.
He might at this point, however, be second.
I like the idea of the best eligible player not already in the Hall.
A lot of people would say Riggs Stephenson (played in the Ruth era, lifetime .336 hitter over a 14-year career), but I think that ship sailed when a campaign several years long failed to garner the necessary votes. Apparently, he was a great hitter, but a liability in the field, and that's probably what kept him out.
Regarding Clemens, there's also the inconvenient affair with Mindy McCready that started when she was 15 and he was the married father of two and almost 30.
I know there are a lot of unfaithful husbands in the Hall. But jiminy, when they're also child molesters, that's just several bridges too far.
Last edited:
Yeah, Stephenson's stats are inflated by the era in which he played.
He might have had a chance back before sabermetrics, but he was a "run-of-the-mill" outfielder who hit what they hit (and he's considered to have the worst throwing arm of any left fielder in the 30s, too).
He was a good player, but he's not going.
I think we have to work through the "best qualified" candidates first rather than "well, he's qualified but" candidates.
The Harold Baines one still sticks in my craw, though. Of all the selections when I'm old enough to remember, THAT ONE was so egregious I nearly poked my eye out when my brother texted me. I figured he was playing one of his jokes on me.
On Clemens...I honestly doubt the McCready affair is going to hurt him, but I could be wrong. Clemens lost a lot of support when it became clear he was basically like Barry Bonds right down to the surly personality only a white dude. His bullying of Brian McNamee in public with a tape recording may go down as the "I'm not here to talk about the past" moment of Clemens's post-MLB career.
To this day, I'm not sure I believe him when he says he didn't want to come out of Game Six of the 1986 World Series, either. Everyone blistered (pardon the pun) McNamara for pulling him, but I can absolutely believe he was a coward who wanted out of the game, I can also believe he really was unable to go on, and I can believe he's a phony tough guy, too.
(Not sure it matters - the Sox blew that one horridly).
Here's a fun one:
Pitcher A - 165-87, 2396 K, 817 BB, 2.76 ERA, 3 World Series rings in 4 appearances, 3 CYA (48.9 WAR)
Pitcher B - 170-91, 1778 K, 633 BB, 3.29 ERA, 2 World Series rings in 4 appearances, 1 CYA (47.8 WAR)
Pitcher A is in the Hall, pitcher B never came close.
Yes, pitcher B has a much higher ERA - because he played in a hitter's era after the DH was added.
Pitcher A has more Ks - because he played in a time of a larger strike zone.
Pitcher B also had more to contend with because they added division pennants, and it's much harder to win in a 12-team league than in an 8 or 10-team league, which is what Pitcher A had.
Should Pitcher B be in the Hall of Fame on this basis?
Pitcher A - 165-87, 2396 K, 817 BB, 2.76 ERA, 3 World Series rings in 4 appearances, 3 CYA (48.9 WAR)
Pitcher B - 170-91, 1778 K, 633 BB, 3.29 ERA, 2 World Series rings in 4 appearances, 1 CYA (47.8 WAR)
Pitcher A is in the Hall, pitcher B never came close.
Yes, pitcher B has a much higher ERA - because he played in a hitter's era after the DH was added.
Pitcher A has more Ks - because he played in a time of a larger strike zone.
Pitcher B also had more to contend with because they added division pennants, and it's much harder to win in a 12-team league than in an 8 or 10-team league, which is what Pitcher A had.
Should Pitcher B be in the Hall of Fame on this basis?
I don't dispute it I just think it is completely irrelevant. Do you know how many people in all of the Big 3 HOF's (NBA, MLB, NFL) benefitted statistically from being on "better teams"? My god at the examples that could be given of people whose statistics were due in part to "being on better teams". That's why I think it's irrelevant.
You can't penalize a player for natural across the board changes in the game. Which your #1 falls direclty into that. Again, there's natural changes in all sports (better equipment, ball park changes, rule changes, golf courses getting smaller, bigger, etc.) that apply to everyone who plays during that time. All the homeruns hit out of rightfield at Yankee stadium, are we deducting those hr's from the players who are in the hall of fame in which those homeruns are a part of their HOF numbers just because you had other players who never got the opportunity to hit there? I don't think so.
Regarding your #2 and #3, the steroid era produced more players hitting 30 plus homeruns which would mean more runs produced by those players that otherwise would not have, which watered down McGriffs numbers through that time period. That wasn't a natural change in the game, it was an illegal substance that gave players the strength to generate the power they otherwise wouldn't have, kept players at a peak level of health for an entire season, avoiding the natural wear and tear of a 162 game season, it also kept older players in their prime longer. Could you imagine giving Hank Aaron an additional 3-5 years in his prime?
A person does not have to be considered the "best player in the game" to be worthy of the HOF. McGriff was one of the best all-around hitters in the game for years and went through the bulk of his career (both with the Braves and Blue Jays) where he was one of the most feared hitters in the game. The Braves didn't go out and make it a point to get him because they liked the way Chris Berman said his name on Sports Center after a HR. He was an elite hitter for most of his career and that is reflected in why his WAR is higher than Murphy's, even with Murphy's 5 gold gloves to McGriff's zero. Again, I would have loved to see how he would have been viewed as a hitter if not having to compete against steroid hitters.
I think you're taking this too personally. I simply do not agree with all of the criteria you're using to justify your opinion. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. No one is saying or suggesting you're falsifying information, I just think that some of your "evidence", and "contextualizing" is completely irrelevant, in my opnion. That's it. I've discussed those items and why I think so above. Your opinion isn't an authority or absolute, it's an opinion, regardless of how much you think of it.
Where did I say I'd take McGriff over Hernandez? I never did. I think it is a travesty Hernandez isn't already in the HOF. I've been a Keith Hernandez advocate for the HOF for years. I pointed out Hernandez to show that if Gold Gloves carried as much weight with being in the HOF as you were trying to say, then he'd looooong been in there because he won 11 of them. But the reality is, and always has been, "hitting" is sexier and has had more importance placed on it than an elite fielder. You have some exceptions, like Ozzie Smith, but I do wonder if in today's game if Ozzie's defensive prowess would be enough to put him in the HOF as it did during the era he played. My guess is, no and that is a shame.
Again, I think you're taking this waaay too personal and to a level that I'm not. I just don't agree with some of your "reasons" and that's okay. There isn't a universally agreed upon and accepted set of criteria, whether it be raw stats or a method of contextualizations that include a million "what if's" and "if this would or if this wouldn't haves" to compare players across eras to come to an absolute decision on who's "Better". We all pick the ones we want to use and I just disagree with some of yours. That's it. In my opinion, both Murphy and McGriff deserve to be in the HOF, for different reasons, but both are deserving, nonetheless.
I'm done with this conversation, anything beyond this point will become more unproductive than it already has...
McGriff gets the call.
www.espn.com
McGriff elected to HOF; Bonds, Clemens left out
Former slugger Fred McGriff was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame on Sunday, with Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Curt Schilling denied once again.
www.espn.com
And we now have Scott Rollen joining McGriff for induction this summer.
Sadly, the Hall has become a sick joke.
Sadly, the Hall has become a sick joke.
My god, Buster Olney - who is a SMART guy - advocated Joey Votto for the Hall today.
"Because his WAR is...."
Jeez, he's one guy I never thought would do that.
Joey. Votto.
You've got to be kidding me.
"Because his WAR is...."
Jeez, he's one guy I never thought would do that.
Joey. Votto.
You've got to be kidding me.
Adrian Beltre must not be eligible yet because I don't know how the hell you pick Scott Rolen for the HOF before him??
Btw I've NEVER heard Rolen's name and thought 'Yeah he's a HOF'er'
Of course he has the stink of Philly all over him so maybe that's why...lol
Beltre will go in next year, no doubt, in his first year eligible.
Bill James is arguing otherwise on Rolen, and I respect the guy but jeez......
Rolen got 10.2% of the vote in his first-year and is now the guy holds the record for having the lowest vote total his first year on the ballot and yet being elected by the writers (others have had lower and been elected by the Vets Committee, who has made the process a bigger joke). And all this appeal to WAR, as if it shuts off any argument otherwise is atrocious.
Here's my thing: I'm old enough to remember Graig Nettles, who was a VERY GOOD player, but whom I wouldn't consider a HOFer. And if you look at their "old school stats," you can argue that Rolen is better than Nettles - but the WAR (which is what everyone is appealing to in this evaluation) is 70.1 (Rolen) vs 68.0 (Nettles), not exactly a major difference. And for those who want to say, "Yeah, but Nettles only won 2 Gold Gloves," OF COURSE - because BROOKS ROBINSON was still playing during Graig's first ten years in the league, and Brooks is the greatest fielding third baseman of all-time.
I just don't know about this one. It's not Harold Baines but jeez.
I can understand picking up support as years go by, but I cannot for the life of me understand how a guy who had nearly 90% of the voters NOT choose him his first year somehow in just six years that he didn't play get good enough to be voted in. I understand MCGRIFF - I don't agree with it, but I understand it (one can argue, after all, McGriff would have topped the 500 HR mark without the 1994-95 strike - and he would have plus he was clean).
I don't understand how you go from "barely enough support to remain on the ballot" to "HOF" in 6 years.
Here's my thing: I'm old enough to remember Graig Nettles, who was a VERY GOOD player, but whom I wouldn't consider a HOFer. And if you look at their "old school stats," you can argue that Rolen is better than Nettles - but the WAR (which is what everyone is appealing to in this evaluation) is 70.1 (Rolen) vs 68.0 (Nettles), not exactly a major difference. And for those who want to say, "Yeah, but Nettles only won 2 Gold Gloves," OF COURSE - because BROOKS ROBINSON was still playing during Graig's first ten years in the league, and Brooks is the greatest fielding third baseman of all-time.
I just don't know about this one. It's not Harold Baines but jeez.
I can understand picking up support as years go by, but I cannot for the life of me understand how a guy who had nearly 90% of the voters NOT choose him his first year somehow in just six years that he didn't play get good enough to be voted in. I understand MCGRIFF - I don't agree with it, but I understand it (one can argue, after all, McGriff would have topped the 500 HR mark without the 1994-95 strike - and he would have plus he was clean).
I don't understand how you go from "barely enough support to remain on the ballot" to "HOF" in 6 years.
Btw - the Yankee fans AGAIN predictably turned up with "But Don Mattingly has go to in!"
What a bunch of losers those idiots are. Had Mattingly kept up his 1984-88 pace for 4-5 more years, he'd have made it. He WAS perhaps the best player (certainly best 1B) in the game during those years - but injuries (sadly) did him in.
What a bunch of losers those idiots are. Had Mattingly kept up his 1984-88 pace for 4-5 more years, he'd have made it. He WAS perhaps the best player (certainly best 1B) in the game during those years - but injuries (sadly) did him in.
Yeah Mattingly was incredible for a 6 year period in the Mid 80s but his Back issues (If I remember right) took away his power hitting around 1990 or so and reduced him to a 'Good' player for the rest of his career.
There have been a LOT of guys with great 6-7 year peaks and it's just not HOF worthy for that alone.
Though I agree if he doesn't get hurt then he probably puts up HOF stats. Even robbed of his power he still hit around .290 for the rest of his career.
Andruw Jones is a fine example.
Btw, look at this - because these guys were teammates for six years:
Player A - 16 years (WAR 47.7) - 2452 H, 382 HR, .298, 1249 R, 1451 RBI, 2x Silver Slugger, 1 MVP
Player B - 17 years (WAR 50.2) - 1960 H, 306 HR, .283, 1063 R, 1111 RBI, 1 MVP, 1 batting title, 4x GG
Player C - 20 years (WAR 67.2) - 2446 H, 385 HR, .272, 1470 R, 1384 RBI, 2x Silver Slugger, 8x GG
Player A is in the Hall of Fame, the other two are not.
Don't be misled by Player C having better career stats than Player A on one account - he went to the plate 1500 more times. Of course, you could counterargue that Player C did that because:
a) he was a substantially better defensive player (8 Gold Gloves to none)
b) C played until he was 39 while A started a year later and ended his career washed up at 36.
In fact, at both ages 35 and 36, Player C finished 4th and 9th in the MVP voting. Oh - and despite the fact Player A was the only one who got any support for the Hall...when they were all on the same team in 1978, Player A was the FOURTH BEST OUTFIELDER on the team (to be fair, he did play every game and was in the outfield for 114 out of 163 games - because the first baseman was hurt).
If you haven't figured it out, these are Jim Rice (A), Fred Lynn (B), and Dwight Evans (C).
The baseball HOF has become the "Hall of the very good". Since Rolen's HOF announcement, there has been A LOT of pretty heated discussion of it on a national level and his election has drawn A LOT of criticism. IMO, one of the things that may be lost in plain sight is in the name itself, the Hall of FAME, which ironically enough, Rolen didn't have during his career.
Last edited:
I'm torn on Rolen, partly because he's nowhere close to the worst selection and also because THIRD BASE is the hardest position on the field to consider for the Hall. You can be a lousy batter at second and especially at short just so long as you're a fielding dynamo and you get in, but at third you have to be BOTH a slugger AND a slick fielder. Rolen DID win 8 Gold Gloves at third so he was clearly a great fielder.
Rolen was a good player, and we do have to remember his career occurs almost parallel that of Chipper Jones, so there was no way he could have been the BEST third baseman at the time. On the other hand, when I look at his comps, Ron Santo is the only guy in the Hall - and he was wrongly overlooked by the voters. Rolen's comps include Matt Holiday, Paul O'Neill, Shawn Green, Bobby Bonilla, Reggie Smith, Fred Lynn, and Ellis Burks. NONE of those guys are HOFers although Lynn would have been if he hadn't been hurt so much.
After Harold Baines though......btw.....every HORRIBLE selection to the Hall has always been made by the Veterans Committee, NEVER by the writers. And yet you'd think that committee consisting of players and managers would know more about who was good.
Wood Pellet Grills that are Bigger, Hotter, Heavier. | Pit Boss® Grills
TideFans may receive compensation if you purchase from Pit Boss.