Baseball Hall voting, finally they are opening there eyes!

Remove all ads!

Well, the Hawk got in, deservedly so, but Hopefully next year will be Byleven's year. He is 5th all time in Strikeouts for crying out loud and had the sweetest Curveball ever seen in the game and threw it and threw it. I have liked alot of articles written lately, especially by Jayson Stark and Jim Caple. I'm not completely sold on Raines making the Hall, though I like him as a player more than Lou Brock, who is in. I also think Edgar should be in, but that is just me. He was definitely the BEST hitter of his day. Mattingly is another who should be a HoFer with a MVP, Batting title and a slew of Gold Gloves. Too bad he played on teh lousy Yankee teams of the late 80's and early 90s. Alomar is borderline to me and spitting on the Ump lowers him in my eyes, but I think he gets elected next year either way. Jack Morris should also be a Hall of Famer. He was the dominant pitcher of the 80's in the A.L.

As for the whole Steriod non-sense, I would vote for McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro. Baseball has changed over the last few years. Pitchers take Roids just like hitters, so the advantage is negligible. I once saw an interview with Bob Gibson. He was in his 60s and stood at home plate in St.Louis. He chucked a baseball over the centerfield fence from there. He said in his day you couldn't do that as a player, that the balls of today are lighter and fly alot farther. That told me something about the league of today...

Here is my list of recently retired that should be elected in the future....

Clemens
R. Johnson
Maddux
Glavine
Bagwell
Biggio
F. Thomas
Bonds
Kent
Lofton
Piazza
Mussina
Schilling

 

Haven't been paying much attention to the voting this year, but I definitely think Edgar should be in - who cares if he was only a hitter? He was a damn good one.

As for your list, I agree with all except Bonds, who should be shot for being an ass.

 

If you take a look at Edgar's OPS (on-base plus slugging) it's absolutely astounding. The guy wasn't an awful fielder (after 26 error rookie year) and was prevented from the field due to a knee injury.

Byleven should be in as well as with Robby Alomar.

You can't argue steroids as a non-factor because pitchers had them as well. The offensive production in the mid-nighties prove that batters gained the most advantage from the PED's.

 

I'm not a big fan of Alomar as a person, but he was porbably the best hitting 2nd baseman in the league over a span of about 10 years - he definitely should be in the hall.

As for Blyleven, I feel "meh" about him. I won't be upset if he gets in, but I don't think it's criminal that he's not in. For me Blyleven doesn't pass the eyeball test. By that I mean, when you saw them play, you felt like you were witnessing the best current player at his position. I never felt that way with Blyleven - I thought he was really good, but not quite great. It's difficult to articulate exactly what I mean.

I'm glad you brought up Mattingly. I'm a Yankee fan, but even I am unsure about his Hall credentials. Nowhere close to either 3,000 hits or 500 home runs - the bench marks for contact and power hitters, respectively. He may have very well been the best 1st baseman in the league, but only for about three years. Once he hurt his back, he was never quite the same player. Given the way Hall voting goes, it is very unlikely at this point that he will ever get in.

 

"Best first baseman"? Isn't that on par with "best designated hitter"? A first baseman is first and foremost a hitter -- they put him at first to minimize defensive damage elsewhere. While Albert Pujols is a fantastic first baseman (his defensive ability is well above average) he is still has nowhere near the defensive ability of an average third baseman. Hell, Johnny Bench played first base after half of one lung was removed and his knees were destroyed from behind the plate.

A first baseman gets into the hall on batting stats only, generally home runs.

 

Yes, best first baseman pretty much means best hitter (but not designated), and early on in his career, Mattingly was among the best in baseball, as he hit for power and average. While he finished with a very respectable career batting average of just over .300, his homers per year declined sharply after his back injury. He went from being a 30+ homer guy per year to about a 15 homer guy per year.

Also, while I will concede that excellent fielding ability is not a requirement for playing 1st base, gold glove winning 1st basemen are very good defensive players - they prevent infield throws from getting past them, and turn several errors into outs.

 

There is often a huge gap between "best defensive player" for a position and winning the gold glove for that position. Gold glove is a popularity contest, usually going to the player who produces offensively and is not a defensive liability.

 

Mattingly was THE best fielding 1st Baseman we will se in our lifetime. Also, he never struckout and always made contact. He hit for power, average and had no one else in that lineup to hit in front of him other than Rickey for a couple of years. Mattingly really shined in those seasons. He was the best overall 1st baseman of his time, bar none. His defensive attributes don't show how he helped a terrible infield that the Yankees put out. And those Yankee teams were not bought. They were weak other than Donny Baseball. But his back injury killed any longevity and his overall numbers. Fielding is a huge part of the game. It just doesn't show in the stats that most deem "important". To me, that is why Ozzie Smith is a definite Hall of famer. He was the best defensive player ever to play that position. Ask any pitcher or player who pitched/played against Mattingly. They will tell you he is Hall "worthy". Gold Glove is a contest now, but the rules have changed for determining the award. It wasn't for a long time.


As for Bonds, yes he is a jerky, but his numbers are so good, to me it doesn't matter. He was awesome to behold, period. And I say this even though I hated him for his arrogant attitiude when he played. I just respect the accomplishments.

 

Well, managers are not allowed to vote for their own players, so it's not strictly a popularity contest, although you are correct that it is not an objective system like one where the gold glove winner is the one who commits the fewest errors per attempt, or something like that. I still contend that the difference between an average defensive 1st baseman and a very good defensive 1st baseman is significant.

That said, I'm unsure if Mattingly is even on the ballot anymore. Once you are nominated for the hall, you stay on it for 15 years, with the caveat that you get at least 5% of people giving you a yes vote - I am unsure if Mattingly has done so. If he has fallen below 5% and has been removed from the ballot, then he has vitually no chance of ever being elected, as he could only be inducted by the seniors committee.

The one person I hope never gets into the Hall is Rafael Palmeiro. Even though he is one of just a handful of players to accumulate over 3,000 hits and 500 homers, to me he is the classic example of a compiler. Never, in all the years he played, did I consider him to be the best 1st baseman or designated hitter in the league - or even in the discussion for that matter - which I feel is a requirement for the Hall of Fame.

 

I wouldn't go that far with Mattingly, Blades. Defensively I think you can compare him to Perez, Galarraga, Bagwell, Teixeira and Pujols -- but he lacks the offense to be considered on par with that group. Keith Hernandez usually gets honors as the best defensive first baseman of all time and their careers overlapped. Hernandez is no longer eligible for induction (other than the veterans committee).

Often Mattingly and Puckett are compared. I think Puckett simply got in because we was in a weak field of selections.

 

I find that odd Aldeth. Palmeiro had a lot of monster seasons. He just never hit 60 hrs. He reminds me of Eddie Murray. Never the top hitting 1st baseman, but always amongst the league leaders. Raf had the most HRs and RBIs of the 90s. He had 9 straight seasons of at least 38 Hrs and 104 RBIs. That in itself is pretty darn good. But several of those seasons were much bigger. I always thought of him as the silent slugger when he played. Until the whole roids thing that is. But as a HUGE fan of the game, I have thought of him as a no-brainer hall of famer.

 

Give that man a prize....

 

Puckett got in because he was beloved by fans in Minnestota, Mattingly didn't have that in NY. Which is a plus for Puckett. Also, electing Puckett made for a good story with his health issues at the time. That edge is what put him over the top and gave him the needed votes to get elected.

Don't get me wrong, I see why Mattingly isn't in, but I would vote for him everytime. Just like I would of voted for Rice and Dawson from the get go. And Morris and Sutter and Blyleven. They don't have the career numbers of others, but when they played, the other players in the league gave them their due respect. To me, that what helps make them hall worthy. But that's a moot point for Mattingly, his chances are gone.

I have been a huge baseball fan since I was 6 yrs old. I have a whole slew of Jerseys, dating back to then, see the below list. I'm a collector of sorts. I think all of the retired players are Hall of Famers, except for Luzinski, Tug McGraw, Larkin and Righetti, though Luzinski was one of my favorites. He looked like a beer-league player, sorta like Stairs.

Schmidt
Carlton
Rose
Luzinski - the Bull!
Tug McGraw
Mattingly, 2 jerseys actually.
Boggs
Righetti
Valenzuela
Stargell
Edgar
Larkin
Rolen
Schilling
Howard
Hamels

 

Are you kidding me? He was loved in NY.

 

During his career, yes. But after he retired, they forgot about him. Minnesota really pushed for Puckett to get into the Hall, New Yorkers, especially their media, didn't make that push for Don.

---------- Added 2 hours, 6 minutes and 50 seconds later... ----------

As for Keith Hernandez being a better fielder, I disagree. The numbers speak for themselves there, see below. Looking outside the numbers, I have watched both players while growing up. Living in Philly, our local cable was Comcast, which provided two NY stations. I believe they were Channel 11 and 39. I was able to watch Yanks and Mets games, let alone the Phils games. I saw both of them play alot. Mattingly definitely had the better range. Both were excellent, but to me, Mattingly was superior in the field. Hernandez just had more flair to him, part of which was attitude. Mattingly was the quiet star.

Also, their best years were not at the same time. Hernandez peaked in the late 70s. Mattingly started playing in the mid 80's, peaking in the late 80's.

Hernandez
Games - 2088
Errors - 115
Field Pct - 994

Mattingly
Games - 1785
Errors - 68
Field Pct - 996

 

To jump in a bit late: I think a good defensive first baseman is the second most important fielder on the team (the first being the catcher). He controls how nearly every play ends on the field - a good first baseman, like Texeira, Youkilis, Mentkiewicz (sp), or Nick Johnson, will save their fielders a lot of errors, and that should not be underestimated.

 

I think the other thing that hurts Mattingly is that he has virtually ZERO post-season games. While baseball is certainly a team sport, the fact that the Yankees made the playoffs exactly once - in his final year when he was well past his prime - during his career hurts him.

And his total numbers really compare quite well to Puckett. In terms of batting average, career hits, career home runs, and career RBIs, their numbers are very similar (Puckett ahead in some, Mattingly in others), and they both played in 12 full Major League seasons, so it's not like one of them compiled their stats in a much shorter time frame. The biggest difference is that Puckett was part of two Twins teams that won the WS, while Mattingly never even played in a WS.

 

On a side note I think Mark McGuire may have actually helped his chances today.

 

Maybe. While it's nice that he has come out to talk about his career, I feel it wasn't necessary, unless it helped him and his family get past something that was bothering them. If that is hte case, then good for McGwire.

He was one of the obvious steroid-users. We all know it. So if the sports writers that haven't voted for him start to now, I denounce their right to vote as a lifelong fan of the game. If they only wanted the guy to humiliate himself in order to get their vote, IMO, that is effed up. They are suppose to be voting upon his time as a player. What he does now should have no factor in the voting system.

 

He should see a slight bump from the writers, but 15 years will come and go and no one tied to steroids will get in -- only those who have lied through their teeth and never been caught will get in (and those few great ones like Ken Griffey Jr.).

He may get in with the veteran's committee though.