Jump to content

Biggio, Smoltz, Martinez, Johnson - HOF


TonySoprano

Recommended Posts

I think by putting seven in over the last two years the backlog should be cleared up in the next couple of ballots. Only one sure thing next season so there is no reason they can't put in a couple guys that have been waiting. By the 2018 ballot things should be cleared up to a large extent.

There will still be the problem that they are electing players from a pool of 30 teams using the precedents and standards and procedures they used for a 16-team universe. There are almost twice as many good players relative to their peers. I suppose the "solution" that many here seem fine with is that the rough minimum standards for induction of more recent players will be about double what they were for earlier generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply
There will still be the problem that they are electing players from a pool of 30 teams using the precedents and standards and procedures they used for a 16-team universe. There are almost twice as many good players relative to their peers. I suppose the "solution" that many here seem fine with is that the rough minimum standards for induction of more recent players will be about double what they were for earlier generations.

If they can continue hitting 50% of ballots with 10 names on it they will be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they can continue hitting 50% of ballots with 10 names on it they will be fine.

Maybe, but I still think there's going to be a two-tiered Hall. With pre-expansion players having a gray area around 40-50 WAR and 1990-on players with a gray area closer to 70, those in the middle years somewhere in between. Obviously with a lot of individual exceptions. I don't like that. Others don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, but I still think there's going to be a two-tiered Hall. With pre-expansion players having a gray area around 40-50 WAR and 1990-on players with a gray area closer to 70, those in the middle years somewhere in between. Obviously with a lot of individual exceptions. I don't like that. Others don't care.

I don't think the entrance requirements should consist of being as good as the veterans committee's biggest mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear guys like Rosenthal complaining about needing the Hall to push back to 12 votes on a ballot. Well, guess what? Biggio and Piazza were on the ballot in 2013 and the BBWAA elected.......no one, even with 15 per ballot. If those two are HOF'ers in 2015 and maybe 2016 why not back then? One Philadelphia writer boycotted the process. Like the expression goes, point a finger and you have 4 pointed back at you. The writers need to accept some of the blame for the supposed dilemma they claim to be in.

I actually think that cutting back to 10, and limiting eligibility to 10 years, should increase the number of guys who actually get elected. The votes are less diluted that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the definition of Eckersley, who went first ballot. Do you consider him a HOF'er?

I wouldn't say that Eckersley was a failed starter. He did win 150+ as a starter, was an AS and had CY caliber seasons. I also think a lot of his HOF cred was based on playoff stuff and winning a CY and MVP.

Edited: Also I didn't realize that Frobby basically posted the same thing as I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the entrance requirements should consist of being as good as the veterans committee's biggest mistake.

The biggest VC mistakes were in the range of 20 WAR. My issue is that there are probably a dozen HOFers, some BBWAA selections, with half the career value of Kevin Brown and Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammell and Tim Raines. None of whom are getting in any time soon, if ever. I'm fine setting a rough lower limit around the 25th or maybe even 50th percentile of BBWAA selections. That probably puts you in the 50-60 WAR neighborhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest VC mistakes were in the range of 20 WAR. My issue is that there are probably a dozen HOFers, some BBWAA selections, with half the career value of Kevin Brown and Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammell and Tim Raines. None of whom are getting in any time soon, if ever. I'm fine setting a rough lower limit around the 25th or maybe even 50th percentile of BBWAA selections. That probably puts you in the 50-60 WAR neighborhood.

Rice is a recent inductee that is well under 50 WAR. Puckett is around 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • That is the big question. I had assumed it would be pretty long, especially with him wearing Cal Ripken Sr's old number and him being the consensus top prospect in Baseball. But if there's been no progress in all that playing time, and it's starting to cost us games, I don't know how the team can take the brunt of that for too long. Especially in a chase for a championship inside the toughest division in baseball.  The Front Office has surprised me before by looking like they were being patient with a guy only to suddenly option him one day without warning they would.  If we're being perfectly honest Jackson looks like a boy playing amongst men out their right now and he looks like he belongs in the minor leagues with a reset for now until he gathers up experience like Westburg and Norby, or at least as much as Henderson did. So, we will probably watch Jackson ride the bench vs Ragans tomorrow. What happens after that is something we will just have to wait and see. I'm willing to cut him some slack, but if it continues to cost us runs and games, then there's not much room for patience.
    • Hicks was a big blessing to the team--we're very lucky we got him when we did. There's no way the Cowser we saw last year could have matched what Hicks provided, even on defense and on the basepaths. You cite BABIP, but drawing 35 walks in 236 plate appearances was a huge self-earned positive.
    • I had to think about it because Adley has always been a high priority for me. He's the franchise Catcher we never had. And in my opinion, the Catcher position is the Quarterback of a Baseball team. It's that impactful of a position and you need a good one to compete for championships. But with that said, Burnes is the Ace we've been waiting for since Mussina turned coat, and his contract is up at the end of the season. He's also one of the most reliable and durable pitchers in baseball. I think we should do what we can to keep him happy and make a business deal with him to keep him an Orioles pitcher.   If you're assuming that Rodriguez or Bradish will take over the Ace role, I think you've seen enough pitching injuries this year to tell you that you can't assume that will happen. You need to make sure any one of your top 3 starters can assume the #1 spot if pressed. Timing dictates Burnes as our biggest priority to work on. With Gunnar, he might be a future MVP and I've been one of his biggest fans since the moment he was called up. But his agent is Scott Boras, so good luck getting him to agree to an extension before free agency. And on that note, you'll have Scott Boras with a conflict of interest when you're trying to sign both Gunnar Henderson and Jackson Holiday long term and they both want to play shortstop.
    • People keep talking about Norby's flawed defense, meanwhile Holliday is looking pretty bad out there. Small sample size, I guess! But how long is the leash?
    • the Royals gave us the business tonight...except for the slam by Adley...we stunk to high hell tonight...especially the pen...Akin and  Tate...they both came up small.
    • I know this isn’t the question that you asked, but my recollection is that you worked on the business side for the Orioles at some point, so I think you might be able to weigh in on this idea: do you think there are business reasons to extend a Gunnar or an Adley? I know you’re view is generally that extensions are overrated by the fanbase, but that largely seems related to the idea that you are paying for past-peak years (if I’m off base here, it wasn’t intentional—just my recollection). I tend to think that from a business standpoint, an extension for a young player would not make a material difference concerning the amount of tickets sold, revenue generated, etc. and would really just make some people on X happy, but I don’t really have anything to support that opinion.
    • The way he is pitching that's like throwing gas on a fire.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...