You Vote For The HOF... Who's In?

[O-The-Memories]

I think www.baseball-reference.com has all you'd ever want to know.

Koufax was awfully impressive during his five-year run from 62-66. But you need to account for the fact that the entire league was in the lowest-run era of nearly the last century. And Dodger Stadium with it's gigantic mound was the friendliest of all places for pitchers. The year that Koufax was 27-9, 1.73, the National League ERA was 3.61 (compared to 4.02 in what's considered a big pitcher's year in 2010), and the Dodgers won 95 games with a team OPS of .675.

Contrast this to Pedro who had sub-2.00 ERAs several years where the league ERA was nearly 5.00.

Thanks for the link. I've heard of that site but I didn't know it was so detailed. So you're saying that I'm not crazy for thinking that Pedro was a better pitcher and more sure fire HOF guy than Koufax? I think there's a lot of older fans that would scream at me for uttering something like that.

By the way, who thinks Larkin is going to get snubbed? Or rather, who else thinks he's a clear HOF guy that is seen as borderline?

[DrungoHazewood]

Thanks for the link. I've heard of that site but I didn't know it was so detailed. So you're saying that I'm not crazy for thinking that Pedro was a better pitcher and more sure fire HOF guy than Koufax? I think there's a lot of older fans that would scream at me for uttering something like that.

I think any objective analysis would point strongly towards Pedro having a longer, higher peak and more career value than Koufax. To come to the conclusion Koufax was better you'd have to basically say his extra innings per year were not so much a product of era and context, but of Koufax' abilities. Which I think is pretty ridiculous.

By the way, who thinks Larkin is going to get snubbed? Or rather, who else thinks he's a clear HOF guy that is seen as borderline?

I think he gets snubbed, it makes little or no sense as he's probably better than an average HOF shortstop, but he will get in eventually.

[brendanmdeegan]

Those of you not voting for either Jeff Bagwell or Tim Raines- why? (seriously)

My ballot:

Blyleven

Bagwell

Raines

Larkin

Raffy

[Moose Milligan]

I don't think Larkin gets in, which is a shame. Overshadowed by Ripken and Ozzie Smith in his career...when he had better offensive seasons than Cal and was a pretty great defender in his own right.

Won a ring, won an MVP, and was probably the best offensive SS in the NL during his playing days. I can't think of a better one off the top of my head.

And if the writers are so damn concerned about steroids and who was a class act and who wasn't (Belle, Alomar's spitting incident) they should look no further than Barry Larkin.

[Stotle]

I don't think Larkin gets in, which is a shame. Overshadowed by Ripken and Ozzie Smith in his career...when he had better offensive seasons than Cal and was a pretty great defender in his own right.

Won a ring, won an MVP, and was probably the best offensive SS in the NL during his playing days. I can't think of a better one off the top of my head.

And if the writers are so damn concerned about steroids and who was a class act and who wasn't (Belle, Alomar's spitting incident) they should look no further than Barry Larkin.

Agreed. Even with the points subtracted for attending the University of Michigan, Larkin should easily be a HoFer.

[Moose Milligan]

Alomar and Blyleven get in.

90% for Alomar.

Ridiculous that Bagwell didn't get in. 62% for Barry Larkin.

[Dr. FLK]

According to ESPN.com, Blyleven and Alomar are in.

[O-The-Memories]

You know, the more I think of the HOF, the more I get upset. How the heck can someone NOT vote for Bagwell at the very least.