2014 HoF ballot

[2wins87]

Arbitrary. I think that the Hall of Fame should be exclusive. There are 76 players with career WAR > 75. This seems like a good number. Drop it down to 65 and it doubles to 134. 60 you got 177. 55, 227. 50, 295. And you have HOFers with WARs in the 20s like Freddie Lindstrom and Ray Schalk (and his career .656 OPS and 83 OPS+). Travesty.

 

Just looking for an objective criterium that is better that the "because I feel this way" that happens today. And I believe that the Hall of Fame should be very exclusive and only for the few very best.

 

Johnny Bench is in with 75.2, Paul Molitor too. The WAR rankings are here.

 

I understand the sentiment that in many cases the Hall is not nearly exclusive enough. But you are arguing for a Hall of Players-Better-than-an-Arbitrary-Threshold-in-Value-as-Determined-by-a-Very-Good-Yet-Still-Imperfect-Measure-of-Value. And this has already been done with more rigor. I think WAR is a good starting place, and don't get me wrong, your method is better than what the writers have actually done in the past and are doing now, but you definitely have to consider the entire story of a player's career, not just their WAR.

 

And my biggest problem with your cutoff is that its the same for catchers and everyone else. You can't honestly believe that Johnny Bench is the only catcher ever who deserves to be in the HOF.

 

Anyway my ballot would be:

Maddux

Clemens

Schilling

Mussina

Glavine

Bonds

Bagwell

Piazza

Thomas

Biggio

 

There are a few more on the ballot that are deserving, but those are my first ten. I think the backlog is going to get a lot worse in the next few years as lots of deserving players split the votes of some writers, while others refuse to vote for anyone ever associated with steroids. I would not be surprised if the Hall made some changes to the selection process within the next 5 years.

[Boom Boom]

Maddux, Glavine, Biggio, Thomas, Piazza, and Bagwell all should go in IMO. Bonds and Clemens should be shoe-ins but for the PED thing, so we'll see where that goes.

[DAM DC Twins Fans]

I will never understand this thinking. A guy is a hall of famer, or he's not. This determining which ballot to choose crap is complete BS. I truly think any writer who states such a comment should permanently lose his HOF vote and possibly his BBWAA membership.

 

I am an older guy (a grandpa actually) and a traditionalist. I firmly believe that first ballot election to HOF is special and should be reserved for the truly elite like Mays, Musial, Aaron etc. This year that is Greg Maddox--arguably the best pitcher of the past 30 years.

 

I also believe that steroids shouldn't disqualify the truly elite (Bonds and Clemons) who were so far above the rest. I know I am in the minority here.

 

My ballot--Maddox, Clemons, Bonds, Biggio, and Morris (hard choice but most wins in the 90s). That's it. Next year add the Big Hurt and Glavine.

 

As Thyrlos says--it is the HOF of the very good not the mediocre.

[Thrylos]

 

And my biggest problem with your cutoff is that its the same for catchers and everyone else. You can't honestly believe that Johnny Bench is the only catcher ever who deserves to be in the HOF..

 

But WAR does indeed have a strong positional component that really favors Catchers, so it is taken into account. I have no issues with the Hall having commemorations of moments (like every no-hitter and perfect game and triple play) and lists of the 10 best on each position or whatever and commemorations of great games (like Morris' game 7). And it does. Maybe it should extend it more. But it does not need to induct all those mediocre to very good players to do this.

[steve]

It's a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of WAR. Entry shouldn't be governed by any one statistic, especially such a new, synthetic one that different people calculate in different ways.

 

Those who have distorted the record book by using PEDs get to keep the records, and the money, but that's all.

[Seth Stohs]

It's a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of WAR.

 

100% agree!

[Seth Stohs]

I looked at the list of candidates and found that I would somehow vote for 14 players. I don't know how I would get it down to ten, and there were actually 2-3 others that I think are very worthy.

 

The No-Brainers for me: Maddux, Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Piazza, Biggio, McGwire, Kent, Thomas,

Also would vote for: Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmiero, Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Fred McGriff.

Then I believe that these guys are also Hall of Fame caliber, but a notch below the above: Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina,

 

Tough ballot!

[Willihammer]

I'll concede that a Hall of Fame with a Jack Morris 10 inning world series game 7 shutout display and a Mark McGwire-Sammy Sosa HR chase display could be a heck of a lot more interesting than one with say, Rafael Palmeiro... hitting a HR in another hopeless TX playoff loss.

 

edit: Out of curiosity, has anyone actually visited the Hall? I have not.

[ericchri]

Jeff Bagwell

Craig Biggio

Barry Bonds

Roger Clemens

Tom Glavine

Greg Maddux

Edgar Martinez

Mike Piazza

Tim Raines

Frank Thomas

 

 

I could easily vote for 15 or so of these. It will be interesting to see how many make it in this year. Hopefully it's at least 3 or 4, cause the ballot is getting really crowded.

[Jim Crikket]

I will never understand this thinking. A guy is a hall of famer, or he's not. This determining which ballot to choose crap is complete BS. I truly think any writer who states such a comment should permanently lose his HOF vote and possibly his BBWAA membership.

 

While I tend to agree that "a guy is a hall of famer or he's not," I'm not quite as adamant as you seem to be.

 

I think we will need to show increasing tolerance this year and perhaps for many years to come, simply because of the size of the ballot starting this year. A quick look at the ballot and I've got at least 15 players that I could support. But if I can only vote for 10, then there WILL be worthy players I have to leave off my ballot this year. Based on your philosophy, I could never vote for them in the future when there may be room on my 10-spot ballot? I don't agree with that at all.

 

I will also say that I strongly disagree with using any one single criteria for determining who should be immortalized. It's the Hall of FAME and fame is subjective by nature.

 

As for not voting for PED users, I'm not sure any of us should be holding ourselves out as the morality police. I know I shouldn't. I also believe the BBWAA has no business considering themselves the "cheating police." Isn't Mitch Albom still a member of the BBWAA? If so, that says all we need to know about the BBWAA's own tolerance of "cheating."

[biggentleben]

Why, because Glavine was a Brave? It's an honor to be inducted on the first ballot, why does everyone have to get in that way? Why wouldn't the ballot be one and done for every player then? I'd vote Glavine in first ballot, but I don't think not doing so is nearly as grevious as you suggest.

 

It has nothing to do with Glavine, but thanks for assuming my baseball integrity is so shallow as to only be worried about my team (especially a guy who isn't exactly still on the best terms with the organization after things he said when leaving to the Braves' biggest rival).

 

It has everything to do with a guy is either a hall of famer or he's not. The early ballots were making up for nearly a century of baseball having passed already, so there were many guys who didn't get in on first ballot because of that. As it stands currently, that should never be an issue. A guy is in or he's not. Not that tough. Slighting a guy for one year for some sort of "elite" principal is old guard useless.

[biggentleben]

I think we will need to show increasing tolerance this year and perhaps for many years to come, simply because of the size of the ballot starting this year. A quick look at the ballot and I've got at least 15 players that I could support. But if I can only vote for 10, then there WILL be worthy players I have to leave off my ballot this year. Based on your philosophy, I could never vote for them in the future when there may be room on my 10-spot ballot? I don't agree with that at all.

 

You're misunderstanding my statement. My issue has nothing to do with those who vote 10 and still have more they'd like to vote in. I'm in the same boat. My issue is those who do not have a full 10 voted in and yet leave off some first-year guys because "they can't get in on the first year". That's what I have strong issues with. If you have 15 you want tovote in and only 10 spots, you vote for 10 this year, and if they all did get in, you'd vote for the other 5 next year.

[Jim Crikket]

You're misunderstanding my statement. My issue has nothing to do with those who vote 10 and still have more they'd like to vote in. I'm in the same boat. My issue is those who do not have a full 10 voted in and yet leave off some first-year guys because "they can't get in on the first year". That's what I have strong issues with. If you have 15 you want tovote in and only 10 spots, you vote for 10 this year, and if they all did get in, you'd vote for the other 5 next year.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I agree that withholding a vote for an obviously worthy player in his first year of eligibility just because it's his first year is simply wrongheaded thinking to me, as well. If that was your sole point with regard to "he's in or he isn't," then OK.

 

There are others, for me anyway, for whom five years after retirement may not be enough time to provide the context to judge a player. Maybe it's a player who spent most of his best years with a small market team or just really bad teams that kept him from getting my attention the way he would have otherwise. Players that, over time and upon further reflection, measure up better than I thought they did immediately upon showing up on the ballot.

 

If we aren't going to allow for voters to change their minds about a guy, we shouldn't have the 15 year eligibility. If you don't go in within the first few years, that's it.

[nicksaviking]

It has nothing to do with Glavine, but thanks for assuming my baseball integrity is so shallow as to only be worried about my team (especially a guy who isn't exactly still on the best terms with the organization after things he said when leaving to the Braves' biggest rival).

 

It has everything to do with a guy is either a hall of famer or he's not. The early ballots were making up for nearly a century of baseball having passed already, so there were many guys who didn't get in on first ballot because of that. As it stands currently, that should never be an issue. A guy is in or he's not. Not that tough. Slighting a guy for one year for some sort of "elite" principal is old guard useless.

 

But why is it useless? Doesn't it help set Willie Mays, Ted Williams and Nolan Ryan in their own elite class? For those that think the HOF is too inclusive doesn't it help celebrate the very elite from the guys who's merits will always be debated?

[biggentleben]

But why is it useless? Doesn't it help set Willie Mays, Ted Williams and Nolan Ryan in their own elite class? For those that think the HOF is too inclusive doesn't it help celebrate the very elite from the guys who's merits will always be debated?

 

And the true elitists would put Nolan Ryan nowhere near Mays and Williams.

[Pius Jefferson]

Mike Mussina isn't getting nearly the respect that he deserves. Compare his overall numbers with Tom Glavine. The numbers besides wins are very comparable and in a few instances Mussina was better. Please note that both pitchers would be on my ballot.

[2wins87]

But WAR does indeed have a strong positional component that really favors Catchers, so it is taken into account. I have no issues with the Hall having commemorations of moments (like every no-hitter and perfect game and triple play) and lists of the 10 best on each position or whatever and commemorations of great games (like Morris' game 7). And it does. Maybe it should extend it more. But it does not need to induct all those mediocre to very good players to do this.

 

It does have a positional adjustment, but it's also a counting stat. Because of the physical demands of catching, catchers don't play as many games in a season as other position players, even if they stay healthy, and they generally don't play as many seasons. That's not taken into account in the positional adjustment, and I don't think that should be a hinderance to getting the best catchers into the Hall.

[Thor]

Biggio

Maddux

Morris

Piazza

Raines

eventually I would vote for Glavine, Thomas and Walker but not yet.

 

Because this got a little run I will explain. Maddux, Biggio and Piazza have to be on my ballot and Raines and Morris get my vote every time they are on the ballot regardless of what I think their chances are. No way Thomas or Glavine go off the ballot and I doubt that Walker ever gets in but I might vote for him just to keep him on and see where it leads. I won't ever vot for the PED crowd so that tarnishes a lot of players. Really IMHO there are only 7 that should go in.

[gil4]

I'm not sure how well WAR compares across generations. For example, I don't think Ruth was THAT much better than Williams (183.8 vs. 123.2). I think that with the larger talent pool and improved training methods, the difference between the best and replacement level has been shrinking over time. I know there are more teams, but the increased population, the integration or the game, and internationalization have more than offset it.

 

Another (bigger) problem is career WAR is basically as counting stat. Looking at who would be in vs who would be out should give you some pause. If Jeter retires now, he's out. Berra' out. Koufax is out - he's in line behind Jimmy Key, Jamie Moyer, and Kenny Rogers. If your methodology says Koufax should be waiting in line behind Kenny Rogers to get into the Hall, you need a new methodology.

[Seth Stohs]

Because this got a little run I will explain. Maddux, Biggio and Piazza have to be on my ballot and Raines and Morris get my vote every time they are on the ballot regardless of what I think their chances are. No way Thomas or Glavine go off the ballot and I doubt that Walker ever gets in but I might vote for him just to keep him on and see where it leads. I won't ever vot for the PED crowd so that tarnishes a lot of players. Really IMHO there are only 7 that should go in.

 

So, how do you know who is and isn't part of the PED crowd? I mean, by voting for him, you're assuming Biggio didn't, but do you know? How do you know Maddux didn't? OR Morris?

[nicksaviking]

So, how do you know who is and isn't part of the PED crowd? I mean, by voting for him, you're assuming Biggio didn't, but do you know? How do you know Maddux didn't? OR Morris?

 

I don't have any problem with voters basing their decisions on assumptions. I don't think Thomas, Biggio or Maddox were cheats, but if voters did that's just fine. After all, they could have blown the whistle on those that were but failed to do so. I'm not advocating excluding everyone from this period, but I wouldn't fault someone who did. Even the clean guys are culpable considering they let this happen and we're too cowardly to speak out.

[biggentleben]

I don't have any problem with voters basing their decisions on assumptions. I don't think Thomas, Biggio or Maddox were cheats, but if voters did that's just fine. After all, they could have blown the whistle on those that were but failed to do so. I'm not advocating excluding everyone from this period, but I wouldn't fault someone who did. Even the clean guys are culpable considering they let this happen and we're too cowardly to speak out.

 

Then the writers should also exclude themselves from voting. They had more access than anyone but the players themselves to the activities of the clubhouse, and many writers have come out discussing the covering up that ALL writers did at that time because their readers didn't care about steroids originally because of the big numbers and then even when they turned against steroids, it was only on the players who had poor personality reputations that people wanted to hear about, not that a guy hit 30 home runs for 10 years with steroids, but the guy who hit 70 one season or hit 50+ five seasons and denied usage.

 

The writers are as much to blame for the steroid era as the CBA, yet they now believe they hold some moral authority to keep out a guy like Jeff Bagwell or Mike Piazza because they MIGHT have used. Greenies are punishable (like steroids, they were always illegal, but they had no punishment associated with them), yet you don't hear anyone coming down on the careers of Hank, Willie, and the Mick because of their widely known use of greenies during their careers. It's a BS power trip the writers are pulling right now.

 

You cannot assume one way or another, and if you didn't report it when you knew, you cannot base a vote on that. You have to simply vote based on the finality of the numbers and "fame" of the player in his own era. In an era where many hitters finished over 500 home runs, perhaps that's not the magic number. Perhaps it's sustained OPS+ and defensive reputation instead of the absurd counting numbers. Perhaps it's measuring something like WPA rather than counting numbers that became inflated in the era, but no matter what the method, because writers were too cowardly to report on who was using in the heyday of steroids, they have lost the ability to be revisionist and keep out anyone based on PED usage. You need to go by the player put in front of you, and PEDs, like greenies, need not be part of that evaluation.

[biggentleben]

Mike Mussina isn't getting nearly the respect that he deserves. Compare his overall numbers with Tom Glavine. The numbers besides wins are very comparable and in a few instances Mussina was better. Please note that both pitchers would be on my ballot.

 

Entirely agreed, though he'll have a few things working against him. First, Yankee bias/overload in that many people actively vote against those who have their majority career with the Yankees. He was also often the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher in the Yankee rotation while he was on the team, so he ends up being overlooked as he wasn't the "ace" of his own staff.

 

The major downfall for Mussina is the upcoming classes. Maddux/Glavine in this class, but then Randy Johnson, Pedro, and Smoltz next year as well. After that, there's maybe one pitcher a year that will get some consideration, so he might have more luck then. The tough part is the overall classes each season:

 

2015 - Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Gary Sheffield, John Smoltz (and everyday Eddie!)

2016 - Ken Griffey, Jr., Trevor Hoffman, Billy Wagner

2017 - Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Vlad Guerrero, Jorge Posada, Tim Wakefield

2018 - Chipper Jones, Jim Thome, Scott Rolen, Omar Vizquel

2019 - Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte, Todd Helton

[nicksaviking]

because writers were too cowardly to report on who was using in the heyday of steroids' date=' they have lost the ability to be revisionist and keep out anyone based on PED usage. You need to go by the player put in front of you, and PEDs, like greenies, need not be part of that evaluation.[/quote']

 

sportswriters may not be ethical, but to claim their silence negates the harm the steroid stain caused our game is wrong. They cheated, they knew they were cheating and they knew if they got caught their entry into the HOF would be compromised. They don't get a pass now. I don't like the non active sportswriters having votes, but I prefer it to fans who would vote based more on sentimentality and hero worship.

[iastfan112]

Bagwell

Biggio

Bonds

Clemens

Maddux

Piazza

Thomas

Mussina

Schilling

Glavine

[biggentleben]

sportswriters may not be ethical, but to claim their silence negates the harm the steroid stain caused our game is wrong. They cheated, they knew they were cheating and they knew if they got caught their entry into the HOF would be compromised. They don't get a pass now. I don't like the non active sportswriters having votes, but I prefer it to fans who would vote based more on sentimentality and hero worship.

 

Of course I don't want fan vote. We've seen what all star games look like, but it is highly hypocritical of the high majority of current HOF voters who were front and center and did nothing during that era. Unless someone was suspended, however, I do not feel you can use PED use against them. Assuming without MLB-backed testing is no different than if Willie Mays had been kept out because someone assumed he was using greenies or Nolan Ryan because someone assumed he was using cocaine. Both were drugs of major problem during their era and they were rumored to be inside circles that did it, so would it make sense to deny them entry? That's why I have issue with denying on assumption, especially with all-timers like Bonds and Clemens.

[Willihammer]

Mike Mussina isn't getting nearly the respect that he deserves. Compare his overall numbers with Tom Glavine. The numbers besides wins are very comparable and in a few instances Mussina was better. Please note that both pitchers would be on my ballot.

 

I'm a little surprised because the Moose was a notorious Twinskiller.

 

Conveniently he started 33 games against us and went,

 

W-L: 22-6

IP: 230.1

ERA: 3.09

SO: 186

BB: 53

WHIP: 1.168

HR allowed: 16

OPS against: .656

[Willihammer]

Some other stats I think are interesting.

 

http://i.imgur.com/Lq7Tmvs.jpg

* = 1st year available is 1988, so Morris gets shorted by some of these because he was already 33 by then.

 

Also, Clemens threw approximately 750 IP from 1984-1987, but he seems none the worse for wear.

[North Dakota Twins Fan]

I think the steroid era has overshadowed players who are worthy like Fred Mcgriff (493 homeruns). Hitting 500 homeruns used to be a BIG deal. Jack Morris won more games in the 1980's then any other pitcher. When it comes to steriods I look at each case differently.

 

Craig Biggio

Tom Glavine

Greg Maddux

Fred Mcgriff

Jack Morris

Tim Raines

Lee Smith

Frank Thomas

Alan Trammell

[Seth Stohs]

but should it be a different case for everyone? In my mind, it really should be all of nothing. We can't assume the skinny types didn't do it because most of the guys that have failed tests are not the huge, power hitter types. I can't distinguish who did, or who didn't. You can't say "He's a good guy. He wouldn't." (Pettitte) You can't say he's a big power hitter or power pitcher so he must have.

 

That's a big part of why I would just vote for guys with numbers.