Maddux, Glavine, Thomas elected to HOF

[gunnarthor]

You guys think Kenny Rogers makes it?

Might take a while

 

[Tubbs1518]

Greg Maddux
Frank Thomas
Mike Mussina
Tom Glavine
Craig Biggio
Mike Piazza
Curt Schilling
Barry Bonds
Larry Walker
Fred McGriff

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

You guys think Kenny Rogers makes it?

Well, even if he were worthy, there's no way you could ever vote for him because he was a dirty, dirty cheater (literally and figuratively), amirite?

Besides, he's already in the country music hall of fame. That's good enough.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Kenny Rogers is in the Country Music Hall of Fame...that should be enough for him.

Damn. Beat me to it.

 

[Tubbs1518]

Who do you guys think are locks from the 1st year guys? I see no way Maddux and Thomas don't make it.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

It's not "irrational groupthink." I suppose it depends in part on how you view being inducted into the baseball HOF. If it's a right or an honor. If it's a right, than I think you can't keep the PED guys out. If it's an honor, than you can. Just how you view it. It's not like Pete Rose isn't in the HOF, the Hall has tons of stuff about him, he just doesn't have a plaque. I happen to think that PEDs made very good players much better than they were and one result of this was to make clean player's careers look smaller. Compare Radke and Pettitte for instance. One cheated and lied about it 3 different times. The other couldn't break glass with his fastball. Yet they had similar results through their age 32 season - Radke had a slight WAR advantage and IP advantage but he had to retire with injuries. The other guy gets stupid "will he be a HOFer" columns.

Obviously, we don't ever know who was clean and who wasn't. On the other hand, this is an internet vote for the baseball HOF so it's not really that important either. If TrueNiners had found this board, he'd tell you that Bonds never took PEDs. If you don't think some player took PEDs (or that it helped him) that's fine. If you don't think PED use should be a negative factor in HOF voting, that's fine.

As to your specifics, I do think Bagwell was a PED guy and McGriff wasn't. Morris is on his last ballot and the 80s are really under represented in the Hall (another reason I voted for Raines) so I don't mind voting for him. I think Schilling was a PED guy. Glavine might have been one too for all I know but I don't think he was (he was also very underrated. He threw 1200 more innings than Schilling. He managed to be top 10 in IP and ERA+ in the same season 9x. That's really rare. My guess is that in the next few years the stat heads will start giving more weight to the value of innings pitched by saving bullpens etc and guys like Glavine and Blyleven will seen as much more valuable than they are now). Mussina had a better career than Schilling, even ignoring PED use.

But do YOU think they're worthy or not worthy? From you're post, it sounds like you would withhold votes because that's what others are doing. That's giving in to a groupthink mentality.

And just because the 80s doesn't have a lot of representation doesn't mean an unqualified player should get in. The 80s are underrepresented for unfortunate but legitmate reasons. For whatever reason, the stars of that era either got injured or simply weren't good enough for long enough. Mattingly, Gooden, Saberhagen, Keith Hernandez, Strawberry, Steib, Eric Davis, Kirk Gibson... their candidacy was derailed by injuries or other activities. You could even add Raines and Trammell to an extent, though I believe they're still very worthy. Morris, Murphy, Tony Fernandez, Julio Franco, Guerrero, Valenzuela, Hershiser, Baines, Mike Scott, Lee Smith... they simply weren't great enough for long enough.

There's still a very good sample of 80s guys: Rickey, Ozzie, Brett, Yount, Ripken, Dawson, Ryan, Boggs, Sandberg, Eckersley, Puckett, Gwynn, Winfield, Molitor, Gossage, Sutter. Like I said, I'd like to see Trammell and Raines make it some day, not to mention Whitaker, who is probably the biggest injustice from the decade since he was great enough for long enough and had no injury or drug problems. But otherwise, they've actually let a few guys in who probably didn't deserve it (Dawson, Sutter), so it balances out.

Why are you so convinced that Bagwell was dirty and McGriff was clean? The evidence against both is essentially the same: they were muscular and hit for power. I tend to lean toward the belief that McGriff was clean, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bagwell used something, but it's all speculation and that's not fair at all in the event Bagwell was clean and/or McGriff was not. Otherwise, it's an individual selectively deciding what circumstantial evidence is more legitimate. That's why you gotta just let these guys in unless you have legitimate evidence and can logically deduce that their career simply wouldn't have been the same without PEDs.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Who do you guys think are locks from the 1st year guys? I see no way Maddux and Thomas don't make it.

After last year, I have to believe only Maddux and Glavine are sure things because they were "crafty" pitchers who won 300 games. The writers are going to write dozens of columns fawning over the two of them for being clean (even though that's no guarantee) and doing it with guile rather than power. I can see it now. We're all going to need shovels to get through all the bullshit.

They crucified Piazza and Bagwell (twice) with no real proof. I gotta believe they'll paint Thomas with the same broad brush. How dare he be a naturally huge dude who can actually hit a baseball! Those people didn't exist after Canseco entered the league!

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Oh, gunnarthor... As for Glavine, his longevity and continued effectiveness is what gets him in for me. I thoroughly believe he belongs. I dont' try and take anything away from him, other than point out that his peripherals were not nearly as good as Schilling, Mussina or Smoltz. And it's not like those peripherals increased as he declined, they were simply never that great at any stage in his career. He always put a lot of baserunners on, walked a lot of guys, gave up his share of hits, and never struck many guys out. I don't agree with the correlation to Blyleven, because Blyleven was legitimately dominant on a regular basis, whereas Glavine really only had two or three years I would classify as dominant. Glavine is an overall value guy, Schilling and Smoltz are peak value guys, Blyleven and Mussina is both. I do agree that more of the less-than-informed fans who still complain about Blyleven will eventually come around once they grow to appreciate how rare a combination of durability and consistency he was.

 

[Swangin]

Think cases could be made for several, it's ridiculous to see the last HOF ceremony, then look at the this list. But curious for the those selecting Raines over Welker, what pushes him ahead in your opinion?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Think cases could be made for several, it's ridiculous to see the last HOF ceremony, then look at the this list. But curious for the those selecting Raines over Welker, what pushes him ahead in your opinion?

Walker would make my ballot if there was no limit. I think Raines was marginally better, but they were different players in different eras. For me, it's not about milestone numbers or awards. It's not about how you compare to other players in the Hall. It's about consistent dominance over your immediate peers. Raines was consistently the best player at his position in his league for a prolonged period. Walker, unfortunately, played in an era that had a lot of depth in RF. He still stood out and is worthy, IMO, but not quite as much as Raines. Walker also has the Colorado factor somewhat clouding his accomplishments, but I don't put too much weight on that.

 

[Swangin]

Walker would make my ballot if there was no limit. I think Raines was marginally better, but they were different players in different eras. For me, it's not about milestone numbers or awards. It's not about how you compare to other players in the Hall. It's about consistent dominance over your immediate peers. Raines was consistently the best player at his position in his league for a prolonged period. Walker, unfortunately, played in an era that had a lot of depth in RF. He still stood out and is worthy, IMO, but not quite as much as Raines. Walker also has the Colorado factor somewhat clouding his accomplishments, but I don't put too much weight on that.

I did mean Walker, was just reading about Welker's comments about Belichick, I'll blame it on that.

I agree with looking more at the players you are competing against during that time. With Walker I don't think that hurts him that much, for example a lot of players numbers went up a lot during the late 90's, but even with all those players numbers inflated, his were still rising above most, pretty much across the board, while still being better than most at his position defensively as well.

It's close, personally I might have Walker a little ahead of Raines, if I could only vote one. (Not completely sold) More than anything I wanted to see how much playing in Colorado had to do with people's opinion.

 

[StanMarsh51]

I did mean Walker, was just reading about Welker's comments about Belichick, I'll blame it on that.

I agree with looking more at the players you are competing against during that time. With Walker I don't think that hurts him that much, for example a lot of players numbers went up a lot during the late 90's, but even with all those players numbers inflated, his were still rising above most, pretty much across the board, while still being better than most at his position defensively as well.

It's close, personally I might have Walker a little ahead of Raines, if I could only vote one. (Not completely sold) More than anything I wanted to see how much playing in Colorado had to do with people's opinion.

The thing with Walker (which may not be the case with some others who played for the Rockies), is that he hit at a high level before he went to Coors and afterwards.

In his last 3 years with Montreal (ages 25-27), he hit .294 with a 137 OPS+, and in 2 of those 3 years finished top 10 in OPS....and with St. Louis to end his career at age 37-38 in 144 games, he hit .286 with a .134 OPS+ and 26 HR in 465 at bats.

So before and after his presumed prime in Coors, he was hitting at a high level...obviously you never presume, but to me it shows that he could hit anywhere.

 

[gunnarthor]

But do YOU think they're worthy or not worthy? From you're post, it sounds like you would withhold votes because that's what others are doing. That's giving in to a groupthink mentality.

And just because the 80s doesn't have a lot of representation doesn't mean an unqualified player should get in. The 80s are underrepresented for unfortunate but legitmate reasons. For whatever reason, the stars of that era either got injured or simply weren't good enough for long enough. Mattingly, Gooden, Saberhagen, Keith Hernandez, Strawberry, Steib, Eric Davis, Kirk Gibson... their candidacy was derailed by injuries or other activities. You could even add Raines and Trammell to an extent, though I believe they're still very worthy. Morris, Murphy, Tony Fernandez, Julio Franco, Guerrero, Valenzuela, Hershiser, Baines, Mike Scott, Lee Smith... they simply weren't great enough for long enough.

There's still a very good sample of 80s guys: Rickey, Ozzie, Brett, Yount, Ripken, Dawson, Ryan, Boggs, Sandberg, Eckersley, Puckett, Gwynn, Winfield, Molitor, Gossage, Sutter. Like I said, I'd like to see Trammell and Raines make it some day, not to mention Whitaker, who is probably the biggest injustice from the decade since he was great enough for long enough and had no injury or drug problems. But otherwise, they've actually let a few guys in who probably didn't deserve it (Dawson, Sutter), so it balances out.

Why are you so convinced that Bagwell was dirty and McGriff was clean? The evidence against both is essentially the same: they were muscular and hit for power. I tend to lean toward the belief that McGriff was clean, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bagwell used something, but it's all speculation and that's not fair at all in the event Bagwell was clean and/or McGriff was not. Otherwise, it's an individual selectively deciding what circumstantial evidence is more legitimate. That's why you gotta just let these guys in unless you have legitimate evidence and can logically deduce that their career simply wouldn't have been the same without PEDs.

I tend to be a big Hall kind of kind. As I first said, I don't think the PED thing should be so black and white but that seems to be what the voters have done so I selected my 10 with that realization in mind. Personally, with the exception of betting on baseball, I don't think anything should be an absolute ban from being in the HOF. But if I had a vote and knowing the electorate, those 10 were who I would have voted for. I do find it hard to separate some of the achievements of some guys. Would Jack Morris have been a better pitcher if he hadn't declined so much in his 30s, when Schilling started dominating? (In fairness, I have a lot of those questions, even without PEDs. I'm certain Morris was a better pitcher than Gossage or Rivera. I don't think Pedro would have been durable enough to pitch in the old 4 man pitching rotations. So the game changes and how players are viewed/valued moves with it). So I would use PED use as a reason to not vote for a border line guy. But I'd also use it as a reason to not vote on a ballot for guys if I think their are other, clean, border line guys on it. So, while I don't think Trammel was better than Bonds, I do think he's a legit borderline candidate so I'd vote for him before Bonds. But a guy like Alou (who had a really nice career) isn't borderline. This year, there happens to be 10 guys without getting into the PED guys, so I don't worry about it.

As to Morris, I don't have a problem with him getting into the HOF. I wish his ERA+ was a bit better but he pitched a ton of innings, which I really think is underrated. WAR doesn't love him but, at the same time, his fangraphs WAR is above Jim Palmer, in fewer seasons. He'd be on the lower end of pitchers in the hall but wouldn't be the worst one.

As to your last point, I just don't agree. Circumstantial evidence is real, or "legitimate," evidence. McGriff's power numbers didn't change much, just the environment. Bagwell used Andro, worked out with a trainer who was linked to steroids, defended players using steroids, said steroids wouldn't help you in baseball (while maintaining he didn't use them), had a classic roiders body, played with several known abusers and had an atypical aging pattern. Now I concede that many clean HOFers have atypical aging patters, they are after all the best of the best. But still, that's more than enough for me to think he cheated. And with a crowded ballot, I wouldn't feel the need to vote for him this year.

 

[Swangin]

The thing with Walker (which may not be the case with some others who played for the Rockies), is that he hit at a high level before he went to Coors and afterwards.

In his last 3 years with Montreal (ages 25-27), he hit .294 with a 137 OPS+, and in 2 of those 3 years finished top 10 in OPS....and with St. Louis to end his career at age 37-38 in 144 games, he hit .286 with a .134 OPS+ and 26 HR in 465 at bats.

So before and after his presumed prime in Coors, he was hitting at a high level...obviously you never presume, but to me it shows that he could hit anywhere.

I agree, I just noticed no one was adding Walker to their list, so I wanted to get a feel for others opinion, and if they were using Colorado against him?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

The thing with Walker (which may not be the case with some others who played for the Rockies), is that he hit at a high level before he went to Coors and afterwards.

In his last 3 years with Montreal (ages 25-27), he hit .294 with a 137 OPS+, and in 2 of those 3 years finished top 10 in OPS....and with St. Louis to end his career at age 37-38 in 144 games, he hit .286 with a .134 OPS+ and 26 HR in 465 at bats.

So before and after his presumed prime in Coors, he was hitting at a high level...obviously you never presume, but to me it shows that he could hit anywhere.

Absolutely, which is why I said I don't put too much weight on that for him, but I still recognize the elephant in the room.

 

[gunnarthor]

Raines was consistently the best player at his position in his league for a prolonged period.

I disagree with that. He had a great 5 year run from 83-87. But after 87, he finished top 10 in OBP once more. Never again had a top 10 WAR season. It's nearly impossible to say that he had another HOF caliber season after 87. He has a few things going for him. His decline coincided with a rise in offense so his numbers look pretty good. And he played long enough to compile a lot of good career numbers. But true HOF type seasons? Just those 5. I'd vote for him but he's really close. Non HOFers like Utley, Keith Hernandez and Tony Oliva had better and longer peaks.

 

[gunnarthor]

I agree, I just noticed no one was adding Walker to their list, so I wanted to get a feel for others opinion, and if they were using Colorado against him?

I like him. Just ran out of room on him. Still not sure he's a HOFer - he missed a lot of games - but he's certainly a real borderline guy who I can change my mind on several times. Also made over 100m in his career. Not bad.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I tend to be a big Hall kind of kind. As I first said, I don't think the PED thing should be so black and white but that seems to be what the voters have done so I selected my 10 with that realization in mind. Personally, with the exception of betting on baseball, I don't think anything should be an absolute ban from being in the HOF. But if I had a vote and knowing the electorate, those 10 were who I would have voted for. I do find it hard to separate some of the achievements of some guys. Would Jack Morris have been a better pitcher if he hadn't declined so much in his 30s, when Schilling started dominating? (In fairness, I have a lot of those questions, even without PEDs. I'm certain Morris was a better pitcher than Gossage or Rivera. I don't think Pedro would have been durable enough to pitch in the old 4 man pitching rotations. So the game changes and how players are viewed/valued moves with it). So I would use PED use as a reason to not vote for a border line guy. But I'd also use it as a reason to not vote on a ballot for guys if I think their are other, clean, border line guys on it. So, while I don't think Trammel was better than Bonds, I do think he's a legit borderline candidate so I'd vote for him before Bonds. But a guy like Alou (who had a really nice career) isn't borderline. This year, there happens to be 10 guys without getting into the PED guys, so I don't worry about it.

As to Morris, I don't have a problem with him getting into the HOF. I wish his ERA+ was a bit better but he pitched a ton of innings, which I really think is underrated. WAR doesn't love him but, at the same time, his fangraphs WAR is above Jim Palmer, in fewer seasons. He'd be on the lower end of pitchers in the hall but wouldn't be the worst one.

As to your last point, I just don't agree. Circumstantial evidence is real, or "legitimate," evidence. McGriff's power numbers didn't change much, just the environment. Bagwell used Andro, worked out with a trainer who was linked to steroids, defended players using steroids, said steroids wouldn't help you in baseball (while maintaining he didn't use them), had a classic roiders body, played with several known abusers and had an atypical aging pattern. Now I concede that many clean HOFers have atypical aging patters, they are after all the best of the best. But still, that's more than enough for me to think he cheated. And with a crowded ballot, I wouldn't feel the need to vote for him this year.

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, my friend. You can only judge a player by what they did in the time they did it. You can't play what if with the HOF.

I'm not as concerned about Morris's ERA+ or his decline or his WAR. Guys see their numbers decline as they decline, and I'm perfectly happy putting in a guy who has an incredible peak, but trails off quickly, and his overall numbers are skewed as a result. The problem is that Morris never had the incredible peak. He was outrageously inconsistent. He only had one or two or three really dominant seasons, and other than 1985-1987, never strung together a run of great years. He was Nolan Ryan without the longevity and without the thrilling highs. I loved Jack Morris, but there simply isn't a good argument to put him in.

Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if Bagwell used something, and you've obviously put a lot of research into his habits. I doubt the other voters put a fraction of that time into deliberating his case, and just assume he was a juicer because he was a strong, muscular guy, plus the fact they're just generally clueless and don't recognize what a rarely gifted player he was. He didn't hit the big milestones, so they dismiss him.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I disagree with that. He had a great 5 year run from 83-87. But after 87, he finished top 10 in OBP once more. Never again had a top 10 WAR season. It's nearly impossible to say that he had another HOF caliber season after 87. He has a few things going for him. His decline coincided with a rise in offense so his numbers look pretty good. And he played long enough to compile a lot of good career numbers. But true HOF type seasons? Just those 5. I'd vote for him but he's really close. Non HOFers like Utley, Keith Hernandez and Tony Oliva had better and longer peaks.

From 1981-1987, what LF was better than him in the National League? That's 8 years. 8 years as the top player at his position in his league. Then a number of other quality seasons in the years that followed. And FWIW, I wouldn't have a problem if Utley, Hernandez or Oliva made the HOF. I think they all have good arguments. Utley is still building his case and is close to becoming a lock.

 

[birdsonthebat]

The deciding factor for me for Raines and not Walker but base running. The stolen bases and disruption that Raines caused when he reached base. I will say that Raines was the most marginal on my list but I would go with him. I admit I'm pretty biased too as I loved his attitude.