MLB HOF Vote

[LHG]

If you ignore the hypocrisy angle and ignore the roid-stink, I think I could be convinced that Ortiz is at least borderline. Even for a DH.

My complaints are more about him making it above B&C.

I don't quite fully understand how they score these things but BBRef gives Ortiz a -20.9 dWAR. Every season of his career, he had a negative WAR scored defensively. This includes his last season, when he played 1 game (5 innings) in the field and posted a -1.2 dWAR.

And here is part what I don't understand about how the HOF voting has gone (beyond the hypocrisy used to keep Bonds and Clemens out). Compare these players:

Player A - .273/.344/.534, 58.6 WAR, -0.3 dWAR, 18 seasons
Player B - .286/.380/.552, 55.3 WAR, -20.9 dWAR, 20 seasons

One gets in to the HOF and the other gets eliminated on the same ballot. How does this happen?

 

[VikingFan2k2]

If you ignore the hypocrisy angle and ignore the roid-stink, I think I could be convinced that Ortiz is at least borderline. Even for a DH.

My complaints are more about him making it above B&C.

Pudge is in. I don't have a problem with the roid guys getting in anymore. Bonds and Clemens being Defiant about not juicing didn't help. But it's still a bunch of asshole writers on a power trip.

 

[calsnowskier]

Pudge is in. I don't have a problem with the roid guys getting in anymore. Bonds and Clemens being Defiant about not juicing didn't help. But it's still a bunch of asshole writers on a power trip.

I basically don’t mind the roid stink, but mainly for the early guys who never failed a test after the rules were instituted (Bonds, Clemens, Papi, McGwire, Canseco, Pudge, etc). They didn’t break any rules. The later guys, though, did break rules, and there is proof they did (Sosa, Palmeiro, Manny, ARod, Melky, Cano).

Doing something that was not expressly against the rules is not cheating. It may not be integral, but it isn’t cheating. Even if you know it would be called cheating if found out.

You think Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, etc are ruining the game? Institute a RULE. Not a request. Not a wishlist. Not a finger wag. A rule.

 

[calsnowskier]

I don't quite fully understand how they score these things but BBRef gives Ortiz a -20.9 dWAR. Every season of his career, he had a negative WAR scored defensively. This includes his last season, when he played 1 game (5 innings) in the field and posted a -1.2 dWAR.

And here is part what I don't understand about how the HOF voting has gone (beyond the hypocrisy used to keep Bonds and Clemens out). Compare these players:

Player A - .273/.344/.534, 58.6 WAR, -0.3 dWAR, 18 seasons
Player B - .286/.380/.552, 55.3 WAR, -20.9 dWAR, 20 seasons

One gets in to the HOF and the other gets eliminated on the same ballot. How does this happen?

Player A not only had the roid stink (mentioned in the Mitchell report), but also was caught using a corked bat. And while his numbers are godly, his elite window was pretty narrow.

Player B had the roid stink (Mitchell report) and didnt play D. But his elite window spanned much of his career. He also was a key piece of breaking an 80 year drought for his organization.

I am not a huge fan of these Player A vs Player B comparison games. They use cherry picked stats and cut out all context.

 

[Cedrique]

Carlos Beltran becomes eligible next year. That will be interesting

 

[California Creme Puffs]

Carlos Beltran becomes eligible next year. That will be interesting

That will be good. Beltran is a no-doubt Hall of Famer in my mind, but I could see the Boomers not voting for him because of the "morality clause" or whatever the fuck they want to call it.

Do you remember in 2007 (?) when the Phillies were playing the Mets in Queens on the 4th of July weekend? And Beltran robbed Jimmy Rollins of a home run? I think the Mets swept us that series- but my memory is a little hazy from all the pot smoke over the years.

 

[Yo Tee]

Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez, Pete Rose and Roger Clemens are Hall of Famers. Don't really care what the politically correct voters have to say.

 

[navamind]

Player A not only had the roid stink (mentioned in the Mitchell report), but also was caught using a corked bat. And while his numbers are godly, his elite window was pretty narrow.

Player B had the roid stink (Mitchell report) and didnt play D. But his elite window spanned much of his career. He also was a key piece of breaking an 80 year drought for his organization.

I am not a huge fan of these Player A vs Player B comparison games. They use cherry picked stats and cut out all context.

Not only that but Ortiz also has a .947 OPS over 85 postseason games... which is not an insignificant sample size, it's half a season of elite hitting against playoff teams. Not to mention Ortiz played a major role in those three title runs. He had only one series with an OPS under .900 (.427 in 2013 ALCS), and he still hit a crucial grand slam in that series.

I do think Sosa's a bit overrated as a hitter. He was an all-time great home run hitter and a pretty good contact hitter, but his OBPs weren't particularly good (career .344). He only had one season in the top 10 and two others above .380. His career OPS+ of 128, while very good, is tied with likes of Abreu/Moises Alou/Salmon/Jim Rice/Klesko. He had one historically great year (203 OPS+ in 2001), four elite seasons (OPS+ around 151-161 in '98-00 and '02. The rest of his career, he was basically Jay Bruce but with better defense.

I think they're both pretty borderline but I'd put both of them in. Narrative plays a huge role in both (and a little homerism ), with Ortiz being a driving force behind three title runs for a franchise with an 86-year drought and Sosa chasing Maris and McGwire. I really don't care about PEDs and I think it would be silly to ignore an entire era of baseball.

 

[LHG]

Player A not only had the roid stink (mentioned in the Mitchell report), but also was caught using a corked bat. And while his numbers are godly, his elite window was pretty narrow.

Player B had the roid stink (Mitchell report) and didnt play D. But his elite window spanned much of his career. He also was a key piece of breaking an 80 year drought for his organization.

I am not a huge fan of these Player A vs Player B comparison games. They use cherry picked stats and cut out all context.

Not only that but Ortiz also has a .947 OPS over 85 postseason games... which is not an insignificant sample size, it's half a season of elite hitting against playoff teams. Not to mention Ortiz played a major role in those three title runs. He had only one series with an OPS under .900 (.427 in 2013 ALCS), and he still hit a crucial grand slam in that series.

I do think Sosa's a bit overrated as a hitter. He was an all-time great home run hitter and a pretty good contact hitter, but his OBPs weren't particularly good (career .344). He only had one season in the top 10 and two others above .380. His career OPS+ of 128, while very good, is tied with likes of Abreu/Moises Alou/Salmon/Jim Rice/Klesko. He had one historically great year (203 OPS+ in 2001), four elite seasons (OPS+ around 151-161 in '98-00 and '02. The rest of his career, he was basically Jay Bruce but with better defense.

I think they're both pretty borderline but I'd put both of them in. Narrative plays a huge role in both (and a little homerism ), with Ortiz being a driving force behind three title runs for a franchise with an 86-year drought and Sosa chasing Maris and McGwire. I really don't care about PEDs and I think it would be silly to ignore an entire era of baseball.

Yes, comparison games can be taken out of context, but I don't think the context was missed on this one. Both played in the era of steroids. Both have issues with what they possibly did with steroids. Both were really good hitters in their prime.

My whole point is that one gets in on the first ballot while the other gets eliminated on the 10th ballot. Does Sosa belong? Should Ortiz not have gotten in? I think both are borderline. But they were treated very differently by the voters and that is what gets me. HOF voting has become an extremely subjective and I don't like it.

 

[calsnowskier]

Yes, comparison games can be taken out of context, but I don't think the context was missed on this one. Both played in the era of steroids. Both have issues with what they possibly did with steroids. Both were really good hitters in their prime.

My whole point is that one gets in on the first ballot while the other gets eliminated on the 10th ballot. Does Sosa belong? Should Ortiz not have gotten in? I think both are borderline. But they were treated very differently by the voters and that is what gets me. HOF voting has become an extremely subjective and I don't like it.

I think that ignoring Ortiz’ contribution to multiple championship runs (a la Posey) is ignoring context. Ignoring his post season heroics is ignoring context.

Granted, Sosa was already a decent 120 OPS+ hitter when he blew up while Ortiz was essentially out of the game when he hit his stride (he had a 120 OPS+ his last year in Min, but they still cut him loose after that season). But Ortiz kept his “elite-ness” for the next 13 years (with a few “down” years) while Sosa was elite for only 5 or 6 years. And i can’t just look away from the bat incident. It shows a complete disregard for playing it straight.

 

[LHG]

I think that ignoring Ortiz’ contribution to multiple championship runs (a la Posey) is ignoring context. Ignoring his post season heroics is ignoring context.

Granted, Sosa was already a decent 120 OPS+ hitter when he blew up while Ortiz was essentially out of the game when he hit his stride (he had a 120 OPS+ his last year in Min, but they still cut him loose after that season). But Ortiz kept his “elite-ness” for the next 13 years (with a few “down” years) while Sosa was elite for only 5 or 6 years. And i can’t just look away from the bat incident. It shows a complete disregard for playing it straight.

I don't think postseason numbers should determine whether a player makes it in the HOF. Orel Hershiser was a good pitcher for a good chunk of his career but turned it up a couple of notches in the postseason. Does that mean he should be in the HOF? Clayton Kershaw has done the opposite. Does that hinder him from getting into the HOF? In my opinion, postseason numbers are footnotes on a career. If the guy earns a spot in the HOF and he blew it up in the postseason - great! If he makes it in the HOF but got blown up in the postseason - oh well. Its nice to see the production but there are guys who weren't even close to HOF worthy have had great postseasons.

But let's say postseason numbers should be considered, for players who are at least borderline. That does give Ortiz the edge but does that make him a first ballot Hall of Famer? And Sosa's numbers weren't bad in the postseason (.245/.403/.415 in 15 games). His problem was being on teams that never made the postseason. Should that make him a 10th ballot denial, when comparing him to a 1st ballot elected player?

Yeah, Sosa's bat incident is an embarrassment but is that enough to deny him entrance? There are plenty of players there who did do similar kinds of cheating. An incident resulting in a 8 game suspension doesn't have the same weight as an incident that results in a season long suspension.

As for years of dominance, I guess that is a matter of debate. To me, career numbers are important. Yes, Ortiz did have more number of "dominant" seasons than Sosa. But if WAR is worth anything, shouldn't it be considered how much value the two brought over the course of their careers? And how about defensive value? Sosa was no gold glover but, apparently, he brought more value defensively than Ortiz did. That should count for something when determing if Sosa is a guy who really should have been strung along for 10 years, only to get bumped from the ballot, while Ortiz gets in on his first ballot appearance?

cal, I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue. I guess my takeaway is that player comparisons can be overly simplistic but I do see value in doing them. Maybe more information needs to be given in them for them to be taken more seriously.

 

[calsnowskier]

I don't think postseason numbers should determine whether a player makes it in the HOF. Orel Hershiser was a good pitcher for a good chunk of his career but turned it up a couple of notches in the postseason. Does that mean he should be in the HOF? Clayton Kershaw has done the opposite. Does that hinder him from getting into the HOF? In my opinion, postseason numbers are footnotes on a career. If the guy earns a spot in the HOF and he blew it up in the postseason - great! If he makes it in the HOF but got blown up in the postseason - oh well. Its nice to see the production but there are guys who weren't even close to HOF worthy have had great postseasons.

But let's say postseason numbers should be considered, for players who are at least borderline. That does give Ortiz the edge but does that make him a first ballot Hall of Famer? And Sosa's numbers weren't bad in the postseason (.245/.403/.415 in 15 games). His problem was being on teams that never made the postseason. Should that make him a 10th ballot denial, when comparing him to a 1st ballot elected player?

Yeah, Sosa's bat incident is an embarrassment but is that enough to deny him entrance? There are plenty of players there who did do similar kinds of cheating. An incident resulting in a 8 game suspension doesn't have the same weight as an incident that results in a season long suspension.

As for years of dominance, I guess that is a matter of debate. To me, career numbers are important. Yes, Ortiz did have more number of "dominant" seasons than Sosa. But if WAR is worth anything, shouldn't it be considered how much value the two brought over the course of their careers? And how about defensive value? Sosa was no gold glover but, apparently, he brought more value defensively than Ortiz did. That should count for something when determing if Sosa is a guy who really should have been strung along for 10 years, only to get bumped from the ballot, while Ortiz gets in on his first ballot appearance?

cal, I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue. I guess my takeaway is that player comparisons can be overly simplistic but I do see value in doing them. Maybe more information needs to be given in them for them to be taken more seriously.

I disagree. I actually would not be completely bent out of shape if Oral made it into the Hall. He has (had??) one of the more impressive pitching records and was a top name in the game in his time. He is borderline, if some voters used his post season numbers to push him over the edge, I am OK with that.

Bum is one of the most dominant post season pitchers of all time, but he isn’t a HOFer, imho. His regular season numbers have only been good. Not sure he would even make it into the HoVG.

I don’t think that entry into the hall is pure analytical. If it were, why have voters instead of just a computerized checklist?

i have personally flipped my Sosa vote multiple times during his 10-year run. His lack of longevity and the bat incident are pretty big for me. But his elite window, as narrow as it was, is comparable to some of the greatest 5-6 year runs in the history of the game. He is a very tough case. But I think his context is very important.

My arguments for B&C are that they were soooo far ahead of everyone else during their careers that any stink that attaches to them does not overtake their godliness. Especially since neither were caught breaking any rules. And the example that the writers are making of them makes me more unforgiving of other players in the same era. If B&C can’t get in, than, imho, anyone else with similar stink (Ortiz, Sosa, Pudge) shouldn't even get a whiff of the Hall. My pro-Ortiz arguments are only there assuming the B&C situation is ignored. Ortiz did not get my “vote” this year, and I still stand behind that.

 

[Cedrique]

Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez, Pete Rose and Roger Clemens are Hall of Famers. Don't really care what the politically correct voters have to say.

It's not even politically correct any more. I think Bonds and Clemens got close to 70% this time, just not the full 75. But you're right, most people will still think of all those players as hall of famers even if they don't have the plaque (yet?). It already happens with Rose. When people talk about all of the Hall of Famers on the Big Red Machine they usually forget and include Rose in with Morgan and Bench and Perez and Seaver (even if it's just for a second, then they say "oh yeah. Well he would have been" You can't talk about the 90's without talking about Bonds and Clemens and some other guys that aren't in the hall of fame.

(obviously Rose's situation is different than those other guys because he screwed up and got kicked out of baseball whereas the other guys are on the ballot but are being blocked by a bunch of old writers. The similarity is that they are people that performed at a hall of fame level on the field and are not in the hall of fame.)

 

[calsnowskier]

It's not even politically correct any more. I think Bonds and Clemens got close to 70% this time, just not the full 75. But you're right, most people will still think of all those players as hall of famers even if they don't have the plaque (yet?). It already happens with Rose. When people talk about all of the Hall of Famers on the Big Red Machine they usually forget and include Rose in with Morgan and Bench and Perez and Seaver (even if it's just for a second, then they say "oh yeah. Well he would have been" You can't talk about the 90's without talking about Bonds and Clemens and some other guys that aren't in the hall of fame.

(obviously Rose's situation is different than those other guys because he screwed up and got kicked out of baseball whereas the other guys are on the ballot but are being blocked by a bunch of old writers. The similarity is that they are people that performed at a hall of fame level on the field and are not in the hall of fame.)

Rose probably gets talked about more because he isn’t in the hall than he ever would be if he were in.

 

[Cedrique]

That will be good. Beltran is a no-doubt Hall of Famer in my mind, but I could see the Boomers not voting for him because of the "morality clause" or whatever the fuck they want to call it.

Do you remember in 2007 (?) when the Phillies were playing the Mets in Queens on the 4th of July weekend? And Beltran robbed Jimmy Rollins of a home run? I think the Mets swept us that series- but my memory is a little hazy from all the pot smoke over the years.

I don't remember that specific weekend, plus I get kind of mixed up with Betran and Delgado and all the other Carlos's that beat up on the Phils.

 

[Cedrique]

Rose probably gets talked about more because he isn’t in the hall than he ever would be if he were in.

No doubt, and Joe Jackson would be about as well known as Hack Wilson. Although that 's assuming he (Rose) was still out of baseball. If he had been a manager or in baseball in some other capacity all this time I'm sure he would have had some impact, either positive or negative. He was larger than life, especially for someone who was never really the best player on any of the teams he was on.

 

[Voltaire26]

Rose probably gets talked about more because he isn’t in the hall than he ever would be if he were in.

Barry Bonds was the most feared hitter I can ever remember and he probably eclipses Babe Ruth in this category. Unless Pete Rose had fixed games he easily belongs. I would have those two guys on my all time team (2nd Team).

C - Johnny Bench (Ivan Rodriguez)
1B - Lou Gehrig (Stan Musial)
2B - Rogers Hornsby (Charlie Gehringer)
SS - Honus Wagner (Alex Rodriguez)
3B - Mike Schmidt (George Brett)
RF - Babe Ruth (Rickey Henderson)
CF - Ty Cobb (Willie Mayes)
LF - Barry Bonds (Ted Williams)

Utility - Pete Rose

 

[calsnowskier]

Barry Bonds was the most feared hitter I can ever remember and he probably eclipses Babe Ruth in this category. Unless Pete Rose had fixed games he easily belongs. I would have those two guys on my all time team (2nd Team).

C - Johnny Bench (Ivan Rodriguez)
1B - Lou Gehrig (Stan Musial)
2B - Rogers Hornsby (Charlie Gehringer)
SS - Honus Wagner (Alex Rodriguez)
3B - Mike Schmidt (George Brett)
RF - Babe Ruth (Rickey Henderson)
CF - Ty Cobb (Willie Mayes)
LF - Barry Bonds (Ted Williams)

Utility - Pete Rose

I am a huge Ricky fan. And I think he deserves more consideration as a top 3 OF of all time than he gets. But I still have a hard time having him break the top 3. Imho, the top 3 are Ruth, Mays and Bonds. But if you have 3 from this pool, I think you doing pretty good for yourself…

Ruth
Bonds
Mays
Williams
Henderson
Robinson
Cobb

 

[Voltaire26]

I am a huge Ricky fan. And I think he deserves more consideration as a top 3 OF of all time than he gets. But I still have a hard time having him break the top 3. Imho, the top 3 are Ruth, Mays and Bonds. But if you have 3 from this pool, I think you doing pretty good for yourself…

Ruth
Bonds
Mays
Williams
Henderson
Robinson
Cobb

Rickey Henderson was the most annoying player I have ever seen ... Bonds being the most feared.

If you want to change Cobb for Mays ... I'm good ... I'm just a Tiger fan. The only reason I would leave Williams out because you need a Centerfielder that can cover a lot of territory. Mays and Cobb are the only two true Centerfielders.

 

[calsnowskier]

Rickey Henderson was the most annoying player I have ever seen ... Bonds being the most feared.

If you want to change Cobb for Mays ... I'm good ... I'm just a Tiger fan. The only reason I would leave Williams out because you need a Centerfielder that can cover a lot of territory. Mays and Cobb are the only two true Centerfielders.

I think Mays is a no-question inclusion. Bonds has enough stink on him I understand not including him. Especially when there is enough other OMG talent in this pool. No point making a big argument out if it.