Jump to content

2012 HOF Voting


gizmo
 Share

Recommended Posts


Bags went up a good amount from last years vote. Maybe it'll be him and Bidge (and maybe Piazza?) next year, with the rest of the of the field either falling short (Schilling) or being PED guys (Clemens, Sosa, Bonds [maybe Piazza?]).

 

Good to see Larkin though. He should have been in last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More absurd that Lee Smith isn't in

 

I don't think Smith is HOF worthy.

 

I'd actually lose even more respect for the Hall if Smith gets in. It's bad enough that we've had guys like Rice, Dawson, and Santo get in recently who aren't deserving. I'd rather the roid club members get in (McGwire, Bonds, Clemens) than all of these fringe guys like Smith and Trammell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More absurd that Lee Smith isn't in

 

I don't think Smith is HOF worthy.

 

I'd actually lose even more respect for the Hall if Smith gets in. It's bad enough that we've had guys like Rice, Dawson, and Santo get in recently who aren't deserving. I'd rather the roid club members get in (McGwire, Bonds, Clemens) than all of these fringe guys like Smith and Trammell.

 

That's a loaded statement! They'll be long dead before they ever get voted in, as will this generation of the BBWAA. And they will be rolling in their graves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WAR is pretty unreliable (to the point where it shouldn't be used) for players of Trammell's era because it relies on retrosheets to assess defensive ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get how Trammell is a fringe guy. http://www.baseball-...g/archives/6160

 

I fail to see how he merits much consideration, especially when his counterpart (Lou Whitaker) was off the ballot after one season, besides he played close to 20 seasons and he's nowhere near any of baseballs magic numbers. While we're are it I also fail to see Larkin as Hall worthy either, but thats besides the point. Unfortunately for Bagwell he's lumped in with the roiders, I've never seen anything that indicates him as a user, but he fails also in the area of those magic numbers. I throw Smith out there in that if Gossage and Sutter are in he's just as deserving when he has 150 more saves than either. Smith's biggest mistake as I see it was hanging in there about three-four years too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WAR is pretty unreliable (to the point where it shouldn't be used) for players of Trammell's era because it relies on retrosheets to assess defensive ability.

 

 

While I agree, I still think WAR is an ok stat to use because it still values the other things (Base running, position, and longevity) that are important that aren't in something like OPS+. I think have a WAR stat minus their defense would be a good thing to have, so that it's not completely mudded by a large assumption of a defensive stat. Still, I think WAR is something to consider, just not a be all to end all.

 

And I was originally going to say I agree (Not much of an impressive career), then I'm actually going to disagree (Long career as SS is very important; Plus base runner; Probably good defense [4 GG; Maybe GG's were good in the 80's?] although you can't put a number to it. At the very least, likely not negative defense).

 

His career rate numbers are lacking because he was called up early (Broke into the majors at 19) and had a LOL last season at age 38 (34 OPS+).

 

But from 22-37, he was very solid with a 115 OPS+. To put it into perspective: Jeter, between those ages, has a 117 OPS+. Serious question: Do you consider Jeter HOF worthy? It's a bit unfair comparision because 1) Jeter was healthy, Trammell was not (500 more games played for Jeter, average of 30 more games per year. Big point Jeter) and 2) The entire Yankee/World Series legacy deal.

 

But I simply bring it up from an OPS+ standpoint.

 

Now, he is 12 out of 89 out of SS (With at least 5000 PA and 70% games at SS), so he's top 14% there. But we do know that his base running is above average, and his defense is probably above average. By WAR, out of those 89, he's in the top 8%. If you completely negate his defense and call him average in his career, he'd be top 13%. Flawed way of doing it since that only affects him but whatevz.

 

He was at best a top 10% SS, and at worst top 15%. Now take into consideration that SS is the second most valuable position, and I don't think it's bad if he gets in. I think he's FAR from being in Lee Smith territory and I agree Clemens/Bonds/McGwire deserve it WAY more then him. And if it was 'my' hall of fame he'd probably be out because I would have very high standards. But I don't think it's Jim Rice territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's wise to say a player is deserving mostly because "player X got in." I suppose I have stricter criteria than most do, but there are many players in the Hall who shouldn't be there. Pretty soon people are going to start using guys like Puckett, Dawson, and Rice as benchmarks for other fringe players who don't really belong in the Hall either.

 

Sutter is one for certain I don't think belongs in the Hall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WAR is pretty unreliable (to the point where it shouldn't be used) for players of Trammell's era because it relies on retrosheets to assess defensive ability.

 

 

While I agree, I still think WAR is an ok stat to use because it still values the other things (Base running, position, and longevity) that are important that aren't in something like OPS+. I think have a WAR stat minus their defense would be a good thing to have, so that it's not completely mudded by a large assumption of a defensive stat. Still, I think WAR is something to consider, just not a be all to end all.

 

I think it might be useful at analyzing performance in specific seasons to compare with other players that year, but simply adding up the WAR values over the course of a career (when the defense portion is in question) seems silly to me. It seems to reflect more on longevity rather than dominance of his era.

 

The first thing I look for is the number of "awesome" seasons over the course of the player's career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in Trammell's case, I'm emphasizing "fringe." That means he's probably not a HOFer, but his selection wouldn't be as ridiculous as someone like Rice, Puckett, or Dawson getting selected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not against this vote-in for Larkin, I think he deserves it, but I'm curious as to how one gets to be able to vote for who gets in. I know it's writers, such as Ken Rosenthal, but how was he given this honor? I'm sure I've heard it before, but I can't remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not against this vote-in for Larkin, I think he deserves it, but I'm curious as to how one gets to be able to vote for who gets in. I know it's writers, such as Ken Rosenthal, but how was he given this honor? I'm sure I've heard it before, but I can't remember.

 

I think if you are a writer for any local paper covering baseball or have authorship on a prominent website (ESPN etc.), it's pretty easy to get in the writers' association. If I'm not mistaken, though, I think you need to be a member for 10 years before you can vote for the HOF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...