Hall of Fame Ballot Announced

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by perezfan

There simply has to be a tier of players that comes very close, but fails to get into the Hall. It is illogical to believe that there's a line to be drawn which clearly delineates the hall of famers from the rest of the crowd. There will never be a big drop-off between HOFers and those that come close.

It's unfortunate for players like Dale Murphy, Steve Garvey, Kenny Lofton, Lou Whitaker, Joey Belle, Dave Parker, Jim Edmonds, Todd Helton, Don Mattingly, Keith Hernandez and Fred McGriff. I watched every one of those guys play many many games in their primes.

And during the course of their careers, I (personally) thought Murphy, Garvey, Parker, McGriff, Mattingly and perhaps Edmonds would end up in the Hall for sure.

Never really felt that way when watching Vizquel, Baines, Raines, Lofton, Whitaker, Belle, Walker, Helton, Trammell, Edgar, Rolen or Ted Simmons... half of which are in; half are not. They all just seemed like very good players. Just my 2 cents.

You left out the best player not in the Hall - Dick Allen.

[Lucas00]

Just putting it out there, if Bonds and Clemens get in. Manny Ramirez better shortly follow. He was no slouch on the roids.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I just don't see the case for Hernandez. Not much power, hit below .300, less than 2200 hits, etc. I know he's got all the Gold Gloves but, at the end of the day, 1B isn't a premium defensive position and dWAR doesn't like him that much. And, really, if you're putting in Hernandez, how do you leave out John Olerud?

John Olerud was a fine player, but Hernandez was better.
Hernandez won an MVP with the Cardinals and finished 2nd in the voting with the Mets, followed by two more top 10 finishes. He was an all star 5x. 11 Gold Gloves.

Olerud was a 2x All-Star who only got MVP votes twice. 3 Gold Gloves.

Hernadez' WAR and JAWS are higher than Olerud as well.

Keith's appearance on Seinfeld and the fact that he is one of the better announcers doesn't hurt.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Just putting it out there, if Bonds and Clemens get in. Manny Ramirez better shortly follow. He was no slouch on the roids.

The real ding against Manny is that while Bonds and Clemens are suspected steroid users, they never failed a test once baseball finally implemented testing.

Manny failed not one, but TWO such tests...if he ever makes it, he's at the back of the line, not the front.

[Gorditadogg]

Here are 162-game comparisons for all the 1st base HOF candidates we have been discussing:

NAME HR RBI AVG OPS+
Allen... 33 104 .292 156
McGriff 32 102 .284 134
Helton. 27 101 .316 133
Olerud. 18 -89 .295 129
Herndz 13 -86 .296 128
Mattgly 20 100 .307 127
Garvey 19 -91 .294 117

Allen's prime years were in the pitcher's era of the late 60's and early 70's when fences were back and HRs were hard to hit, yet his offensive numbers are better than anyone else in the group. His OPS+ which adjusts for the era, is far and away the best. In fact Allen's 156 is 23rd all-time in OPS+, tied with Frank Thomas and just ahead of Aaron, Mays, DiMaggio, and Ott. Meanwhile McGriff is tied at 134 with fellow 1st baseman Abreu, Prince Fielder, John Kruk and Boog Powell.

Allen should be in the Hall plain and simple, he was one of the most dominating hitters of all time.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

John Olerud was a fine player, but Hernandez was better.
Hernandez won an MVP with the Cardinals and finished 2nd in the voting with the Mets, followed by two more top 10 finishes. He was an all star 5x. 11 Gold Gloves.

Olerud was a 2x All-Star who only got MVP votes twice. 3 Gold Gloves.

Hernadez' WAR and JAWS are higher than Olerud as well.

Keith's appearance on Seinfeld and the fact that he is one of the better announcers doesn't hurt.

I was a big fan of Olerud, but no comparison. Hernandez played in a much tougher offensive era and was the Ozzie Smith, Johnny Bench and Brooks Robinson of his position.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Allen should be in the Hall plain and simple, he was one of the most dominating hitters of all time.

Dick Allen was just 1 vote shy the last 2 times he was on the ballot. Now that Oliva, Minoso, Kaat, and Hodges have cleared the field, Allen is easily the top Golden Days candidate and should easily make it next time (2026.)

Yesterday I landed his 1967 road GU jersey in the Hunt live auction. I bid as if he's already a HOFer.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

You left out the best player not in the Hall - Dick Allen.

Ah crap... I knew I was leaving out a big one. Had to dig deep for those other names and left out the obvious.... Yeah Dick Allen is a big omission.

Speaking of which.... Congrats Mark, on scoring that gorgeous Dick Allen Flannel. Classic jersey of a future HOFer. A tremendous addition to your collection!

[cgjackson222]

If you could replace one player from the Contemporary Ballot with of a player that wasn't nominated, which players would you choose?

I would switch out Albert Belle for Lou Whitaker. Belle was one of the most feared hitters during his career, but his career was just too short. His bWAR of 40.1 and JAWS of of 38.1 both rank 41st for Left Fielders, behind Brian Downing, Roy White any many other non-HOF worthy players. He only had 5 years where his bWAR was 4 or greater. His use of a corked bat doesn't help his case--even if corked bats may not actually help you hit better. Just because you are bad at cheating, doesn't mean you didn't cheat.

Sweet Lou won ROY, was a 5x All Star, 4x Silver Slugger, and 3x Gold Glove winner, and won a World Series.

Whitaker didn't have a high peak, but it was long--he had 10 years of 4 bWAR or greater. Whitaker's 75.1 bWAR ranks 7th all-time among Second Basemen, ahead of Ryne Sandberg, Roberto Alomar and many other HOFers.

The fact that Allan Trammel is in the HOF and Whitaker isn't makes no sense. Whitaker has more hits, Runs, HRs, RBI, a higher OBP, Slugging, and beat him by 7 points in OPS+

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

If you could replace one player from the Contemporary Ballot with of a player that wasn't nominated, which players would you choose?

I would switch out Albert Belle for Lou Whitaker.

I love Whitaker as a choice, but Grich might be a better one.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

I love Whitaker as a choice, but Grich might be a better one.

He might be, but let's stick to the Contemporary Baseball rules, with players who had their highest impact in the 1980s or later. Grich's best years were in the 70s.

[kmac32]

If you excuse the Steroid allegations, only Bonds and Clemons from this group. The other guys were great players and great skills but fall short of what is required for HOF enshrinement. Shilling is out because he fails as a human being in my opinion.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by kmac32

….Shilling is out because he fails as a human being in my opinion.

How so…..what did he do that was so tragic as to keep it out….

Child molester?
Murderer?
Rapist?
Drug addict?
Cheater?
Drug dealer?
Mobster?
Peeping Tom?
Jaywalker?
Bank robber?
Flasher?
Vivisectionist?
Necrophiliac?
Satanism?
Drunkard?
Necromancer?
Wife beater?
Gay?

All of the above?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

How so…..what did he do that was so tragic as to keep it out….

Child molester?
Murderer?
Rapist?
Drug addict?
Cheater?
Drug dealer?
Mobster?
Peeping Tom?
Jaywalker?
Bank robber?
Flasher?
Vivisectionist?
Necrophiliac?
Satanism?
Drunkard?
Necromancer?
Wife beater?
Gay?

All of the above?

Even worse than these, he's an ideological enemy of some's party. I mean, a failed businessman. Yes, that is the reason.

If we ignore steroids for Bonds and Clemens, I don't see how Palmeiro isn't also a clear hall of famer. He's not as good as Bonds, obviously, but he seems to be easily over the Hall standard. 3,000 hits, 569 homers, 132 OPS+. He's clearly a hall of famer as well, if we are ignoring the roads.

[ejharrington]

Curt won the Roberto Clemente Award, the Hutch Award, the Branch Rickey Award, the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award, and the SI Sportsman of the Year Award. All of these awards were based not only on his on-field accomplishments, but also his character and charitable pursuits.

Hopefully his peers will do the right thing and undo the injustice a minority of the writers perpetuated.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

John Olerud was a fine player, but Hernandez was better.
Hernandez won an MVP with the Cardinals and finished 2nd in the voting with the Mets, followed by two more top 10 finishes. He was an all star 5x. 11 Gold Gloves.

Olerud was a 2x All-Star who only got MVP votes twice. 3 Gold Gloves.

Hernadez' WAR and JAWS are higher than Olerud as well.

Keith's appearance on Seinfeld and the fact that he is one of the better announcers doesn't hurt.

Olerud's 1993, where he led the AL in OPS+, was better than Hernandez's MVP season. His two best OPS+ seasons are much higher than Keith's best.

While I won't argue Hernandez was not better defensively, Olerud was close and he was better at eliminating throwing errors thanks to his extra 5" in height and larger wingspan. At the end of the day, though, the difference in their defense adds up to not much actual impact.

I'm not saying Olerud belongs in. I don't. But I also don't think Keith does either. The Hall doesn't need 1B with 162 homers.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Olerud's 1993, where he led the AL in OPS+, was better than Hernandez's MVP season. His two best OPS+ seasons are much higher than Keith's best.

While I won't argue Hernandez was not better defensively, Olerud was close and he was better at eliminating throwing errors thanks to his extra 5" in height and larger wingspan. At the end of the day, though, the difference in their defense adds up to not much actual impact.

I'm not saying Olerud belongs in. I don't. But I also don't think Keith does either. The Hall doesn't need 1B with 162 homers.

Keith Hernandez has a higher JAWS than 10 HOF First Baseman, including Bill Terry, Harmon Killibrew, David Ortiz, Tony Perez, and Orlando Cepeda, and is a hair behind Sisler. There is more to being a first baseman than hitting Home Runs.

Keith may not be a shoe-in, but he deserves another chance at a vote. I suppose Olerud may too.

[packs]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Keith Hernandez has a higher JAWS than 10 HOF First Baseman, including Bill Terry, Harmon Killibrew, David Ortiz, Tony Perez, and Orlando Cepeda, and is a hair behind Sisler. There is more to being a first baseman than hitting Home Runs.

Keith may not be a shoe-in, but he deserves another chance at a vote. I suppose Olerud may too.

JAWS figures are what they are but do you think any GM would draft Hernandez over Terry, Killebrew, David Ortiz, Tony Perez or Orlando Cepeda?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by packs

JAWS figures are what they are but do you think any GM would draft Hernandez over Terry, Killebrew, David Ortiz, Tony Perez or Orlando Cepeda?

So we should base HOF nominations based on what we think GMs would do?

If I were a GM, I'd pick Keith over most of them.

[packs]

I was pointing out that Hernandez is the weakest on the list and may explain why he is the one not in the HOF.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by packs

I was pointing out that Hernandez is the weakest on the list and may explain why he is the one not in the HOF.

Weakest in what way, other than that you think GMs would not want him as much as the others?

[packs]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Weakest in what way, other than that you think GMs would not want him as much as the others?

Weakest in that he wasn't as good as the other players on your list. Defense is a valuable skill but it's not something someone is going to get into the HOF for at first base. Shortstop, sure. Centerfield, maybe. Not first base. Hernandez's WAR is only where it is because of the points he picks up for dWAR. His offensive WAR is lower than every player on your list.

Bill Terry is closest to him but Keith Hernandez didn't hit 400 or retire with a 341 average.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by packs

Weakest in that he wasn't as good as the other players on your list. Defense is a valuable skill but it's not something someone is going to get into the HOF for at first base. Shortstop, sure. Centerfield, maybe. Not first base. Hernandez's WAR is only where it is because of the points he picks up for dWAR. His offensive WAR is lower than every player on your list.

Bill Terry is closest to him but Keith Hernandez didn't hit 400 or retire with a 341 average.

Yes, 1st base is the least important infield position, but it still matters.
Hernandez is underrated for his offensive production. For instance, he had an offensive WAR over five 3x, was a 2x Silver Slugger, and his OPS+ is 6 points higher than Perez'.

[packs]

You have to mash to get into the HOF at first base. Keith Hernandez did not mash. Tony Perez his over 200 more home runs than Hernandez and drove in over 600 more runs.

[JimmyC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Dick Allen was just 1 vote shy the last 2 times he was on the ballot. Now that Oliva, Minoso, Kaat, and Hodges have cleared the field, Allen is easily the top Golden Days candidate and should easily make it next time (2026.)

Yesterday I landed his 1967 road GU jersey in the Hunt live auction. I bid as if he's already a HOFer.

Can't believe there aren't more comments on your pick up! Killer jersey - absolutely killer!! Congrats!

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by packs

You have to mash to get into the HOF at first base. Keith Hernandez did not mash. Tony Perez his over 200 more home runs than Hernandez and drove in over 600 more runs.

Not all first baseman in the HOF "mashed".

Hernandez has more career Homers than Bill Terry.

I'm just saying Hernandez deserves another shot.

[G1911]

He hit .296, he walked well, he had little power. If .296/.384/.436 in the context that he did it is a HOF 1B, then we'd have to elect a ton of people. If it is his defense, well, I really don't see an argument for a defensive 1B to be elected while people revile every defense-first HOFer except for Ozzie Smith (Mazeroski, Maranville, Schalk, everyone but Ozzie dots the 'worst HOFer' opinion lists).

I get that Hernandez was very good at playing 1B, but I have a hard time ascribing the huge value to this that WAR does. Killebrew -18.7, Hernandez +1.3 (a positive at 1B is very, very tough); it's how they punish 1B not to dominate the rankings with their bats. 1B also has a positional adjustment factor on top of the dWAR component. Thus it has Killebrew and Hernandez equal overall in WAR because of the dWAR gap. I cannot fathom a single team picking Hernandez over Killebrew, not because they are stupid and don't understand analytics, but because Killebrew is clearly more valuable. WAR has a lot of problems with defense; one of many reasons it should not be treated as gospel.

Will Clark and Fred McGriff are better candidates for 1B who played when Hernandez did.

Olerud, Hernandez, they are better than the absolute worst 1B, but those mistakes should not be extended to justify hundreds of more mistakes.

[packs]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Not all first baseman in the HOF "mashed".

Hernandez has more career Homers than Bill Terry.

I'm just saying Hernandez deserves another shot.

Bill Terry hit 400. If Keith Hernandez hit 400 I'd want him in too. But he didn't. He also didn't hit 341 over his career like Terry did, which is extraordinary.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

He hit .296, he walked well, he had little power. If .296/.384/.436 in the context that he did it is a HOF 1B, then we'd have to elect a ton of people. If it is his defense, well, I really don't see an argument for a defensive 1B to be elected while people revile every defense-first HOFer except for Ozzie Smith (Mazeroski, Maranville, Schalk, everyone but Ozzie dots the 'worst HOFer' opinion lists).

I get that Hernandez was very good at playing 1B, but I have a hard time ascribing the huge value to this that WAR does. Killebrew -18.7, Hernandez +1.3 (a positive at 1B is very, very tough); it's how they punish 1B not to dominate the rankings with their bats. 1B also has a positional adjustment factor on top of the dWAR component. Thus it has Killebrew and Hernandez equal overall in WAR because of the dWAR gap. I cannot fathom a single team picking Hernandez over Killebrew, not because they are stupid and don't understand analytics, but because Killebrew is clearly more valuable. WAR has a lot of problems with defense; one of many reasons it should not be treated as gospel.

Will Clark and Fred McGriff are better candidates for 1B who played when Hernandez did.

Olerud, Hernandez, they are better than the absolute worst 1B, but those mistakes should not be extended to justify hundreds of more mistakes.

I think you have some good points, until your last sentence "Olerud, Hernandez, they are better than the absolute worst 1B, but those mistakes should not be extended to justify hundreds of more mistakes"

We live in a big Hall world. If we lived in a small Hall world, I would agree that Hernandez should not be considered. But in our current reality, he should get another shot.

And letting Hernandez in wouldn't open the floodgates to "hundreds of more mistakes"

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I think you have some good points, until your last sentence "Olerud, Hernandez, they are better than the absolute worst 1B, but those mistakes should not be extended to justify hundreds of more mistakes"

We live in a big Hall world. If we lived in a small Hall world, I would agree that Hernandez should not be considered. But in our current reality, he should get another shot.

And letting Hernandez in wouldn't open the floodgates to "hundreds of more mistakes"

Hernandez himself isn’t, but the logic to get him in does open the massive floodgate. “X is better than Y, Y is in, therefore we should elect X”. Considering some of the atrocious choices made, this is probably more like a thousand players who can be justified by it than a couple hundred. I think comparing to the general standards of the 1B in as a group is a good way to do it, or to focus on the very best at a position who are not in (the Hall inevitably waters down for it to continue functioning over time, but this directs that watering down to those closest to the extant threshold). I don’t see Hernandez meeting either standard. He fails at the traditional stats (he was very good, he only fails in the context of the Hall of Fame), and is left with a WAR argument, of which he is an oddity. WAR is written to punish first basemen, and the way that they do this is designed around a factor that he dodges because of his unusual style as a player, as a glove heavy 1B. I think WAR does a decent job of comparing offense among contemporaries (it is very much geared to the current game as it is played now, not how it was played in 1960 or 1930 or 1887), but the defensive adjustments is where it runs off the tracks, and some rather dubious values are given for some players.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Hernandez himself isn’t, but the logic to get him in does open the massive floodgate. “X is better than Y, Y is in, therefore we should elect X”. Considering some of the atrocious choices made, this is probably more like a thousand players who can be justified by it than a couple hundred. I think comparing to the general standards of the 1B in as a group is a good way to do it, or to focus on the very best at a position who are not in (the Hall inevitably waters down for it to continue functioning over time, but this directs that watering down to those closest to the extant threshold). I don’t see Hernandez meeting either standard. He fails at the traditional stats (he was very good, he only fails in the context of the Hall of Fame), and is left with a WAR argument, of which he is an oddity. WAR is written to punish first basemen, and the way that they do this is designed around a factor that he dodges because of his unusual style as a player, as a glove heavy 1B. I think WAR does a decent job of comparing offense among contemporaries (it is very much geared to the current game as it is played now, not how it was played in 1960 or 1930 or 1887), but the defensive adjustments is where it runs off the tracks, and some rather dubious values are given for some players.

If we were comparing Hernandez to George Highpockets Kelly and Jim Bottomley (the two worst 1B in the HOF), then I think your argument would make sense. But I wasn't comparing Hernandez to them.

Hernandez has a lot more than just WAR. He has an MVP and two other top 5 finishes. He was a central figure for two different team's championships. He has a batting title, 2 silver sluggers, and 5 All Star nods.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

If we were comparing Hernandez to George Highpockets Kelly and Jim Bottomley (the two worst 1B in the HOF), then I think your argument would make sense. But I wasn't comparing Hernandez to them.

Hernandez has a lot more than just WAR. He has an MVP and two other top 5 finishes. He was a central figure for two different team's championships. He has a batting title, 2 silver sluggers, and 5 All Star nods.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

An MVP, a single batting title, 2 silver sluggers and 5 all star-games are not exactly Hall figures. That's not a standard I think anyone would embrace. Hernandez played like a Hall of Famer in 1981 if we accepted single seasons, but as a career honor, I can find no career figure that indicates Hall of Fame except for his borderline WAR, which is the odd result of an equation written to dictate an outcome for the 90% of 1B. It helps Olerud too. I was surprised not to see Olerud on his career similarity scores, but he does dominate the age season comparables.

Now George Kelly I think we can all agree on

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Yes, 1st base is the least important infield position, but it still matters.
Hernandez is underrated for his offensive production. For instance, he had an offensive WAR over five 3x, was a 2x Silver Slugger, and his OPS+ is 6 points higher than Perez'.

"He's better than Tony Perez" is true but not a great argument, as Perez is one of the weakest 1st basemen to get in. I think with Hernandez we are talking about how he compares with other guys that don't belong in the Hall.

There was a post here a few months ago about which current 1st basemen will get elected once they are eligible. The consensus was Pujols and Cabrera will get in for sure (great insight I know), but that the next guys behind those two - Votto, Freeman and Goldschmidt - will have a hard time getting enough votes. And those guys are all a tier up from Hernandez.


Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Gorditadogg]

Duplicate

[darwinbulldog]

I'd say the ten best players not in the Hall, in order, are

Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Alex Rodriguez
Mike Trout
Clayton Kershaw
Justin Verlander
Max Scherzer
Jim McCormick
Albert Pujols
Curt Schilling

There are maybe as many as 20 other eligible players who haven't gotten in yet and probably should, but I don't feel too bad about omitting anyone who isn't on the above list. Even if you want to limit Hall membership to something like the 50 best players per century of MLB history, they're all above that cutoff.

[G1911]

I don’t think I would put McCormick over Pujols, but I’m a fan of his candidacy.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

An MVP, a single batting title, 2 silver sluggers and 5 all star-games are not exactly Hall figures.

Exactly. Hernandez had a WONDERFUL career. But lots of guys have had wonderful careers that don't belong in the Hall. Bill Madlock won FOUR batting titles and was a 3-time All-Star, was a major factor in a title for Pittsburgh, and a major factor in a division title for Detroit. Nobody thinks he belongs - but he had a wonderful career. And so on.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by packs

JAWS figures are what they are but do you think any GM would draft Hernandez over Terry, Killebrew, David Ortiz, Tony Perez or Orlando Cepeda?

Yes I do.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Exactly. Hernandez had a WONDERFUL career. But lots of guys have had wonderful careers that don't belong in the Hall. Bill Madlock won FOUR batting titles and was a 3-time All-Star, was a major factor in a title for Pittsburgh, and a major factor in a division title for Detroit. Nobody thinks he belongs - but he had a wonderful career. And so on.

You guys are right. Hernandez' 11 Gold Gloves are meaningless and Bill Madlock is a fair comparison with Keith Hernandez. Well done.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You guys are right. Hernandez' 11 Gold Gloves are meaningless and Bill Madlock is a fair comparison with Keith Hernandez. Well done.

Madlock is very similar offensively. .305/.365/.442/123 OPS+ is pretty close to .296/.384/.436/128+ at the same time in the same league. if Keith's batting title is a HOF credential, Madlock's 4 is a lot stronger.

I don't think more than a tiny minority of fans will consider 1B gold gloves to be much of a Hall argument.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by G1911

Madlock is very similar offensively. .305/.365/.442/123 OPS+ is pretty close to .296/.384/.436/128+ at the same time in the same league. if Keith's batting title is a HOF credential, Madlock's 4 is a lot stronger.

I don't think more than a tiny minority of fans will consider 1B gold gloves to be much of a Hall argument.

Madlock was a poor defender and Hernandez is generally regarded as the best defensive 1B to ever play. A lot of people consider 11 GG's impressive. He was also the key player on two different WS Champs and a great clutch hitter.

[packs]

I have to ask if Hernandez is a HOFer do you think Mattingly is too? I love Mattingly like no one else but I don’t think he’s a HOFer by the numbers. He does however share many similar highlights with Hernandez. Mutual MVPs, a batting title, 9 gold gloves, 6 time all star, 3 time silver slugger. Similar counting stats aside from WAR.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I'd say the ten best players not in the Hall, in order, are

Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Alex Rodriguez
Mike Trout
Clayton Kershaw
Justin Verlander
Max Scherzer
Jim McCormick
Albert Pujols
Curt Schilling

There are maybe as many as 20 other eligible players who haven't gotten in yet and probably should, but I don't feel too bad about omitting anyone who isn't on the above list. Even if you want to limit Hall membership to something like the 50 best players per century of MLB history, they're all above that cutoff.

Your first 3 I have no problem going in; could not care less about steroids. You still have to hit the ball no matter how powerful you have magically become. The next 6 maybe go in; we'll see. Finally, Schilling was a lock before he melted down in such a way that made the Black Sox/Joe Jackson, Hal Chase, Pete Rose, etc., look like kindergarten with their gambling. Though I hate what they did, and to this point they rightfully haven't gotten in, I hate Schilling even more. It sickens me to think he might go in. And then I would add Cecil Travis, Riggs Stephenson, Thurman Munson, and Don Mattingly to the list of whom ought to be in. They probably never will go in but ought to. Just my opinion; you all have yours, I have mine.

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I'd say the ten best players not in the Hall, in order, are

Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Alex Rodriguez
Mike Trout
Clayton Kershaw
Justin Verlander
Max Scherzer
Jim McCormick
Albert Pujols
Curt Schilling

There are maybe as many as 20 other eligible players who haven't gotten in yet and probably should, but I don't feel too bad about omitting anyone who isn't on the above list. Even if you want to limit Hall membership to something like the 50 best players per century of MLB history, they're all above that cutoff.

I like Ichiro, too.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Madlock was a poor defender and Hernandez is generally regarded as the best defensive 1B to ever play. A lot of people consider 11 GG's impressive. He was also the key player on two different WS Champs and a great clutch hitter.

I think the only people who believe 1B defense is a hall worthy honor as Keith Hernandez fans. I have never heard this argument made for anyone else. Defense first catchers, shortstops and second basemen in the Hall are usually listed among the very worst electees. Perhaps I greatly underestimate the value of 1B defense.

[G1911]

The Black Sox rigged a World Series and destroyed the integrity of the game. Schilling retweeted a meme that has nothing to do with baseball whatsoever.

This is why the Hall should be based on reasonably objective criteria and not feelings.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I hate Schilling even more. It sickens me to think he might go in.

Based on his off-field shenanigans? Or are there other features that sicken you?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Madlock was a poor defender and Hernandez is generally regarded as the best defensive 1B to ever play. A lot of people consider 11 GG's impressive. He was also the key player on two different WS Champs and a great clutch hitter.

Its not just about defense, World Series with different teams, or being clutch. Its about peak. Hernandez won an MVP and came in the top 5 two other times. Madlock's peak was 6th in the voting.

And if you take two seconds to look beyond the slash line, you'd see that Madlock led the league in exactly 3 things--Batting Average, Double Plays hit into, and Hit by Pitch. Madlock was about as one dimensional a player as it gets. He hit a lot of singles.

Hernandez was a much more dynamic player (at or close to lead league in doubles, walks, etc), which in turn helped him be at or near the league lead in runs. Runs are important.

[G1911]

Madlock and Hernandez have almost the same rate of doubles, homers, and runs. Madlock outslugged Hernandez by a few points for more TB per year. If these numbers make Madlock one dimensional at the plate, so was Hernandez. Madlock slightly wins in black ink, Hernandez wins grey ink by a wide margin (though neither is Hall territory). WAR suggests neither ever deserved an MVP. oWAR suggests Madlock was the better offensive player, 49.1 to 46.3. I am not sure I agree with that. Looking at their oWAR, their rates of counting stats per 162, their standard percentages BA/OBP/SLG they are very similar. Madlock grounded into 5 more double plays a year, but struck out a ton less. Both have a poor stealing record.

[Jersey City Giants]

No Roidboys.

Can't seriously argue any of the others after they let Baines in.