OT: Who's your vote

[buymycards]

Maybe it should be called "The Hall of Pretty Good". There are a lot of good players on this list but true HOFers? Not so many.

[packs]

It's really upsetting to see McGriff finish so poorly. Just looking at recent inductees, he was a far superior player to both Jim Rice and Andre Dawson, yet he will likely toil at 20 percent for the forseable future.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by buymycards

Maybe it should be called "The Hall of Pretty Good". There are a lot of good players on this list but true HOFers? Not so many.

Exluding steroids, I think many/most of the guys listed are slam dunk HOFers.. and purely/objectively based on numbers would be locks

Locks-
Bonds- top 5 offensive numbers, plus 8 GG, and 7 MVP
Clemens- top 10 pitching numbers, 7 Cys and an MVP
Piazza- by far greatest offensive catcher ever
Biggio- 3000 hits for a 2nd baseman is a lock
Sosa- 600+ would be a lock (even though he'll never make it)
Palmeiro- 500+ 3000+ would be a lock (he'll never make it either)
McGwire- 500+ would be a lock.. doubt he makes it ever

Near locks-
Bagwell- certainly hangs offensively with Perez and Rice
McGriff- same number of HR's as Gehrig.. would've hit 500 had they let him hang on long enough to do so.. also definitely as if not more productive than Perez and Rice.
Schilling- who I even think is borderline, but compare him with some of the other HOF pitchers from the beloved vintage card era... Marquard, Faber, Pennock, Haines, etc

[bbcard1]

Like the internet, if we could put the genie back in the bottle we could reinvent the hall of fame, but we can't.

[packs]

I still think its ridiculous that people even consider Biggio. He was not a HOFer. Look at things this way. If Vizquel hung around and got 3,000 hits, would that make him a HOFer? Or is he already a HOfer? If we're talking about Biggio, no one would think he's a HOFer without his milestone, and even with it people don't think he is. So why would he even be considered at all? Seems like people throwing their votes away.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by packs

I still think its ridiculous that people even consider Biggio. He was not a HOFer. Look at things this way. If Vizquel hung around and got 3,000 hits, would that make him a HOFer?

I think regardless of era, or dominance in an era, the Hall has always had milestone that more or less locked a player in.. this is how I'd always interpreted..

300 wins/500 HR- were the top two
then
3000 hits

others like 3000 Ks, 1500 RBI, etc were nice numbers but did not equate to locks by themselves.

It's all screwed up now, since 500, 600, 700!! 3000 hits no longer appear to be locks..

I'm now starting to think this will hurt the vintage card market. I think so much of what drives interest and value for players 50, 100, 125 years ago is a reverance for the Hall and for these numbers and what they mean as compared with today. This makes more people love the history of this game and want to collect its artifacts. If that is completely lost and these milestones will no longer mean anything, why would anyone care anymore about a guy from the 20's/30's that hit 500 HRs?

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

ABSOLUTELY- a player's performance as compared with their peers of the same era means as much if not more than just their yearly or career totals... clearly there was an era prior to 1893 when the mound was closer, there was a dead ball era, there was seemingly a very live ball era in the 20'-30's.. didn't the league bat nearly .300 in 1930?? (is Lefty Grove any less dominant because his ERA ended up over 3.00 or over a run higher than Ed Walsh? No), the mound was lowered after the year of the pitcher in 1968, offense died and they created the DH, and on and on. Every one of these periods affected the statistics of the players in that era, and how a player performs relative to those of his era should be taken into account when judging greatness.

What you fail to realize is that not one of the factors you mentioned constituted cheating. Every player in those era was on a level playing field, which makes comparing them to those in their era valid. Steroids put players on a different field, and now it is unfair to say Player X was the best of his era when you don't know how much of this "greatness" was artificially induced.

Overall, I think "era" and "position" are taken into account a great deal. But people (voters) don't know how to treat the steroid era because you cannot apply the same rules across the board. That's why it was CHEATING.

Originally Posted by packs

I still think its ridiculous that people even consider Biggio. He was not a HOFer. Look at things this way. If Vizquel hung around and got 3,000 hits, would that make him a HOFer? Or is he already a HOfer? If we're talking about Biggio, no one would think he's a HOFer without his milestone, and even with it people don't think he is. So why would he even be considered at all? Seems like people throwing their votes away.

Again, taking "position" into account, Biggio played catcher and second base the majority of his career and was hands down one of the best in the game in his time, at his position. He is a sure-fire HOFer who would have been elected in his first year easily had his election come twenty years ago. He was unfairly punished by the era he played in by voters who aren't sure how to handle any player from that era.

And as far as "hanging around" goes, I will never understand how longevity became such a knock on a player. If someone is good enough to play at a high level, in the very best level of competition, how is that not a positive? Are you going to say Hank Aaron was a compiler? After all, he played 23 seasons.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by dgo71

What you fail to realize is that not one of the factors you mentioned constituted cheating. Every player in those era was on a level playing field, which makes comparing them to those in their era valid. Steroids put players on a different field, and now it is unfair to say Player X was the best of his era when you don't know how much of this "greatness" was artificially induced.

Overall, I think "era" and "position" are taken into account a great deal. But people (voters) don't know how to treat the steroid era because you cannot apply the same rules across the board. That's why it was CHEATING.:

NOT my point at all.. I was only pointing out why I agreed that McGriff's 30+ HR and league leading years were more impressive in an era when fewer guys were doing it... It had little or nothing to do with the steroid issue.

[Big Ben]

I treated this poll as for whom I would vote to out into the Hall of Fame today. Limiting this to the options mentioned, my vote was for Biggio, and Lee Smith. I think that in time, more will come out as to who used and did not use PED's. I have read that according to some Hall of Fame players, the rumor is out there that a PED user is already in the Hall of Fame. Interesting.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

NOT my point at all.. I was only pointing out why I agreed that McGriff's 30+ HR and league leading years were more impressive in an era when fewer guys were doing it... It had little or nothing to do with the steroid issue.

Sorry! Misunderstood your point, I agree McGriff doesn't get nearly the love he should.