2021 HOF Ballot

Tabe · #1 01-01-2021, 03:06 AM

No way is Joe Nathan a HOFer. For me, to get in, a reliever needs to be dominant for a long time (bye bye, Eck). Nathan wasn't. Neither was Trevor Hoffman. I think the standard needs to be high - closers are pitching one inning at a time and they're coming in with no one on base. A 3.00 ERA for a closer is nothing. Guys should be in 1.50 - 2.50 range A LOT. That's why I think Billy Wagner is the guy among relievers right now - 15 years as a reliever, he had one ERA over 3.00 (6.18 during an injury-shortened year), with five ERAs under 2.00, finishing with a 2.31 for his career (187 ERA+). He wasn't better than Nathan - he was A LOT better than Nathan.

Mike D. · #2 01-01-2021, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe

No way is Joe Nathan a HOFer. For me, to get in, a reliever needs to be dominant for a long time (bye bye, Eck). Nathan wasn't. Neither was Trevor Hoffman. I think the standard needs to be high - closers are pitching one inning at a time and they're coming in with no one on base. A 3.00 ERA for a closer is nothing. Guys should be in 1.50 - 2.50 range A LOT. That's why I think Billy Wagner is the guy among relievers right now - 15 years as a reliever, he had one ERA over 3.00 (6.18 during an injury-shortened year), with five ERAs under 2.00, finishing with a 2.31 for his career (187 ERA+). He wasn't better than Nathan - he was A LOT better than Nathan.

No disagreement from me that Wagner is the next in line by a solid margin. I think Nathan is next best candidate...but �the line� very well be between them.

I have a few Nathan cards in my PSA sub pile, though, just in case (but more Wagner cards�.

Are there other relievers I�m overlooking?

Tabe · #3 01-01-2021, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D.

No disagreement from me that Wagner is the next in line by a solid margin. I think Nathan is next best candidate...but �the line� very well be between them.

I have a few Nathan cards in my PSA sub pile, though, just in case (but more Wagner cards�.

Are there other relievers I�m overlooking?

Francisco Rodriguez? Not that I'd vote for him either.

sreader3 · #4 01-02-2021, 07:03 PM

Todd Helton was a great fielding first baseman. While his range was about average, he was the best I ever saw at scooping bad throws out of the dirt -- an especially valuable skill at Coors Field where the afternoon sun is brutal. Also an incredibly tough out at the plate. Before his eye-hand went south in 2012, Todd would toy with pitchers, flicking his wrists and fouling balls off to create 10-12 pitch at bats at will before walking or doubling into the gap. By far the most professional combination hitter/fielder I ever had the privilege of watching in his hey day. Fewer strikeouts per plate appearance than Babe Ruth. Hell, Geoff Jenkins (who played six fewer years) K'ed more times than Todd. I hope he gets in.

(Edited to add: I love Scott Rolen as a player. But he struck-out in 19.1% of his at bats, compared to 14.8% for Helton. And he only drew 899 walks compared to 1335 for Helton. Tough for me to see how Rolen gets in and Helton gets left out, if that happens--which may happen).

Mike D. · #5 01-02-2021, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe

Francisco Rodriguez? Not that I'd vote for him either.

What, that bum? He's got a losing W-L record for his career (52-53)

He's got the save total, although worth fewer WAR than either Wagner or Nathan, but yeah, he's probably in the conversation, especially at that level below Wagner.

If Jonathan Papelbon wasn't basically done at age 34, I think he'd have had a a chance...but hard to make the HOF with only 725 IP.

Tabe · #6 01-02-2021, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D.

What, that bum? He's got a losing W-L record for his career (52-53)

He's got the save total, although worth fewer WAR than either Wagner or Nathan, but yeah, he's probably in the conversation, especially at that level below Wagner.

If Jonathan Papelbon wasn't basically done at age 34, I think he'd have had a a chance...but hard to make the HOF with only 725 IP.

I mean, if we're putting in closers with five great or near-great seasons and lots of bad ones, like Eck, then Rodriguez is a lock.

toledo_mudhen · #7 01-03-2021, 05:50 AM

I have often wondered - Just Why Is It that Gil Hodges has never been enshrined? Did he like kill somebodies cat or something?

alaskapaul3 · #8 01-03-2021, 06:24 AM

There aren't any serious new 2021 guys , but Torii Hunter was a maniac in CF against that baggie.

I like when guys at least 'get the nod' for their second year of eligibility like Abreu and hopefully, Hunter.

Mike D. · #9 01-03-2021, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe

I mean, if we're putting in closers with five great or near-great seasons and lots of bad ones, like Eck, then Rodriguez is a lock.

We�ll, Eckersley is a bit more than �just a closer who was dominant for 5 years�.

He did 150 games as a starter, and was kind of the prototype for the modern closer. Won a CY and an MVP. Then had a 5 non-dominant years as a closer that saw him save an additional 150 saves.

In total, it adds up to HOF...kind of a compiler with a dominant stretch.

As a total aside on Eck....I find it amusing that he�s a broadcaster now (and he�s actually REALLY good) - in the early 80�s if you told a Red Sox fan that two players from that era would be broadcasters, and that it�d be Eck and Rice, they�d throw you and your time machine right out of the Cask n Flaggin!

Tabe · #10 01-03-2021, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D.

We�ll, Eckersley is a bit more than �just a closer who was dominant for 5 years�.

He did 150 games as a starter, and was kind of the prototype for the modern closer. Won a CY and an MVP. Then had a 5 non-dominant years as a closer that saw him save an additional 150 saves.

In total, it adds up to HOF...kind of a compiler with a dominant stretch.

As a total aside on Eck....I find it amusing that he�s a broadcaster now (and he�s actually REALLY good) - in the early 80�s if you told a Red Sox fan that two players from that era would be broadcasters, and that it�d be Eck and Rice, they�d throw you and your time machine right out of the Cask n Flaggin!

Couple things:

1) His Cy and MVP were a joke. He wasn't even remotely deserving of either one.

2) Eck was elected because of his relief years. Period. And they simply weren't that good.

h2oya311 · #11 01-05-2021, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D.

We’ll, Eckersley is a bit more than “just a closer who was dominant for 5 years”.

He did 150 games as a starter, and was kind of the prototype for the modern closer. Won a CY and an MVP. Then had a 5 non-dominant years as a closer that saw him save an additional 150 saves.

In total, it adds up to HOF...kind of a compiler with a dominant stretch.

As a total aside on Eck....I find it amusing that he’s a broadcaster now (and he’s actually REALLY good) - in the early 80’s if you told a Red Sox fan that two players from that era would be broadcasters, and that it’d be Eck and Rice, they’d throw you and your time machine right out of the Cask n Flaggin!

Awesome post! 100% agree. Eck had insane control, from what I recall. In fact, when Ron Shandler does fantasy baseball analysis of pitchers and they have a 6.0 or 7.0+ K/BB ratio and insane BPVs (base performance values), he notes that they are "Eck-like" or in "vintage Eck territory". Something to that effect.

Jason19th · #12 01-01-2021, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe

No way is Joe Nathan a HOFer. For me, to get in, a reliever needs to be dominant for a long time (bye bye, Eck). Nathan wasn't. Neither was Trevor Hoffman. I think the standard needs to be high - closers are pitching one inning at a time and they're coming in with no one on base. A 3.00 ERA for a closer is nothing. Guys should be in 1.50 - 2.50 range A LOT. That's why I think Billy Wagner is the guy among relievers right now - 15 years as a reliever, he had one ERA over 3.00 (6.18 during an injury-shortened year), with five ERAs under 2.00, finishing with a 2.31 for his career (187 ERA+). He wasn't better than Nathan - he was A LOT better than Nathan.

I actually take a bit of an opposite view with relievers. I think we should be rewarding the guys who are truly dominate for 4-5 years rather then the guys who are pretty good for a long career. I look at a guy like Dick Radatz in the mid 1960, Mike Marshall in the 1970�s. Guys who were working 150-20 innings of relief and just carrying teams. Radatz over a three year period won 40 games and saved another 70 while keeping an era under 2.5. Marshall pitched 179 innings one year and then followed it up with 208 the next. Predictable both guys petered out pretty quick. But their greatness is clear .

howard38 · #13 01-01-2021, 01:44 PM

I'm not for voting in contemporary RPs unless they lapped the field like Mariano Rivera & I'm on the fence about guys from the 60s & 70s who threw more innings. But I wanted to give a shout out to John Hiller who was one & done on the ballot but IMO was as good or better than his direct contemporaries including Rollie Fingers & Sparky Lyle.

Mike D. · #14 01-01-2021, 02:54 PM

Relievers are tough...you either have a crazy high standard or you end up electing a LOT of guys - a lot of relievers have 3-5 runs...but not many go 10+.

perezfan · #15 01-01-2021, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howard38

I'm not for voting in contemporary RPs unless they lapped the field like Mariano Rivera & I'm on the fence about guys from the 60s & 70s who threw more innings. But I wanted to give a shout out to John Hiller who was one & done on the ballot but IMO was as good or better than his direct contemporaries including Rollie Fingers & Sparky Lyle.

Agree with this. For a Reliever to get into the Hall, the Bar should be set ridiculously high. Too many are in Cooperstown already, IMHO.

YazFenway08 · #16 01-01-2021, 03:30 PM

Are the names under consideration for the Early Baseball Era already known? I think this vote was moved into late 2021 but wasn�t sure if the ballot was already set before Covid hit.

triwak · #17 01-03-2021, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YazFenway08

Are the names under consideration for the Early Baseball Era already known? I think this vote was moved into late 2021 but wasn�t sure if the ballot was already set before Covid hit.

I have wondered about this also. Can't seem to find any info on the ballots for EITHER Era's committee (there were to be two), prior to their postponement. Would be nice to know. Perhaps the whole ballot-selection process was also postponed until 2021?

Tabe · #18 01-01-2021, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason19th

I actually take a bit of an opposite view with relievers. I think we should be rewarding the guys who are truly dominate for 4-5 years rather then the guys who are pretty good for a long career. I look at a guy like Dick Radatz in the mid 1960, Mike Marshall in the 1970�s. Guys who were working 150-20 innings of relief and just carrying teams. Radatz over a three year period won 40 games and saved another 70 while keeping an era under 2.5. Marshall pitched 179 innings one year and then followed it up with 208 the next. Predictable both guys petered out pretty quick. But their greatness is clear .

I was specifically referring to modern closers, guys throwing 65-70 innings while only coming in with no one on base. I would use a slightly different standard on guys throwing 130+ innings.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Card shows in 2021	parkplace33	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	17	12-30-2020 01:42 PM
IBHOF Class of 2021	Exhibitman	Boxing / Wrestling Cards & Memorabilia Forum	3	12-28-2020 03:48 PM
2021 Autograph goals	Wrightfan85	Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports	11	12-18-2020 06:35 PM
2021 Autograph goals	Wrightfan85	Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports	0	12-15-2020 05:13 PM
Trout to Philly in 2021?	clydepepper	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	12	03-05-2019 06:25 PM