2022 Baseball Hall of Fame - tracker

[sycks22]

Originally Posted by jimtodd

3B have the least HOF inductees of any position (only 17).

Here are 4 different 3rd basemen:
1.) .277/.362/.464, 342 HR, 62.1 WAR, 9 AS, 5 GG
2.) .306/.369/.448, 234 HR, 75.7 WAR, 7 AS, 0 GG
3.) .312/.418/.515, 309 HR, 68.4 WAR, 7 AS, 0 GG
4.) .281/.364/.490, 316 HR, 70.1 WAR, 7 AS, 8 GG

Santo, Molitor, Edgar, Rolen. All fairly similar mid-tier HOFers. And Rolen is the best glove of the group.

Schmidt, Mathews, Boggs, Brett, Chipper and Robinson would likely be top tier 3B for most in no particular order.

Then, also in no particular order, probably come these 4, plus Baker, Collins and now Beltre.

Who else would you guys put in the conversation?

Molitor and Rolen aren't in the same stadium. 3319 hits, .306 Avg, 504 sb for Molitor. Rolen had 2077 hits and 316 hrs in 17 seasons. Explain to me how those are similar players?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Molitor and Rolen aren't in the same stadium. 3319 hits, .306 Avg, 504 sb for Molitor. Rolen had 2077 hits and 316 hrs in 17 seasons. Explain to me how those are similar players?

I don't know that they're similar...they went about things differently.

I found this pretty interesting, though...they both had a career OPS+ of 122.

I also thought it was interesting that Molitor actually DH'ed more than he played 3B...1,174 games to 791. The BB-R WAR lists are imperfect that way, maybe because they don't have one for DH (for example, Edgar Martinez appears on the 3B WAR list just after Rolen).

[Tabe]

I will never understand voters who vote for Ortiz but not Bonds or Clemens or Rodriguez. Bonds and Clemens didn't even fail tests - Ortiz did*. Rodriguez did - and paid for it. Ortiz did and received no punishment.

Maybe if those three had given a profane speech and been historically awful defensively they, too, could get elected.

* - Ortiz and Rob Manfred have both confirmed he failed a test. It's not speculation, unlike anything surrounding Bonds and Clemens.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I will never understand voters who vote for Ortiz but not Bonds or Clemens or Rodriguez. Bonds and Clemens didn't even fail tests - Ortiz did*. Rodriguez did - and paid for it. Ortiz did and received no punishment.

Maybe if those three had given a profane speech and been historically awful defensively they, too, could get elected.

* - Ortiz and Rob Manfred have both confirmed he failed a test. It's not speculation, unlike anything surrounding Bonds and Clemens.

Last I read Manfred was spinning a story about how it could have been a false positive.

I'm fuzzy on the Bonds story now. Didn't he acknowledge using the "clear" but claimed his trainer told him it was a lawful supplement?

Anyhow there is no good answer to this once you make an exception for anyone. Even if you don't make an overt exception, you've almost certainly already let in people who used but managed to keep the lid on suspicions.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Last I read Manfred was spinning a story about how it could have been a false positive.

I'm fuzzy on the Bonds story now. Didn't he acknowledge using the "clear" but claimed his trainer told him it was a lawful supplement?

Anyhow there is no good answer to this once you make an exception for anyone. Even if you don't make an overt exception, you've almost certainly already let in people who used but managed to keep the lid on suspicions.

Peter, by Manfred saying there might be a false positive on Ortiz, he's admitting there was a positive, right? So Ortiz lied when he said he never failed a test.

You are correct about Bonds, admited in Grand Jury, he "unknowingly" took the Clear and the Cream but that it had no affect on him.

There are Steroid cheaters in the HOF, Pudge Rodriguez, just to name one. Does that mean they should make more mistakes? Just an analogy, because Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac were never caught, do we stop arresting people for murder?

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Peter, by Manfred saying there might be a false positive on Ortiz, he's admitting there was a positive, right? So Ortiz lied when he said he never failed a test.

I think Manfred's point is that many (I think he said 10-15) players who tested positive had explanations that would have negated the test results. Ortiz could have been one of them, but the adjudication process was truncated since, in theory, obtaining definitive results by player was never intended and would never be revealed or used for any purpose.

[SAllen2556]

The use of steroids was (and maybe still is) way more widespread than we'll ever know. It's pointless to try to figure out who did and who didn't. Why not just assume everyone did and take the best players from that era and put them in the hall of fame. Isn't that how hall of famers are typically determined, by how they compare to others of their own era?

Shouldn't Bonds and Clemens be in just because they were better than everyone else during their era?

Think back to the 80's and remember all the cocaine users in baseball: Willie Wilson, Gooden, Strawberry. Different era, different drugs. Amphetamines in the 70's were widespread.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

The use of steroids was (and maybe still is) way more widespread than we'll ever know. It's pointless to try to figure out who did and who didn't. Why not just assume everyone did and take the best players from that era and put them in the hall of fame. Isn't that how hall of famers are typically determined, by how they compare to others of their own era?



Shouldn't Bonds and Clemens be in just because they were better than everyone else during their era?



Think back to the 80's and remember all the cocaine users in baseball: Willie Wilson, Gooden, Strawberry. Different era, different drugs. Amphetamines in the 70's were widespread.

Cheaters shouldn't be in the Hall. They lessen the accomplishments of all the players who played fair. They set a terrible example for everyone who looked up to them and they influenced countless teenagers to take steroids too. It is the most important factor anyone should consider when voting. Their actions should never be normalized.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

The use of steroids was (and maybe still is) way more widespread than we'll ever know. It's pointless to try to figure out who did and who didn't. Why not just assume everyone did and take the best players from that era and put them in the hall of fame. Isn't that how hall of famers are typically determined, by how they compare to others of their own era?

Shouldn't Bonds and Clemens be in just because they were better than everyone else during their era?

Think back to the 80's and remember all the cocaine users in baseball: Willie Wilson, Gooden, Strawberry. Different era, different drugs. Amphetamines in the 70's were widespread.

This is exactly my thought process. Every era has its "thing". If the MLB let's something affect results, then it's part of the game during the era it's allowed. They let roids save baseball.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

I think Manfred's point is that many (I think he said 10-15) players who tested positive had explanations that would have negated the test results. Ortiz could have been one of them, but the adjudication process was truncated since, in theory, obtaining definitive results by player was never intended and would never be revealed or used for any purpose.

Understood but the point I was trying to make was, whether the test was questionable or not, Ortiz claimed he never failed a drug test and thats a lie.

[nat]

Rolen's defense is what makes him a HOF caliber player. Rfield measures expected runs saved defensively, numbers to follow are based on Rfield. Now, at 3B, nobody touches Brooks, but Rolen stacks up well against the next tier. He saved 35 more runs across his career than did Graig Nettles - to take one great defensive third baseman. He did this, moreover, in 700 fewer games than did Nettles. So, he was saving far more runs per-game than was Nettles. And his best season is equal to Nettles' best season (30 runs saved).

Nettles, of course, isn't a hall of famer. But Rolen hit like Paul Molitor (as noted above, both have career 122 OPS+), and fielded BETTER than Nettles. It's that combination that will get him into the hall.

Given historical voting patterns, he'll probably get in next year, maybe the year after. He's at 69% on the tracker, and vote percentages for most players go down some when the final vote tally is in. So Rolen will probably end up in the mid-to-high 60s. Players with vote percentages in the mid-to-high 60s, and no steroid taint, usually get in pretty quickly.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Understood but the point I was trying to make was, whether the test was questionable or not, Ortiz claimed he never failed a drug test and thats a lie.

He has since admitted he failed.

[Dead-Ball-Hitter]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Peter, by Manfred saying there might be a false positive on Ortiz, he's admitting there was a positive, right? So Ortiz lied when he said he never failed a test.

What was the banned substance that Ortiz took? I don't believe we even know. Some banned substance, not necessarily steriods. Where do you draw the line?

[SyrNy1960]

If Barry Bonds isn't a Hall of Famer by the end of the day, it's a failure by the Hall of Fame

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...lure-hall-fame

[FrankWakefield]

I saw Aaron play. More than once. He was a gentleman, and a Hall of Fame baseball player.

Ortiz. He hit .280 something and hit 540 something home runs. I think he played less than 300 games in the field. He can kinda border line (in my mind) get into the Hall. I'd not consider him 1st year eligible material. For folks who get hung up on positive tests, please consider being a bit consistent with that. Don't keep Bonds out if you're ok with Ortiz getting in. McGwire and Clemmons the same. Put 'em in (I lean towards that) or keep all of them out.

I'm a lifelong Cardinals fan. They may well vote Rolen in... but I think that he and Edmonds are just on the edge of not getting in. Seeing them on the field was nice, I was glad when a ball was hit anywhere near them, I was confident that they could play tight defense. But it wasn't quite like watching Ozzie at short. That was just about perfection. I saw Clemente and Mays play, and they could beat you with their gloves, their bats, their baserunning... Aaron was a great fielder, strong arm, he could fly like the wind out there in the outfield. I mention this because Ortiz didn't do that stuff. What's the next evolution, putting base coaches into the Hall for base coaching? And think who'll get in there for that, they'll start with a clean slate so no telling where they decide to set starting standards. Next they'll add pitching coaches, gotta have those.

I liked the Baines comment back there. And I'm sitting here shaking my head about Puckett getting in. And a few others. So maybe Ortiz and Rolen and Bonds and McGwire and the rest get in.

I'm not a Yankees fan, and I don't like the consequences (as I see them) from ARod getting the huge Texas contract that got players' salaries into a higher altitude orbit of outrageousness. I don't fault ARod, the owners did it to themselves and put paying the price of it, in the long run, on people going to ball games and people buying modern ball cards. (Those doing both take two hits on the burden.) MLB imposed a 1 year suspension on ARod, and he still had game for that year he missed. He had a great, HOF career, even after they took a year from him. 117 WAR, 3115 hits, 696 HRs. 17 players have a WAR rating above that. Ortiz' is about half that. ARod was a DH just under 300 games, about the number Ortiz was in the field. And ARod was in the field about 2400 games, about the number Ortiz was DHing.

ARod was a real ball player.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Frank, I think it's inevitable that once MLB said OK to the designated hitter, the best designated hitters are going to make the Hall, despite obvious holes in their resumes relative to how we traditionally have viewed a baseball player.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I will never understand voters who vote for Ortiz but not Bonds or Clemens or Rodriguez. Bonds and Clemens didn't even fail tests - Ortiz did*. Rodriguez did - and paid for it. Ortiz did and received no punishment.

Maybe if those three had given a profane speech and been historically awful defensively they, too, could get elected.

* - Ortiz and Rob Manfred have both confirmed he failed a test. It's not speculation, unlike anything surrounding Bonds and Clemens.

Agree 100%. It makes no sense that Ortiz gets a pass and other linked players don't. How can anyone vote for Ortiz and not Bonds or Clemens, who were infinitely better players. Like we used to say, "Ortiz couldn't carry their jocks."
It is absolutely hypocritical and inconsistent.

[jingram058]

Ortiz gets in, I am okay with it. Okay with those other guys too. I could not care any less about steroids, or corked bats.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Molitor and Rolen aren't in the same stadium. 3319 hits, .306 Avg, 504 sb for Molitor. Rolen had 2077 hits and 316 hrs in 17 seasons. Explain to me how those are similar players?

OTOH, although Molitor's plaque says third base, he spent more of his career as a DH. I am certainly not arguing Molitor is not legit as a HOFer as he certainly is, but I don't think he became a DH because he was an asset in the field.