2010/11 MLB HOF Ballot

Yes Tim Raines was one of the best players in the 80s but was overshadowed playing at the same time as Henderson and in Montreal. He would be a much better choice than Rice or Dawson were the last 2 years. It's a shame he doesn't get in.

Anyway Alomar, Bagwell, Blyleven, Larkin, Edgar Martinez, McGwire, Raines and Trammell should all be in the HOF. I'm on the fence with both Palmeiro and Larry Walker. I'd probably pass on both of them.

The rest, no thanks.

I wouldnt be surprised to only see Alomar and Larkin on the stage this summer.

"BigDogsHunt wrote:

I wouldnt be surprised to only see Alomar and Larkin on the stage this summer.

I'd be shocked if Larkin got in. I think you'll see Alomar and Blylevan finally make it.

go grissom! and mc griff.

Hmm:

Lee Smith, Rafi Palmero, Jack Morris.

I'd vote for Morris just for a 10 inning shutout to win a WS championship, Rafi has numbers second to none, and Lee Smith has over 400 career saves, Rock Raines was Great but not as great as those three imo.

McGriff and Murph deserve some love as well, especially Dale Murphy..

"padre31 wrote:

Hmm:

Lee Smith, Rafi Palmero, Jack Morris.

I'd vote for Morris just for a 10 inning shutout to win a WS championship, Rafi has numbers second to none, and Lee Smith has over 400 career saves, Rock Raines was Great but not as great as those three imo.

McGriff and Murph deserve some love as well, especially Dale Murphy..

If Morris went into the HOF he'd have the highest ERA of any pitcher. Obviously ERA isn't the only factor but he's just not a HOFer. 1 game doesn't make a career and the myth that he was this big game player is false too as his career playoff numbers are average at best. If so let's put in everyone that pitches a great game in the playoffs so come on in Jeff Suppan, Livan Hernandez, Orlando Hernandez, etc. His number are not HOF worthy.

No to Lee Smith too. The save stat is pointless. Take away that stat and his numbers aren't HOF worthy either.

Palmiero won't get in because of PED suspension but even without that besides his hit total and HR total (which voters love) he really was never a dominate player on his team or at his position. He would have been voted in without the PEDs but I never thought he was a HOF player watching him play. Give me Bagwell instead any day of the week, both had good gloves, Bagwell was a much better base runner and put up numbers in tough hitter park in the Astrodome while Palmiero got to hit in Texas and Baltimore for most of his career.

Bert "BE HOME" Blyleven is long over due.

And Mariano should be voted in this year while active...let him be the first and only!:tongue2:

Edgar Martinez, Larkin, Alomar.

From a ballot that included Vida Blue, Dave Concepcion, Steve Garvey, Ron Guidry, Tommy John, Al Oliver, Ted Simmons, Rusty Staub, Billy Martin, Pat Gillick, Marvin Miller and George Steinbrenner.

The 16-member Veteran's Expansion Era Committee elects to HOF for 2011:

Only Pat Gillick

very deserving for his impact and results but so many others should have joined him.

edgar needs to be in the HOF

Joining Pat Gillick will be Roberto Alomar who received an even 90%; and Bert Blyleven who got 79.7%.

Just short: Barry Larkin with 62.1% and Jack Morris with 53.5%.

Congrats to both Alomar and Blyleven who both deserve to be there. Also great to see Larkin get a lot of new votes (he should probably make it next year since the 2012 class is weak). It's a freaking crime Jeff Bagwell didn't make it, although I bet he does in a few years although there's no excuse that he shouldn't have been elected today except that some of the dinosaurs feel he 'might' have been a product of PEDs except there's no evidence anywhere that he used but continue with the witch hunts.

I'm also glad Jack Morris didn't get in (at least for now). Is there a more overrated pitcher than him right now? No one has any solid arguments that he belongs there except for 1 great game that he had. His numbers and career aren't Hall worthy.

"Ray Finkle wrote:

Congrats to both Alomar and Blyleven who both deserve to be there. Also great to see Larkin get a lot of new votes (he should probably make it next year since the 2012 class is weak). It's a freaking crime Jeff Bagwell didn't make it, although I bet he does in a few years although there's no excuse that he shouldn't have been elected today except that some of the dinosaurs feel he 'might' have been a product of PEDs except there's no evidence anywhere that he used but continue with the witch hunts.

I'm also glad Jack Morris didn't get in (at least for now). Is there a more overrated pitcher than him right now? No one has any solid arguments that he belongs there except for 1 great game that he had. His numbers and career aren't Hall worthy.

Next years class if very weak with no sure fire HoF guy....Larkin should have been in this year, but also feel he will get this 75% next year.

Bagwell is murky gray area for the era. Nothing will remove that stigma.

I actually think time will have to pass, and folks that have the vote will compare the prior decade of Roids, to the current clean decade we are now in, and measure those numbers and use them against the ROID ERA guys. Bagwell, McQuire, Palmero, soon Sosa, Bonds, even Clemons will all be in that bubble.

But its going to take the time for the new stats to be produced and compare them to the decade prior to Roids, and of course compare them to the Roid Era. but I can see them be "black balled" for years if not forever.

I wouldnt lose an ounce of sleep over it. Jon Heyman says the HoF needs names from the Roid era...I say, yes, on a blacklist only!!!!

I'm glad to see Alomar in there. He was the best 2nd baseman there was when he played.

"gunn34 wrote:

I'm glad to see Alomar in there. He was the best 2nd baseman there was when he played.

While true about Alomar deserving to be there....I will never use best of era to judge whether someone is HoF of the entire history of the game. But I agree with your overall view of Robbie.

"BigDogsHunt wrote:

Next years class if very weak with no sure fire HoF guy....Larkin should have been in this year, but also feel he will get this 75% next year.

Bagwell is murky gray area for the era. Nothing will remove that stigma.

I actually think time will have to pass, and folks that have the vote will compare the prior decade of Roids, to the current clean decade we are now in, and measure those numbers and use them against the ROID ERA guys. Bagwell, McQuire, Palmero, soon Sosa, Bonds, even Clemons will all be in that bubble.

But its going to take the time for the new stats to be produced and compare them to the decade prior to Roids, and of course compare them to the Roid Era. but I can see them be "black balled" for years if not forever.

I wouldnt lose an ounce of sleep over it. Jon Heyman says the HoF needs names from the Roid era...I say, yes, on a blacklist only!!!!

It's all the old dinosaurs that still feel that way about PEDs. Most, if not all, of the younger writers/voters don't care about who took what etc so yes in time I think guys like Clemens, Bonds, Arod etc will get in. And they should be in. Personally I really don't care about PEDs, and tired of the subject.

And the problem with black balling people is it's dangerous. Yeah we know that Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez and Arod used PEDs but how can you have a HOF without Bonds, Clemens, Manny, McGwire or Arod?

The problem is who's to say that there aren't players in the HOF already that used PEDs but we don't know about it. People can't discredit Jeff Bagwell because he was a home run hitter yet let guys like let's say Jeter get in without questioning them too since he played in that era as well. I don't think Jeter ever used PEDs but who knows for sure. There's no evidence with Jeter much like there's no evidence with Bagwell. We have no clue who did or didn't use so to punish someone with no evidence is just criminal.

The HOF is a museum celebrating the greats of the game, so why not just vote in the guys and if you want have a note on their statue saying: Arod admitted to using PEDs in 2008 or Manny Ramirez failed a drug test in 2008 for PEDs. So people who go to Cooperstown sees the greats but also see that the player used. The problem too is we don't know how much PEDs helped these players too. Plus blackballing players for using PEDs but not players who used greenies or did other drugs is kind of hypocritical, no?

"Ray Finkle wrote:

It's all the old dinosaurs that still feel that way about PEDs. Most, if not all, of the younger writers/voters don't care about who took what etc so yes in time I think guys like Clemens, Bonds, Arod etc will get in. And they should be in. Personally I really don't care about PEDs, and tired of the subject.

And the problem with black balling people is it's dangerous. Yeah we know that Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez and Arod used PEDs but how can you have a HOF without Bonds, Clemens, Manny, McGwire or Arod?

The problem is who's to say that there aren't players in the HOF already that used PEDs but we don't know about it. People can't discredit Jeff Bagwell because he was a home run hitter yet let guys like let's say Jeter get in without questioning them too since he played in that era as well. I don't think Jeter ever used PEDs but who knows for sure. There's no evidence with Jeter much like there's no evidence with Bagwell. We have no clue who did or didn't use so to punish someone with no evidence is just criminal.

The HOF is a museum celebrating the greats of the game, so why not just vote in the guys and if you want have a note on their statue saying: Arod admitted to using PEDs in 2008 or Manny Ramirez failed a drug test in 2008 for PEDs. So people who go to Cooperstown sees the greats but also see that the player used. The problem too is we don't know how much PEDs helped these players too. Plus blackballing players for using PEDs but not players who used greenies or did other drugs is kind of hypocritical, no?

I dont think its "Old Dino's" vs new bloods. I am hearing concern and uncertainty from all parties. And no concensus on who from Roid will or should get in. Frankly, the only small concensus on who from the Roid era should get in (using the vague - lets pretend roids never happened - who was on track argument) are Bonds and Clemons only. (I guess Arod but he is still playing).

So those same folks are saying, Sosa, McGwire were fence guys that had Roids pushing them to new heights - should never get in. I dont see concensus on who is roid worthy.

I am not tired of Roids, I love these losers blowing up their legacy's as dirty cheats. If Jeter is ever shown I will call him the same. Tainted! My opinion and mindset of course!

Smelling salts, Greenies, Nicotine, or Caffine all the same to me - but we have to draw the line somewhere....for me, that line is Roids! They abused the concept of HoF authenticity. I am not a moral police guy, but I am a HoF credibility and authenticity guy.

"BigDogsHunt wrote:

I dont think its "Old Dino's" vs new bloods. I am hearing concern and uncertainty from all parties. And no concensus on who from Roid will or should get in. Frankly, the only small concensus on who from the Roid era should get in (using the vague - lets pretend roids never happened - who was on track argument) are Bonds and Clemons only. (I guess Arod but he is still playing).

So those same folks are saying, Sosa, McGwire were fence guys that had Roids pushing them to new heights - should never get in. I dont see concensus on who is roid worthy.

I am not tired of Roids, I love these losers blowing up their legacy's as dirty cheats. If Jeter is ever shown I will call him the same. Tainted! My opinion and mindset of course!

Smelling salts, Greenies, Nicotine, or Caffine all the same to me - but we have to draw the line somewhere....for me, that line is Roids! They abused the concept of HoF authenticity. I am not a moral police guy, but I am a HoF credibility and authenticity guy.

Actually someone could make a very strong case that Clemens would not have made the HOF if he never took PEDs (if you think he first started in his first year with Toronto). He had a good career up until that point but the last 2 to 3 years with Boston were bad and he didn't have the overall #s to have a strong case.

As far as concerns/uncertainly I don't think it's remotely fair to judge players as to whether or not they took any PEDs when there's zero evidence on that matter. The writers are trying to play God and picking and choosing based on no real evidence. It's not fair. If those writers want to keep someone out of the HOF because they are known users and there is proof, fine I don't agree with it but if that's their stance I can buy it. But to not vote for someone because they are suspious but have zero evidence is bull.

How are these players dirty cheats again? There was nothing in the rule book stating player's couldn't take this or that. Players are always looking for an edge, whether it's pretending to get hit by a pitch or pretending to make a catch or using a spit ball or corking a ball or gambling on the game (which are all illegal) etc. The best thing about the PED era is people in the game knew it was going on but didn't care because everyone was getting rich because of it, not that that makes it right but just shows you baseball's attitude towards PEDs in general back then.

The problem with PEDs (besides from the fact that we don't know who did or didn't use them) is we don't actually know how much they actually helped a player, especially since there have been more Manny Alexanders and Jay Gibbons type players of the world who took them and they did little to nothing for them than they are Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens or Arods. Do we really know how PEDs helped Bonds hit those 71 HRs? Is it possible Bonds could have hit that many if he wasn't on PEDs? Do we really know for sure? I mean Roger Maris hit 61 HRs in 1961 but previously never hit more than 39 HRs before than and never hit more than 33 after that year. Maybe he was on something that year too? In fact Maris had only 3 seasons hitting over 30 HRs in his career. Besides from that 1 big spike year Bonds was pretty consistent in the power department throughout his whole career.

And no greenies is not the same as smelling salts, coffee or nicotine. To say something like that means you don't understand exactly what greenies did/do. I have heard numerous first hand stories about the abuse of greenies back in the day and what they did to players. I even had 1 former MLB player tell me that he took both PEDs and greenies and he felt that greenies by far did more for him than PEDs ever did. Not saying that what 1 player told me should be considered the end all be all but I think the lack of greenie reporting/stories compared to PED stories is hiding what was a bigger issue.

As far as HOF credibility or authenticity, what does that even mean? We have guys in the HOF that played in an era where there were no minorities or foreign players (not that it's their fault but their numbers might have looked different) in the league, we have guys in the HOF that kept those minority players out of the game, we have players that have cheated the game whether its because of a corked bat, spit ball, etc.

Blyleven has no business in the hall of fame. You gonna put Jim kaat and tommy john in too because they're more deserving. Longevity + being a good player doest equal Hof. The HOF is for the greats and having watched Blyleven I never considered him at any point dominant.

And no the steroids generation doesn't belong there. Cheating is cheating. No to rose, no to Joe Jackson and to mac, Sammy raffy etc.

Well Ray, at this point your mindset is in the far, far minority. This years vote, from a record 581 voters show their mindset is leaning toward what I am saying. If any Juicer's get in, it may take years to have a proper measuring stick. The timeframes before Steroid Era and this current non-roid or tested-roid era once enough data is compiled. Once those numbers are available (probably atleast a decade away minimum) then and only then can they measure the "influence" on the record books.

Other notables include Lee Smith (45.3%); Jeff Bagwell (41.7%); Tim Raines (37.5%) Edgar Martinez (32.9%), Mark McGwire (19.8%) and Rafael Palmeiro (11%). The player with the lowest vote total who garnered enough votes to return to the ballot next year is Juan Gonzalez, with 5.2%. Everyone below 5% will be removed.

I wouldnt be surprised if more and more unite to try to get McGwire, Palmeiro, and JuanGone below the 5% so they are left to a future VET committee vote decades down the line.

"Boik14 wrote:

Blyleven has no business in the hall of fame. You gonna put Jim kaat and tommy john in too because they're more deserving. Longevity + being a good player doest equal Hof. The HOF is for the greats and having watched Blyleven I never considered him at any point dominant.

And no the steroids generation doesn't belong there. Cheating is cheating. No to rose, no to Joe Jackson and to mac, Sammy raffy etc.

Jim Kaat and Tommy John are more deserving than Blyleven based on what exactly?

Blyleven:
IP- 4970
CG- 242
Shut Outs- 60
K- 3701
ERA- 3.31
ERA+ - 118

John:
IP- 4710.1
CG- 162
Shut Outs- 42
K- 2245
ERA- 3.34
ERA+ - 111

Kaat:
IP- 4530.1
CG- 180
Shut Outs- 31
K- 2461
ERA- 3.45
ERA+ - 108

I do have to give credit to Kaat because he was an excellent fielding pitcher though.

But overall the numbers just don't add up. Also let's not forget that Blyleven is 5th all time in strike outs, 14th all time in innings pitched and 9th all time in shut outs. Blyleven is a Hall of Famer.

And dude you're 32 years old so when did you really start to follow baseball well enough where you could really remember, when you were 8 or 9? That would be what 1986/87ish, by that time Blyleven was at his worst, plus seriously how many times did you actually see Blyleven pitch? At most what 6 or 7 times total (considering it was the 80s so it's not like people were able to watch teams play whenever they wanted)? You don't really have a large sample size there.

"BigDogsHunt wrote:

Well Ray, at this point your mindset is in the far, far minority. This years vote, from a record 581 voters show their mindset is leaning toward what I am saying. If any Juicer's get in, it may take years to have a proper measuring stick. The timeframes before Steroid Era and this current non-roid or tested-roid era once enough data is compiled. Once those numbers are available (probably atleast a decade away minimum) then and only then can they measure the "influence" on the record books.

Other notables include Lee Smith (45.3%); Jeff Bagwell (41.7%); Tim Raines (37.5%) Edgar Martinez (32.9%), Mark McGwire (19.8%) and Rafael Palmeiro (11%). The player with the lowest vote total who garnered enough votes to return to the ballot next year is Juan Gonzalez, with 5.2%. Everyone below 5% will be removed.

I wouldnt be surprised if more and more unite to try to get McGwire, Palmeiro, and JuanGone below the 5% so they are left to a future VET committee vote decades down the line.

Just because my opinion is in the minority doesn't make me wrong (nor does it make me right). I still think it's completely insane to not vote for Bagwell based on what exactly? I think a lot of these voters love the idea of being able to play God so to speak and have certain stances or agendas at times. I mean really BJ Surhoff gets a vote, for what reason exactly? Alomar gets less than 75% of the votes last year but this year he gets 90%.

If those voters want to make a stance on the whole no players with PED ties that's fine it's their right even if I don't agree on it, however to discredit or not vote for someone based on zero evidence is wrong.

"Ray Finkle wrote:

Jim Kaat and Tommy John are more deserving than Blyleven based on what exactly?

Blyleven:
IP- 4970
CG- 242
Shut Outs- 60
K- 3701
ERA- 3.31
ERA+ - 118

John:
IP- 4710.1
CG- 162
Shut Outs- 42
K- 2245
ERA- 3.34
ERA+ - 111

Kaat:
IP- 4530.1
CG- 180
Shut Outs- 31
K- 2461
ERA- 3.45
ERA+ - 108

I do have to give credit to Kaat because he was an excellent fielding pitcher though.

But overall the numbers just don't add up. Also let's not forget that Blyleven is 5th all time in strike outs, 14th all time in innings pitched and 9th all time in shut outs. Blyleven is a Hall of Famer.

And dude you're 32 years old so when did you really start to follow baseball well enough where you could really remember, when you were 8 or 9? That would be what 1986/87ish, by that time Blyleven was at his worst, plus seriously how many times did you actually see Blyleven pitch? At most what 6 or 7 times total (considering it was the 80s so it's not like people were able to watch teams play whenever they wanted)? You don't really have a large sample size there.

I watched blyleven enough to know he wasn't dominant. I know kaat and john weren't dominant but neither was blyleven. I guess I communicated that point wrong. What I was saying was that john and kaat are probably the most similar to.blyleven and none of them were dominant. If you're putting blyleven in why.not john and kaat when they're stats are extremely similar? Blyleven was a 14-12 pitcher on average with a slightly above average era. I just don't understand how that equals a hall of famer. The HOF is for great players and none of those players are great or dominant.
I mean there's a better case to be made for a guy like Guidry or mattingly who had a short spell of dominance rather than a long career being good not great.

"Ray Finkle wrote:

Just because my opinion is in the minority doesn't make me wrong (nor does it make me right). I still think it's completely insane to not vote for Bagwell based on what exactly? I think a lot of these voters love the idea of being able to play God so to speak and have certain stances or agendas at times. I mean really BJ Surhoff gets a vote, for what reason exactly? Alomar gets less than 75% of the votes last year but this year he gets 90%.

If those voters want to make a stance on the whole no players with PED ties that's fine it's their right even if I don't agree on it, however to discredit or not vote for someone based on zero evidence is wrong.

100% agree. That's why I simply stated current minority! Debate isnt simply a RIGHT vs WRONG its a perspective of time in this case. How long before type time discussion. I still think decade at minimum - decades or never are clearly in the lead. Bonds and Clemens will be the litmus test on put up or shut up for the voters. Will be interesting my friend, always good to discuss these topics. For me, similar to BOIK I am currently comfortable with placing a SCARLET R on each of their chests for ever and never viewing them as anything more than CHEATING the game.

:up: