Eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2011

[FirstTimer]

That should read Frank HOWARD, not Frank THOMAS.

Ok Thank God. I almost shit myself.

Almost.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Andre Dawson was probably the most complete player in baseball from about 78-83, as a slick fielding speedster with pop. In fact, he was probably the best defensive OF in the game. Eight knee surgeries later, robbed of his great speed, he changed his swing and reinvented himself as a slugger. He was still an above average fielder with the bad knees.

Rice was a HR hitter who couldn't run, couldn't be hidden in the field, and led the league in double plays an astonishing four year in a row during his prime. If you are into metrics, his offensive WAR was a very un-HOF like 39.

I'm not doing this Dawson shit again, but he was better than Jim Rice.

[FirstTimer]

Andre Dawson was probably the most complete player in baseball from about 78-83, as a slick fielding speedster with pop. In fact, he was probably the best defensive OF in the game. Eight knee surgeries later, robbed of his great speed, he changed his swing and reinvented himself as a slugger. He was still an above average fielder with the bad knees.

Rice was a HR hitter who couldn't run, couldn't be hidden in the field, and led the league in double plays an astonishing four year in a row during his prime. If you are into metrics, his offensive WAR was a very un-HOF like 39.

I'm not doing this Dawson shit again, but he was better than Jim Rice.

I know the baseball HOF is a joke in a lot of ways and needs a good cleansing of the shit that is in there but that fact that the perception is that Rice "opened the door" for Dawson seals the deal.

Dawson was easily the superior player. For it to now be seen as Rice opening the door for Dawson to anything is a slap in the face to Dawson, fans, and the HOF in general.

[Irish]

I caught a good majority of these guys at the tail end of their careers so I am not a strong judge on the impact they had during their times.

Alomar and Larkin are guys I would vote in with my small knowledge.

I will have to look at the other's careers.

[NAHSTE]

My yes votes:

Alomar
Bagwell
Larkin
Martinez
Raines
Walker

(Wish I was old enough to have an opinion on Blyleven, and the 5-year old version of myself tells me to hate Jack Morris forever and ever)

[dell71]

No-Brainers for me: Alomar, Larkin, Raines.

Alomar not getting in last year is one the dumbest things ever, only slightly dumber than Larkin not being in. Raines probably won't get in, again. People have taken some perceived moral high-ground with him. For my money, he's the second best leadoff man ever, behind Henderson.

Guys I'd probably vote for: Bagwell, Murphy.

Check the Bagwell thread for my thoughts on him. Murphy was every bit the all-around player Dawson was, for a time. His problem is he fell off a cliff at 31 or 32. Sadly, he won't get in, again. Of course, let's say it all together: Rice getting in opened the floodgates. So, we'll see.

BTW, Rice getting in really does call into question how some of these others aren't, like Murphy, Parker, McGriff, Gonzalez.

The guy I want to say should be in, but shouldn't and I wouldn't vote for: Mattingly.

Yup, I'm a Yanks fan with a man-crush on Mattingly. However, even I know he absolutely should not be in the HOF. Now, if he stayed healthy...who knows.

Interesting cases I'd probably not vote for: McGwire, Martinez, Palmeiro, Walker, Smith, Morris, Blyleven.

Whether he roided or not, I'd vote now on Big Mac. He had a HOF stretch, but it was too short and nothing else on his resume impresses me enough to say he should get in. I know, I know he hit a gazillion homers.

Hate to bring up the eye test, but Martinez never passed it for me. He never made me feel like I was watching a HOFer. On top of that, he pretty much stopped playing the field at 31. Who does he think he is, Paul Molitor? I know, I know, his career OPS+ is 147.

As for Palmeiro...hmmm...I'd rather not get into that right now.

Walker? Please, please go to the Walker thread for my thoughts on him.

Lee Smith? Lots and lots of saves, but no. I never felt like if you had to get one out to seal the deal you should hand the ball to Lee Smith. And yes, I'm old enough to have watched his whole career. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see him get in because of all those saves.

Morris is the pitcher I'm most willing to change my mind on. Still, he's borderline.

Finally, on to Blyleven. I've been saying forever he's not a HOFer. However, he's turned into the Jim Rice of pitchers. Every year he doesn't get in a bunch of articles come out screaming about the injustice and the next year a few more people vote for him. I fully expect him to get in this year. Without going too deep into it right now, I'll just say what I've said in the past: if Blyleven gets in Mike Mussina should get in when his turn comes up.


Hell no to the rest.

[NAHSTE]

RE: Edgar Martinez ... There are plenty of guys in Cooperstown who offered absolutely no value in the field and who would have been DHing if they had the opportunity. You can't punish him for playing in the DH era.

I hate the DH, but it is a "position" more or less, and Edgar is one of the greatest to ever play said position.

[dell71]

RE: Edgar Martinez ... There are plenty of guys in Cooperstown who offered absolutely no value in the field and who would have been DHing if they had the opportunity. You can't punish him for playing in the DH era.

I hate the DH, but it is a "position" more or less, and Edgar is one of the greatest to ever play said position.

I guess, but that's not my main reasoning for leaving him out. Like I said, he just never felt like a HOFer to me, as lame as that sounds.

[NAHSTE]

That works, so long as you aren't punishing him solely for being a DH. I didn't think he was a HOFer myself growing up but looking at his numbers he was pretty damn good.

He was borderline for me, but I went yes. Guess I'm a softie.

[mcstl25]

So.... despite who everyone would vote for personally, what are your predictions for who gets in tomorrow?

Alomar and Blyleven will likely get in.

Anyone else? My guess is no.

A couple predictions: 1) Larkin and Morris up their percentages this year getting more than 60 percent, but less than 70 percent 2) Walker gets more votes than Bagwell.

Finally, I see a lot of talk about Tim Raines. I don't get it. Why is he even being considered for the HOF? Anything before 1990 is before my time, so maybe I just missed his peak years, but I never thought of him as anything special at all post 1990.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Raines was a great leadoff hitter, you can make an argument that he is the second best leadoff man of all time.

-808 SB's
-Six consecutive years of 70+ steals, led the league four years in a row from 81-84
-One batting title (top 5 3x), one time leading the league in OBP (top 5 5x), led the league in times on base three times
-Probably sacraficed 3,000 hits by going to to Yankees and taking on a bench role when he could have started elsewhere (finished 295 hits short). Was a .850 OPS guy for those Yankees teams, so he could still play.
-.294/.385/.425/.810

Raines was the best leadoff man not named Henderson for a decade, easily the best the NL had to offer. He was a dominant player for nearly the entire decade of the 80's, posting OPS numbers at or near .900 and stealing 70 bases at the same time. I don't know how you keep one of the three best basestealers of all time out of the HOF.

He was a much, much better player than Lou Brock, who nobody debates as a HOF player. Higher OPS , much higher OPS+ (123-109), 64 WAR for Raines to 39 for Brock, Brock was a negative defensive player, Raines was a much more efficient basestealer (808 SB/146 CS) as Brock was caught stealing 307 times, leading the league in that stat a staggering seven times.

[Leftwich]

I'll always remember Roberto for this moment. Spitting in the umps face.

Hall of famer for sure.

[Senser81]

Raines was a great leadoff hitter, you can make an argument that he is the second best leadoff man of all time.

-808 SB's
-Six consecutive years of 70+ steals, led the league four years in a row from 81-84
-One batting title (top 5 3x), one time leading the league in OBP (top 5 5x), led the league in times on base three times
-Probably sacraficed 3,000 hits by going to to Yankees and taking on a bench role when he could have started elsewhere (finished 295 hits short). Was a .850 OPS guy for those Yankees teams, so he could still play.
-.294/.385/.425/.810

Raines was the best leadoff man not named Henderson for a decade, easily the best the NL had to offer. He was a dominant player for nearly the entire decade of the 80's, posting OPS numbers at or near .900 and stealing 70 bases at the same time. I don't know how you keep one of the three best basestealers of all time out of the HOF.

He was a much, much better player than Lou Brock, who nobody debates as a HOF player. Higher OPS , much higher OPS+ (123-109), 64 WAR for Raines to 39 for Brock, Brock was a negative defensive player, Raines was a much more efficient basestealer (808 SB/146 CS) as Brock was caught stealing 307 times, leading the league in that stat a staggering seven times.

Interesting take on Raines. Henderson was like the Lawrence Taylor of leadoff hitters...Raines was like the Andre Tippett. But Tippett eventually made it in to Canton (don't know how), so I guess there is still hope. I wouldn't vote for Raines...just not enough good-great seasons for my taste.

[dell71]

Raines was a great leadoff hitter, you can make an argument that he is the second best leadoff man of all time.

-808 SB's
-Six consecutive years of 70+ steals, led the league four years in a row from 81-84
-One batting title (top 5 3x), one time leading the league in OBP (top 5 5x), led the league in times on base three times
-Probably sacraficed 3,000 hits by going to to Yankees and taking on a bench role when he could have started elsewhere (finished 295 hits short). Was a .850 OPS guy for those Yankees teams, so he could still play.
-.294/.385/.425/.810

Raines was the best leadoff man not named Henderson for a decade, easily the best the NL had to offer. He was a dominant player for nearly the entire decade of the 80's, posting OPS numbers at or near .900 and stealing 70 bases at the same time. I don't know how you keep one of the three best basestealers of all time out of the HOF.

He was a much, much better player than Lou Brock, who nobody debates as a HOF player. Higher OPS , much higher OPS+ (123-109), 64 WAR for Raines to 39 for Brock, Brock was a negative defensive player, Raines was a much more efficient basestealer (808 SB/146 CS) as Brock was caught stealing 307 times, leading the league in that stat a staggering seven times.

Whatever our differences are on other players, I am 100% in favor of this post.