[2013] MLB Hall of Fame. Who Would you vote for?

[FirstTimer]

Here's a guy with a similar stance that I have. NYT columnist Bill Rhoden:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_...-dismisses-baseball-hall-of-fame-controversy/

I didn't watch the video. Just read the article portion. He kind of lost me with the bigot, rapist, etc line. I don't think anyone is saying Bonds shouldn't go into the HOF because he's a raging douchebag or broke some law. Just that he broke the rules of the sport that directly lead to him being able to attain the numbers and/or awards etc to get his HOF accomplishment. (I understand Bonds never failed a test, just addressing Rhodens context)

Unless rape is a PED, Rhoden's argument doesn't really hold up in my view. Him simply dismissively saying "The numbers speak for themselves" kind of misses the entire point of the "outrage" or discussion...so I don't think Rhoden even really understands what people are saying.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I don't blame the writer's for Trammell's hit total, I blame them for placing too much importance on a player's hit total when considering their hall of fame candidacy. As I stated before these counting statistics shouldn't be used a prerequisite for entry into the Hall; there is no X number of hits that separate a Hall of Fame player from just a good player. I'd rather judge a player by their peak and not how injury free they remained late in their career. I think when looking back on Trammell and Yount's careers, Trammell's better defensive play makes up for the difference in counting statistics.

My problem with this, is the tendency lately to almost use milestones as negatives, as if somebody like Yount had the audacity to play a long time and stay healthy. Why is that a negative? In the case of Yount, being durable and playing a long time at a high level is part of what makes him better than Trammell. They both played 20 seasons. And while Trammell was playing 80 games per year and hanging on at the end, Yount was still playing productive full seasons at a league average level. Again, why is this a negative?

And sorry, there is no way Trammell's defense makes up for the significant edge Yount has in hits, doubles, triples, HR's, etc (pretty much every offensive category). I could maybe buy this argument if they were close, but they arent.

Also, you discredit Yount for moving from SS, while Trammell played SS his entire career. It's not like Yount moved to 1B or DH, he moved to CF. And i'll take an old Yount playing 150 defensive average games in CF over an old broken down Trammell averaging 80 games per year the last 5 or 6 years of his career at SS. Perhaps Trammell should have changed positions, too.

Yount had the better peak, was more durable, dominates the counting stats, dominates the 'black ink'. In my view, Trammell has one edge - defense. He'd have to be an Ozzie Smith level defender to make up the gap.

 

[FedEx227]

I didn't watch the video. Just read the article portion. He kind of lost me with the bigot, rapist, etc line. I don't think anyone is saying Bonds shouldn't go into the HOF because he's a raging douchebag or broke some law. Just that he broke the rules of the sport that directly lead to him being able to attain the numbers and/or awards etc to get his HOF accomplishment. (I understand Bonds never failed a test, just addressing Rhodens context)

Unless rape is a PED, Rhoden's argument doesn't really hold up in my view. Him simply dismissively saying "The numbers speak for themselves" kind of misses the entire point of the "outrage" or discussion...so I don't think Rhoden even really understands what people are saying.

You should watch the video then. The story isn't real the same.

His point is unless he tested positive you're cashing in the character clause/morality about cheating the game. The character clause portion is pretty dumb when you have as many scumbags as you do already in there.

 

[Senser81]

You should watch the video then. The story isn't real the same.

His point is, as mine is, unless he tested positive you're cashing in the character clause/morality about cheating the game. His point is the character clause portion is pretty dumb when you have as many scumbags as you do already in there.

Kind of a broad brush to paint scumbags as literally "cheating the game". Ty Cobb may be a bigot and a racist...

"...but not a snitch..."​

 

[FedEx227]

They are lumped into the same in the "character clause" though.

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played.

The cheaters fall into the integrity and sportsmanship but those bigots, racist, rapists, etc. naturally would fall into character, no? I know they are separate issues but the clause itself dictates they be judged the same.

 

[FedEx227]

Also, as I mentioned Jay Jaffe does a good job tackling the issue of steroids impact on the game and steroids on the Hall of Fame in Extra Innings. Nate Silver did an okay job with it in Baseball Between the Numbers. If you can get them from a library or something just to read those chapters, I highly recommend it.

Jaffe also had a good quick look at it earlier this week: http://mlb.si.com/2012/11/28/new-hall-of-fame-ballot-weighty-in-talent-and-controversy/

 

[FirstTimer]

They are lumped into the same in the "character clause" though.



The cheaters fall into the integrity and sportsmanship but those bigots, racist, rapists, etc. naturally would fall into character, no? I know they are separate issues but the clause itself dictates they be judged the same.

Disagree.

It just tells you how to judge them. Not how much weight you have to give to each.

 

[dell71]

I don't blame the writer's for Trammell's hit total, I blame them for placing too much importance on a player's hit total when considering their hall of fame candidacy. As I stated before these counting statistics shouldn't be used a prerequisite for entry into the Hall; there is no X number of hits that separate a Hall of Fame player from just a good player. I'd rather judge a player by their peak and not how injury free they remained late in their career. I think when looking back on Trammell and Yount's careers, Trammell's better defensive play makes up for the difference in counting statistics.

Others have already addressed the massive gaps between the two in "counting stats". My other issue is your argument also completely discounts the voting environment when Yount got elected. Counting stats, awards and popularity were all ANY HOF voters went on. In all three of those Yount trumps Trammell. No one looked at slash lines, WAR, etc. The only fielding stat voters really considered was how many gold gloves a player won. True, Trammell won 4 to Yount's 1 but that's hardly enough to make voters say his defense was so good he belongs.

And let's not penalize Yount for actually being on the field. I've heard several times the talking heads that provide the countless hours of NFL coverage on ESPN say "a player's greatest ability is availability." There is some truth to that. Yount playing roughly 600 more games than Trammell in the same number of years is not a negative.

In the time that's passed since Trammell's been on the ballot, he's getting some new found love from the increased statistical awareness, but there's no passionate movement to get him in like Jim Rice, Andre Dawson & Bert Blyleven had. He's also suffering from the offensive explosion of players at his position that took place in the 90s (unfairly, but it is what it is). I can listen to an argument for him getting in, but not based on the idea that he was "obviously" as good as Yount.

My $0.02 on Trammell v. Yount. I'll come back with my ballot later.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

And let's not penalize Yount for actually being on the field. I've heard several times the talking heads that provide the countless hours of NFL coverage on ESPN say "a player's greatest ability is availability." There is some truth to that. Yount playing roughly 600 more games than Trammell in the same number of years is not a negative.

And it's not like those were 600 games of sub par play. Yount wasn't hanging around the game compiling garbage stats. He was pretty much a useful, league average starter the day he retired.

 

[dell71]

Voted strictly based on what guys did on the field. And went with:

Bagwell
Bonds
Clemens
Morris
Palmeiro
Piazza
Raines
Schilling
Sosa
Trammell

Didn't try to look at the results before voting either, so I'm shocked how little love Jack Morris is getting.

And it pains me to vote for one of the Red Sox (Schilling) and leave off 3 former Yanks, but it is what it is.

I'll have my 2nd annual handicapping thread up in a couple days.

 

[NAHSTE]

Voted strictly based on what guys did on the field. And went with:

Bagwell
Bonds
Clemens
Morris
Palmeiro
Piazza
Raines
Schilling
Sosa
Trammell

Didn't try to look at the results before voting either, so I'm shocked how little love Jack Morris is getting.

And it pains me to vote for one of the Red Sox (Schilling) and leave off 3 former Yanks, but it is what it is.

I'll have my 2nd annual handicapping thread up in a couple days.

Larry Walker is more worthy than 1/3 of that list, in my respectful opinion.

 

[dell71]

Larry Walker is more worthy than 1/3 of that list, in my respectful opinion.

We've already had that argument a time or two, haven't we?

 

[NAHSTE]

We've already had that argument a time or two, haven't we?

Probably, I just forgot which side you were one. Were you one of those home/road splits guys who punishes him for the Coors factor? To which I say, he wasn't better than Sammy Sosa?

 

[dell71]

Yes, I'm a splits guy. Numbers away from Coors look good, not great, taking some of the luster off. As far as him vs. Sosa goes, some things favor Walker, some Sammy. And yes there is that other-worldly 6 year stretch plus some big, pretty counting stats (even though in recent years I've been moving away from being a counting stats kind of guy). I wouldn't be outraged if Walker got in. I'm just not voting for him.

 

[Senser81]

Yes, I'm a splits guy. Numbers away from Coors look good, not great, taking some of the luster off. As far as him vs. Sosa goes, some things favor Walker, some Sammy. And yes there is that other-worldly 6 year stretch plus some big, pretty counting stats (even though in recent years I've been moving away from being a counting stats kind of guy). I wouldn't be outraged if Walker got in. I'm just not voting for him.

What is your argument against McGwire, especially compared to a guy like Bagwell?

 

[dell71]

What is your argument against McGwire, especially compared to a guy like Bagwell?

The short argument is I think Bagwell is one of the 10 best 1st basemen of all time. I'm going quite a ways further down the list before I get to Mac. To get a little deeper Mac was a one trick pony with a relatively short period of true HoF caliber play ('95-99). His rookie year was awesome, but after that it's a bunch 30+ HR, .230-.250 BA seasons. Very nice OBP (lots of walks), but the homers artificially inflate all his other "rate" stats. Basically, if he didn't hit it out (or walk) he did nothing. He has 134 more HR than Bagwell but 128 fewer extra base hits, 115 fewer RBI. And even though he wasn't a complete hack at first base, I'm still not sure how he won a Gold Glove. On the other hand, Bagwell could do it all. He hit for average, power and was a threat to steal (went 30-30 twice). Plus, his peak stretch runs roughly a decade.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Agreed.

McGwire really was a one trick pony. Bagwell was much more complete player. Bagwell finished his career with an on base percentage over .400, he stole over 200 bases, and while McGwire was plodding around the bases when he wasn't hitting HR's, Bagwell was rapping 40+ doubles per year (McGwire never hit 30).

Bagwell was also far more durable. He played 160 games or more six time, four of those years playing all 162. Neither was a great glove, but I give the edge to Bagwell.

Both men walked a ton.

The only edge McGwire has is more HR power. But Bagwell hit 449 himself, so it's not like McGwire has a massive edge. Bagwell was better or equal at everything else. Bagwell had a better overall game.

I think last year I attempted to show that you could reasonably argue that Bagwell is the fourth or fifth best 1B of all time.

He's a great example of the writers assuming somebody juiced. He probably did, I think nearly everybody did, but he never failed a test, was not named on the Mitchell Report, and his name has never shown up in any of Canseco's books or turned up in any sort of accusation. Even if you are on the "keep the juicers out" side, which is fine, what is the basis of implicating Bagwell, aside from assumptions and a good physique?

 

[Goober]

Counting statistics aren't really a "prerequisite" for entry into the Hall...there are many HOFers who did not get 3000 hits. I can name several players who didn't get 3000 hits that I would say were better than Yount. I guess my problem is two-fold: one, Trammell is nowhere near 3000 hits, and two Trammell isn't one of the guys with fewer than 3000 hits that I would say was better than Yount. I also don't think that Trammell's defense was THAT much better than Yount to make up for such a large disparity in 'counting statistics'. And I really don't see how Trammell's peak is all that better than Yount's.

Trammell's career dWAR was almost four times as big as Yount's. I think this is a notable difference, unfortunately as I've already noted defense is not significantly valued by HOF voters. I tend to consider a player's HOF merit by looking at how high their peak was, and how long it lasted. Hence why in Trammell's case the low hit count doesn't bother me. If you look at his peak years, his hit total and offensive production was just as good as Yount as well as many other Hall of Fame players.

I'm in no way trying to discredit Yount for staying healthy. However I don't think several healthy years of playing at an average level should significantly add to to his career value. Looking at it from a WAR perspective, Yount's healthy seasons at the end of his career did not significantly improve his career WAR more so then Trammell's injury prone latter years.

 

[Pills]

Dammit, I forgot Morris. I didn't vote for any of the confirmed users. The problem with this era is that there are, I'm sure, a LOT of guys who juiced who can only be suspected of it.

I went Bags, Biggio, Piazza, Walker. I was hedging on Edgar Martinez (don't think he was named anywhere), as he can easily be considered the greatest player without a position.

Walker's an interesting case. I threw him a bone, but it looks like the voters won't. So, which is worse - steroids or Coors Field in the 90s and 00s?

Lee Smith may get consideration from the Vets committee. Let's face it - no one considered a modern closer will get in until Mo does. I'm looking at you, Trevor Hoffman.

 

[Goober]

Today's Wall Street Journal included a book review of Mike Piazza's new book, Long Shot. The article opens with "Mike Piazza isn't gay and didn't use steroids." And there goes my interest in reading the book, or even the rest of the article.

While Piazza apparently argues that he never took steroids, the article also states, "He [Piazza] freely admits to using androstendione, the now-banned steroid precursor that mark McGwire notoriously used..." I would consider that steroid use. :homer: