2013 Baseball Hall of Fame

[infrared41]

...elevate borderline guys into the Hall as is the case with someone like a Willie Stargell...

Statements like that are why I can never get fully on board with the SABR movement. No offense, but if you think Willie Stargell is a "borderline" Hall of Famer, you're reading about a different player than the one I watched.

[OnWis97]

This Jack Morris for the Hall wagon needs to stop. His entire Hall of Fame credentials are based on his performance in the 1984 and 1991 World Series'. And kudos to him for stepping up in some crucial games, but those games do not make up for a career where he was not much more than an average pitcher, relative to his peers.

Agreed, mostly. There's more to the Morris argument than his World Series performance and he was more than just "an average pitcher." He was definitely among the better pitchers of the 80's but he is not a HOF pitcher. He's the perfect example of a guy you need to make a "HOF argument" for. In my book, if you can make a case either way on a player, that pretty much tells you that he's not HOF caliber.

Agreed. He was a very good pitcher. But not an all time great. Nobody enjoyed his 1991 World Series performance more than I did, but that could only vault a borderline candidate. And he was not great enough to be borderline. He was simply very good.

[Kramerica Industries]

I think Jim Rice is now the baseline measure for "borderline HOF" players. Just using OPS+ alone, Stargell was a 147, and Rice was a 128. Even using bWAR (which I am not a huge fan of, admittedly, but this is for the heavy sabermetric crowd), Stargell was over 41 for his career, while Rice was around 34.

[pmoehrin]

...elevate borderline guys into the Hall as is the case with someone like a Willie Stargell...

Statements like that are why I can never get fully on board with the SABR movement. No offense, but if you think Willie Stargell is a "borderline" Hall of Famer, you're reading about a different player than the one I watched.

None taken but its not really a SABR argument just the first name that came to mind for a nice guy that's in the Hall that you wouldn't consider in same class as people like Aaron, Mays, Ruth, etc. If it makes people feel better to have Jim Rice in there instead, go right ahead. I just looked at a list of NL MVP for 30 seconds and his was the first name to jump out at me for someone that could possibly fit that description without having to reach back to someone like Ernie Lombardi.

Willie Stargell should be in the Hall of Fame but now with the direction the writers are going in, he would not be a first ballot guy if his name came up today. Not when guys like Piazza are struggling to get 50% on their first try.

He shouldn't be borderline, but he's quickly going to become seen as one if writers are just going to decide to just not vote anybody in from the last 30 years that doesn't have 15 all-star appearances.

[infrared41]

...elevate borderline guys into the Hall as is the case with someone like a Willie Stargell...

Statements like that are why I can never get fully on board with the SABR movement. No offense, but if you think Willie Stargell is a "borderline" Hall of Famer, you're reading about a different player than the one I watched.

None taken but its not really a SABR argument just the first name that came to mind for a nice guy that's in the Hall that you wouldn't consider in same class as people like Aaron, Mays, Ruth, etc. If it makes people feel better to have Jim Rice in there instead, go right ahead. I just looked at a list of NL MVP for 30 seconds and his was the first name to jump out at me for someone that could possibly fit that description without having to reach back to someone like Ernie Lombardi.

Willie Stargell should be in the Hall of Fame but now with the direction the writers are going in, he would not be a first ballot guy if his name came up today. Not when guys like Piazza are struggling to get 50% on their first try.

He shouldn't be borderline, but he's quickly going to become seen as one if writers are just going to decide to just not vote anybody in from the last 30 years that doesn't have 15 all-star appearances.

Fair enough. I misunderstood where you were coming from.

[JayJaxon]

I usually don't agree with much of what comes out of the mouth of John Kruk, but he said something that made sense to me. He said that is you are a Hall of Fame player after 3, 5, 10, 15 years of being on the ballot, then you are a Hall of Fame player in the first year. Biggio having to wait is asinine. Why isn't Raines in? Why Isn't McGriff in? Some clowns are NOT going to vote for Maddux, Glavine, and Thomas next year. How the hell can you NOT vote for Maddux, Glavine, and Thomas??? But some will do exactly that.

[ElwoodCuse]

I think this shows the system works.

It should be incredibly difficult to get into the Hall of Fame. Doesn't bother me in the least that every so often there is a year where nobody makes the cut.

It's inexcusable that one of the "nobody gets in" years includes a top-3 all-time player, top-3 all-time pitcher, the best offensive catcher ever, two 3,000 hit guys, etc.

[Mac the Knife]

It can be used to elevate borderline guys into the Hall as is the case with someone like a Willie Stargell or it can be used to keep borderline guys like Albert Belle from ever even being taken seriously because he was such a scumbag during his career.

Willie Stargell? Borderline? Wow, have you just lost any credibility you may have had in discussing this topic.

[Mac the Knife]

So the BBWWA decides NO ONE is deserving of induction this year, with Craig Biggio coming closest at roughly 68%... Biggio's disqualification? He played during the same era as Bonds, Clemens and other steroid-addled, testicle-shrinking brethren. Not that he was convicted of any crimes related to steroid use (as Bonds was), not that he was arrested for such things (as Clemens was), not that he either lied to or skirted questions about them from Congress (as Palmiero and McGwire did). He simply had to be in the game during the same time.

I'm no Craig Biggio fan, don't get me wrong, and I certainly don't place in him the same pantheon as I would a Clemente, Stargell, Schmidt, Mantle or perhaps even a Ducky Medwick. But for him not to make it perhaps in large part because as a protest some 'voters' chose to mail in ballots which cast votes for no one - ensuring that they'd be counted, and thus counted against him - is asinine.

That said, what is equally asinine is that nearly 40% of voters opted to ignore the HOF's guidelines for induction in the cases of Bonds and Clemens, and to lesser degree McGwire and Palmiero. Based on their histories, these guys absolutely do not belong in the HOF, no matter their performance on the field, period. They were and are a permanent stain upon the game, and no honor should be bestowed them based on that.

[pmoehrin]

It can be used to elevate borderline guys into the Hall as is the case with someone like a Willie Stargell or it can be used to keep borderline guys like Albert Belle from ever even being taken seriously because he was such a scumbag during his career.

Willie Stargell? Borderline? Wow, have you just lost any credibility you may have had in discussing this topic.

Did you not read the discussion me and infrared had?

Also I'm not the one putting Willie Stargell in the same group of guys like Schmidt and Mantle, where there is a clear drop off between where those two stand where Stargell is. Also Ducky Medwick was not a slam dunk guy either. Just look at the number of ballots it took to get him in, and like Stargell great player in his own right, but there's better guys from his era. Charlie Gehringer, Joe DiMaggio, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Paul Waner, Ted Williams. There's even others like Bob Johnson who I think should be in as well that aren't far off from the kind of careers numbers Medwick put up. The only reason people even know about Joe Medwick is because he's the last NL triple crown winner.

Normally I wouldn't bring things like that up, but when your going to call me out like that, I'm going to call you out for every little statement you make that is even in the slightest off base with baseball history.

[Kramerica Industries]

That and the fact that he pissed off the entire city of Detroit in the final game of the 1934 World Series.

[pmoehrin]

That and the fact that he pissed off the entire city of Detroit in the final game of the 1934 World Series.

The fans were more PO'd at the fact their team was getting blown out 11-0 then Medwick spiking Marv Owen. They just made Medwick the scapegoat.

[Mac the Knife]

It can be used to elevate borderline guys into the Hall as is the case with someone like a Willie Stargell or it can be used to keep borderline guys like Albert Belle from ever even being taken seriously because he was such a scumbag during his career.

Willie Stargell? Borderline? Wow, have you just lost any credibility you may have had in discussing this topic.

Did you not read the discussion me and infrared had?

Also I'm not the one putting Willie Stargell in the same group of guys like Schmidt and Mantle, where there is a clear drop off between where those two stand where Stargell is. Also Ducky Medwick was not a slam dunk guy either. Just look at the number of ballots it took to get him in, and like Stargell great player in his own right, but there's better guys from his era. Charlie Gehringer, Joe DiMaggio, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Paul Waner, Ted Williams. There's even others like Bob Johnson who I think should be in as well that aren't far off from the kind of careers numbers Medwick put up. The only reason people even know about Joe Medwick is because he's the last NL triple crown winner.

Normally I wouldn't bring things like that up, but when your going to call me out like that, I'm going to call you out for every little statement you make that is even in the slightest off base with baseball history.

I didn't read the full discussion, as your final point had been made after I'd commented. I see what you're saying - no, certainly, there are varying degrees of greatness and fame, and while I certainly would categorize Stargell in the same vein as Schmidt or Willie McCovey, none of those three would measure up in the view of most to the likes of Aaron, Mantle or Mays.

[pmoehrin]

It can be used to elevate borderline guys into the Hall as is the case with someone like a Willie Stargell or it can be used to keep borderline guys like Albert Belle from ever even being taken seriously because he was such a scumbag during his career.

Willie Stargell? Borderline? Wow, have you just lost any credibility you may have had in discussing this topic.

Did you not read the discussion me and infrared had?

Also I'm not the one putting Willie Stargell in the same group of guys like Schmidt and Mantle, where there is a clear drop off between where those two stand where Stargell is. Also Ducky Medwick was not a slam dunk guy either. Just look at the number of ballots it took to get him in, and like Stargell great player in his own right, but there's better guys from his era. Charlie Gehringer, Joe DiMaggio, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Paul Waner, Ted Williams. There's even others like Bob Johnson who I think should be in as well that aren't far off from the kind of careers numbers Medwick put up. The only reason people even know about Joe Medwick is because he's the last NL triple crown winner.

Normally I wouldn't bring things like that up, but when your going to call me out like that, I'm going to call you out for every little statement you make that is even in the slightest off base with baseball history.

I didn't read the full discussion, as your final point had been made after I'd commented. I see what you're saying - no, certainly, there are varying degrees of greatness and fame, and while I certainly would categorize Stargell in the same vein as Schmidt or Willie McCovey, none of those three would measure up in the view of most to the likes of Aaron, Mantle or Mays.

That's fine I just don't like being called out like that. That's only reason why I reacted the way I did.

[infrared41]

Mac? Is that you?

[ElwoodCuse]

That said, what is equally asinine is that nearly 40% of voters opted to ignore the HOF's guidelines for induction in the cases of Bonds and Clemens, and to lesser degree McGwire and Palmiero. Based on their histories, these guys absolutely do not belong in the HOF, no matter their performance on the field, period. They were and are a permanent stain upon the game, and no honor should be bestowed them based on that.

If that were true then they shouldn't have even been on the ballot at all like Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe.

[pmoehrin]

That said, what is equally asinine is that nearly 40% of voters opted to ignore the HOF's guidelines for induction in the cases of Bonds and Clemens, and to lesser degree McGwire and Palmiero. Based on their histories, these guys absolutely do not belong in the HOF, no matter their performance on the field, period. They were and are a permanent stain upon the game, and no honor should be bestowed them based on that.

If that were true then they shouldn't have even been on the ballot at all like Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe.

Well its been a standing rule of the Hall of Fame not to induct anyone that has been banned from the game. That hasn't been the stance taken by Bud Selig and Major League Baseball though.

Rose I really don't have much of an opinion on at this point. I said earlier that character and integrity to me should be secondary arguments not primary ones because to me if its a primary argument, then somebody who was an upstanding person for 15 years should be able to get in on that alone if being a negative by itself can be used to keep someone out. It can't be just one way. But that side topic aside, if people wanted to use that argument to apply to Rose I couldn't object to it. The only argument I have against Rose being in is that he had it in his power to amend his crimes simply by apologizing for the most serous of crimes, because if if somebody in the position of Rose has an incentive not to try his hardest, you've effectively reduced baseball to professional wrestling. But even in the face of those crimes he still had the power to amend them and he chose to deny it because he was Pete Rose and he was above everyone else. I think that does need to be taken into consideration when discussing whether or not he should be in the Hall. I don't have an answer for what's right to do. I just simply say I understand both sides. Rose I think should be treated as a special case because of how he handled the situation.

Joe Jackson I think is a bit of a different story. There's clear evidence that he knew of the conspiracy to throw the 1919 World Series and there's evidence that he took money to take part in it as well. But there's not much evidence to say that he actually took an active role in it on the field. The highest crime you could say he's guilty of beyond a reasonable doubt is knowing about the conspiracy and not saying anything about it. But if true that would put him in the same boat as Eddie Collins and he's in the Hall. If you actually think he did it then there may be something to him being kept out. But if think his greatest crime was not being a whistle blower then you may have to reconsider the candidacy of alot of players that are in because betting in those times was rampant. I tend to think that may not be the best route to take, but that's the problem when you start getting into these morality arguments. Ultimately you almost always end up casting a far bigger net and going after far more people then you originally intended to and I will tell you the same thing will happen with the PED issue and I would say already has happened.

I don't think inducting the steroid era guys necessarily says what they did was ok because there's been plenty of players who's misdeeds have been looked past because they were such great players. But I do think keeping them out essentially says that era of baseball was more corrupt then any other in baseball and I don't agree with that assertion.

[infrared41]

I didn't go through all five pages of this thread to see if anyone had already mentioned this so apologies in advance if it's been brought up. With regard to the "character and integrity" argument...I'm watching a replay of MLB Network's HOF roundtable and I think Bob Costas addressed the matter perfectly. I'm paraphrasing but here's the gist of what he said; "with steroids, the issue isn't morality, it's authenticity." I think it's a great point.

The debate here isn't whether or not what Bonds, et al are better or worse than people than Cobb, et al. Cobb was a miserable prick, but that didn't make him hit .367 for his career. Despite all his failings as a human being, Ty Cobb's baseball stats are authentic. Can we really argue that the numbers Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, etc. put up are "authentic?" That's the difference, and the key to the entire debate in my opinion.

Just wanted to throw that in.

Carry on...

[pmoehrin]

I didn't go through all five pages of this thread to see if anyone had already mentioned this so apologies in advance if it's been brought up. With regard to the "character and integrity" argument...I'm watching a replay of MLB Network's HOF roundtable and I think Bob Costas addressed the matter perfectly. I'm paraphrasing but here's the gist of what he said; "with steroids, the issue isn't morality, it's authenticity." I think it's a great point.

The debate here isn't whether or not what Bonds, et al are better or worse than people than Cobb, et al. Cobb was a miserable prick, but that didn't make him hit .367 for his career. Despite all his failings as a human being, Ty Cobb's baseball stats are authentic. Can we really argue that the numbers Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, etc. put up are "authentic?" That's the difference, and the key to the entire debate in my opinion.

Just wanted to throw that in.

Carry on...

Even with Cobb how authentic was it given that he never had to play against the Negro League stars of his era?

He would be a Hall of Famer even if he had. I have no doubt about that, but would he have over 4,000 hits on his career? Probably not. Do most people hold that against him though, no they don't. They take the era for what it was and move on. Its not the optimal solution but its impossible to project what he and others would have done had they gone up against guys like Rube Foster, Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige. But no doubt its a major competitive advantage for him when your considering where he ranks all-time.

With every single era your going to find some kind of glaring competitive advantage unique to that era that at least one person had to skew the numbers one way or another. Its part of the game. It is impossible to account for all of them and place everyone on an equal playing field.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

So what's the argument against Piazza?