HOF poll 2011

I would vote for Blyleven, Larkin, Alomar, McGwire, Raines, Edgar, Bagwell, Walker

Walker is a bit of a homer vote, he's borderline but he's Canadian, so I'd vote for him. With some seriousness, being the greatest hitter ever to come out of Canada (no, Joey Votto isn't there yet) should count for something.

I made the case for Walker elsewhere, but essentially a) he was an extraordinarily well-rounded player, b) his numbers were ridiculous even for Coors (and his 140 OPS+, which takes ballparks into account, reflects that), c) in his 1997 MVP season he arguably hit better on the road, d) he hit well on the road for his entire career, and was a great player wherever he went (not just in COL).

Edgar might be borderline too (great peak value, career value not so good) but the guy was a machine -- probably the 90's version of Boggs -- so it's tough not to vote for him.

blyleven, larkin, alomar, raines, bagwell

10+ for me

Alomar, Edgar, and--anyone can learn--I think I've become a convert to Blyleven after reading numerous carefully argued defenses of him, here and elsewhere (Morris and Jon Heyman have made for convenient foils). Raines and Larkin were great players, and I'm fine with them--the only thing that holds me back is the high number of seasons under 150 games. With Walker, who I'm also fine with, I'm still getting my head around what his career would look like had he never played in Colorado. Anyone else I've left off, again, think of them as pending--I'm still working through that issue in my mind too.

NoTime: I'm actually surprised, in the context of your ballot, not to see Palmeiro's name. You don't think he's HOF by the numbers? I'm guessing you view him as a counting-stats guy.

Bert Blyleven
Roberto Alomar
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Tim Raines
Mark McGwire
Alan Trammell
Fred McGriff
Dale Murphy
Jeff Bagwell
Kevin Brown
John Olerud
Rafael Palmeiro
Larry Walker

Blyleven and Bagwell kinda sit above everyone else for me - after them there's a group of solid yeses, and then a group of borderline types who I'd be happy to see make it in.

Definitely getting a vote:
Jeff Bagwell
Bert Blyleven
Barry Larkin
Alan Trammell
Roberto Alomar
Tim Raines
Mark McGwire
Borderline-ish guys who would probably get my vote:
Edgar Martinez
Larry Walker (even with the injury reduced seasons he was still a beast)

Palmeiro I still want to think about.

Surprised at the lack of love for Trammell actually.

it's interesting how people have cooled on Palmeiro - I'm not sure he'd be considered a slam dunk guy even without the roids stuff. more of a 'yeah, might as well' guy.

I don't think Trammell has any shot irl, which is a shame.

I think people sort of understand that in an era of absolutely monster offensive 1B he's definitely a lesser light compared to Pujols, Bagwell, Thomas, McGwire, Thome, etc. Plus he made a complete horse ass out of himself.

That bastard cost the Jays a trip to playoffs in '87, so screw him...He was a great player who should have won the MVP that year; Posnanski makes a good case for him in terms of bad timing.

If you're okay with the elephant in the room, I actually don't understand the reluctance to put in Palmeiro. I know counting stats are counting stats, but 569/3020, that's a lot of counting. When I look at his career box, I notice a lack of black numbers (only three--that's weak), but, as was said of Edgar above, he was a machine in his own right.

tamtam what's your case for john olerud?

underrated skillset, maybe sets a precedent for keith hernandez to be considered by the VC eventually (lol yeah right)

Re: Palmeiro, I usually favour peak value over career value, and Palmeiro at his peak probably wasn't in the top five at his position. Maybe you could argue that he was one of the top 15-20 players in baseball during his best 2-3 year stretch. That's not a HOFer, IMO.

(and in case anyone asks, no, I don't care about the finger wagging or the positive test. Cheating and getting caught is important, but it doesn't affect anything I wrote in the previous paragraph)

It's not a 100% no -- I'm willing to be convinced about him, as well as Trammell, and perhaps guys like McGriff and Brown too.

Bert Blyleven
Roberto Alomar
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Tim Raines
Mark McGwire
Alan Trammell
Jeff Bagwell
Rafael Palmeiro
Larry Walker

mcgriff maybe too, his numbers were less "impressive" than palmeiro's best years but his best seasons ('88-'94) compared to other players in the league were better than raffy's numbers compared to those around him during his peak years ('96-'02).

Don't worry, I won't mount a stubborn defense of Palmeiro. As I'm sure you can appreciate, it's hard for someone caught between the old and the new to look past the 500/3,000 Twin Towers.

Loved McGriff, and Olerud's '93 was one of the highlights of my life as a fan. Even though I wouldn't put them in, it's nice to see them get some recognition.

I was really surprised to see how close Olerud comes to the avg HOF standards for 1B (according to Jay Jaffe on BP = http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12628)

His peak score is higher than that of Palmeiro, Mattingly, and McGriff.

mcgriff was basically one of the doper players of his era if only based strictly on cool points, that windmill swing was epic. palmeiro of course was one of the dopiest.

re: trammell, Pos argued it better than I could:

If Alan Trammell had played shortstop in the big leagues the 1920s and 1930s he would have gone into the Hall of Fame first ballot, almost unanimously, and would have been ranked just behind Honus Wagner as the greatest shortstop who ever lived. He could do it all. He hit. He fielded. He could run. He hit with some power. He played smart. He led.

But because he played in the 1980s and 1990s, and he didn't field quite as well as Ozzie, didn't hit with quite as much power as Ripken, didn't run quite as well as Larkin, he has garnered stunningly little Hall of Fame support. He was in my mind a better player than more than half of the 19 shortstops in the Hall of Fame, but it seems he is destined to play out his 15 years on the ballot and then land on that list of players the veteran's committee annually turns down.

i loved mcgriff when he was on the braves but i never thought of him as an all-time great when i was a kid, and i don't think he has a great case, but i'm willing to induct him for being awesome

i'm willing to induct him for being awesome

Great line. One of the awesome things about McGriff for me was how quiet he was. During his time in Toronto, I doubt if I ever saw him interviewed more than a couple of times. If I ever knew a single thing about his personal life, I've forgotten it. He just seemed to avoid the limelight completely. If a guy was ever destined to fall a few home runs shy of 500, it was him. I was actually disappointed when Toronto didn't bring him back towards the end to give him a shot. It wouldn't have been a good baseball decision, I suppose, but it's not like the Jays were going anywhere at the time anyway. Might have even sold a few tickets.

mine would be the same as Alex's i think

If Alan Trammell had played shortstop in the big leagues the 1920s and 1930s he would have gone into the Hall of Fame first ballot, almost unanimously, and would have been ranked just behind Honus Wagner as the greatest shortstop who ever lived.

This isn't a fair argument IMO because era is important, and for most of baseball history, the shortstop wasn't expected to be a complete player. You can't transplant someone from a time when the role of shortstop was being slowly redefined (80's and 90's) and stick him in an era when shortstops were crappy hitters and say, "look, now he's one of the best". We could use a football analogy and take, I don't know, Donovan McNabb and say "if he'd played in the NFL in the 60's and 70's then he would have gone into the HOF and would have been ranked behind Fouts and Unitas as the greatest QB ever."

I'm sure Trammell would be getting a lot more HOF votes if he'd won the '87 MVP (as he deserved to do) and the Tigers had gone on to win the WS instead of getting upset in the ALCS by one of the weakest WS winners ever.

i think the best argument against trammell is that unlike larkin he had several years in the middle of his career where he was a below average hitter (though probably still above average for shortstop). even adjusting for the fact that he played through the offensive boom, larkin's offensive numbers are better and he didnt have any down years really until his decline phase

Bert Blyleven
Roberto Alomar
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Tim Raines
Mark McGwire
Alan Trammell
Jeff Bagwell
Larry Walker

^^^

i really care about the following four getting in irl: bert, larkin, edgar, bags

xxpost: I think you've uncovered an inconsistency on Posanski's ballot. He takes on Palmeiro today, and he basically uses the same arguments against him as those proposed above. Which is a disconnect: arguing for Trammell by relocating him to a different era, while arguing against Palmeiro because he didn't measure up in the context of his. (Drop Palmeiro into the '60s, and obviously he looks like god.)

It's not just a case of relocating a guy from a hitters era to a pitchers era, it's about relocating a guy from an era when shortstops are expected to be multi-dimensional threats to an era where hitting like Cesar Izturis was perfectly acceptable as long as you were a good fielder.

Right. But to use the most extreme example, Wes Parker kept a job all through the '60s pretty much purely on the strength of his glove (unless I'm missing something). A gold-glove/no-hit first baseman would have been unthinkable in the '90s, so I think there's some validity to the analogy.

i agree with you guys about the relocating eras stuff, but the locus of his argument - which is that the standards for HoF-quality middle infielders (third basemen, too) have become very ungenerous - is one that i agree with. there's a reason it's the Hall Of Outfielders And Pitchers, and it's because voters seem to half-ass positional adjustments.

third basemen get shafted a lot. (o_O) i mean if santo can't get in, what hope does rolen have? and shouldn't beltre have a decent case based on his outstanding defense and reasonably solid-to-great offense?

mind you I don't think Trammell is an inner circle guy, but Santo not getting in? that's a friggin disgrace

haha xp

*behind the back high fives omar*

well he's dead now, so it's only a matter of time

i think w/r/t third basemen aramis ramirez has a case, but only if he can put together several more years of good offense and only if he's not finished (like he looked to be in the first part of last season.) his stats aren't impressive in this era, but still on par with some of the great third basemen. kinda missing a shitload of intangibles and the great D a lot of hall or near-hall third baggers have.

*thumbs up*

rolen should totally be a lock - which obv means he'll fall off the ballot after 2 or 3 years (jim edmonds too)

beltre and ramirez are both guys who i wanna see stay productive into their mid-late 30s but yeah they deserve to be in the convo

yeah edmonds deserves it but he'll get overlooked. i'm beginning to think based on voting patterns that people are overcorrecting to compensate for the 'roids era and for awhile they're gonna keep out everyone except for guys like big hurt and griffey, when their time comes. might be easier to tell after this round of voting.

i have a suspicion that if the roids logjam gets too unwieldy they'll revamp the rules - i think its happened a few times before when faced with similar situations

btw i just want to reiterate my position that Andruw Jones is a hall of famer

rolen's borderline right now imo but of course he's still playing so 1 or 2 more good seasons and he should be a lock

same with jones but he seems less likely to have another good season. dude was on track for 100+ career WAR though, kinda sad what happened

I agree about Santo and 3B not getting any HOF respect, but there are 23 HOF shorstops, more than any other IF position (this includes players like Yount and Banks, who had significant PT at other positions as well).

That said, there are some REALLY questionable people on that list (thank you Veterans Committee) and only one no-doubt, inner circle HOFer (Honus Wagner). If anything, voters have been biased in favour of shortstops, probably because they're often viewed as "leaders" (about five or six of them were player-managers at some point in their careers), and because you can stand out more if the offensive bar for your position is set so low.

Trammell was overshadowed by three pretty big HOF-calibre shorstops, which is partly bad luck, but also partly a reflection of how much the position has changed. Trammell's contemporaries aren't the guys from the 20's and 30's (as Posnanski is claiming), it makes more sense to compare him to Larkin, Jeter, Nomar, Hanley, Tulo, etc.

I think Rolen is a HOFer right now, but it's true that he probably needs another good season or two to convince people.

Edmonds is borderline for me -- I haven't made up my mind, but I think if you dominate your position for a decade, then you're a HOFer, especially if you play up the middle.

huh. never even thought about Edmonds or Rolen. they're both kind of similar i guess, but i never thought as either as a HOF'er.

I think voters are biased towards SS/2B because the positions are considered really defensively demanding.

Also Ripken is def. an inner circle hall guy.

Also Trammell compares pretty well in career WAR with Larkin and Jeter (but not close to Ripken which is really his biggest problem.)

"A gold-glove/no-hit first baseman would have been unthinkable in the '90s, so I think there's some validity to the analogy."

Hey JT Snow had a job!

y'know, since I know Bonds and Clemens aren't getting in any time soon, I really don't care.

with Palmeiro - it goes beyond roids because he was caught lying about it. to congress.

i will never forget the pic someone posted to ilbb, when his suspension was over, of him walking away from a strike out - back to the camera and facing him in the stands was a dude with a sign that read "welcome back, liar"!

Also Ripken is def. an inner circle hall guy.

That's true, I should have mentioned him too.

with Palmeiro - it goes beyond roids because he was caught lying about it. to congress.

As far as his stats go, he tested positive in 2005, and his HOF case isn't built on anything he did in 2005 (at least AFAIC, my arguments would be the same whether he finished with 2975 hits or 3025 hits). We don't know whether he cheated during the prime of his career, so he can't be punished for that.

Depending on how seriously you take the "character" clause in the HOF criteria, then lying to the US government about using illegal drugs and embarrassing the entire sport in the process is a pretty big deal, yes. I can understand why someone would want to exclude him just based on that.

I don't care that Palmeiro lied to college. I just think there were a lot of first basemen in his era with better qualifications.

lol congress i mean

Surprised no one has brought up Palmeiro's Viagra problems.

xp otm

palmeiro was a good 1B for a long time but he only had one or two of those >150 OPS+ seasons that the best corner players like bonds, manny, thomas, bagwell, etc churned out during the same period. his hall of fame case is mostly based on his longevity, and isnt that the one thing that people agree PEDs actually help with?

It could have been the newer parks, expansion and the pitchers, which were definitely another part of the HR explosion, but Palmeiro definitely didn't show the big power early in his career. I think that lack of power early on might have been why the Cubs they were willing to move him down the road.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Bowie Kuhn's in. Let em all in.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/news/story?id=5984898

maybe file under dumbbutt media, i dunno, but according to this HOF voting poll of espn writers, barry stanton voted only for jack morris (ok, w/e), edgar martinez (fine w/me), tino martinez, don mattingly, and bj surhoff.

His rational for the Tino and BJ has got to be a good one, right? Right?

ESPN voting grid:

http://itsabout.server304.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ESPN-HOF-Voting-grid.jpg

two dudes didn't vote for either blyleven or morris, but did vote for lee smith.

I've had this feeling that Bagwell is going to get some absurdly low %age, like 40%. I guess that shows that I'm not crazy for thinking that.

Stanton voted for BJ fucking Surhoff!

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

40%'s not absurdly low for first time around, most people who get that much get in eventually.

the problem is the ballot's about to get stacked in 2-3 years with all the great 90s/00s players, and if they don't push some of the current guys through this year and next then they are dead in the water thanks to the 10 vote limit.

and even worse, if the voting base is split evenly enough between reasonable and anti-steroid-era voters we could end up with enormous ballots and 10-15 guys getting 50-60% every year from all the vote splitting. they'll probably drop the limit of 10 if this happens but it's a legit concern

jayson stark was talking about this issue today, how he'd have voted for 12 but cut the last couple of guys from his ballot because of the limit (mcgriff and murphy.)

best player being added next year is Bernie Williams, but after that:
2013 adds Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Sosa, Piazza, Biggio, Lofton
2014 adds Maddux, Thomas, Mussina, Glavine, Kent
2015 adds Randy Johnson, Pedro, Smoltz, Sheffield

a few of those guys will get in quick but most are gonna sit on the ballot for a while, along with a few other dudes i didn't list but might get some votes. it's gonna be absurd for a bit

Is a HOF vote like tenure? At what point does room-for-disagreement cross the line into shouldn't-have-a-vote? Because if you vote for Tino Martinez and B.J. Surhoff but not Alomar (or lots of other names on there, but for now just limit it to Alomar), to me you should have your vote taken away. That's not even like one of those joke votes that people sometimes cast for whatever obscure reasons they have; it has just barely enough legitimacy (insofar as Surhoff and Martinez were generically good career players) that it indicates that this guy is 100% sincere.

The Hardball Times guy predicts all the pct's, and gives Bagwell 35%:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/wednesdays-cooperstown-results-today/

I'm amazed Larry Walker would only receive one vote from among all those ESPN people. That doesn't bode well for either him or Todd Helton.

i don't think helton has much of a shot. walker i think has more of a shot, if only because of his good numbers elsewhere and legendary fielding ability. he may become a cause célèbre eventually.

Yeah I don't see how Todd Helton has much of a chance at all at this point. If he could have kept it going a while longer and hit some nice round numbers (3000, 500 whatever) then maybe but where he's had I don't even think he'll be a cause celeb for anyone.

Walker's going to get denied it cuz he played at Coors and he didn't stay healthy.

No chance for Helton with the writers, agreed--maybe far into the future with the Veteran's Committee. If he'd piled on some triple-crown numbers through his late '30s, and gotten past the 500/3,000 barrier (and escaped steroid suspicion, obviously), I think that and the inflated slash stats would have been enough to sneak in, Coors notwithstanding. But the hits and HR are drying up, so that's not going to happen. Walker's showing suggests to me that Helton'll be off the ballot fairly quickly.

What looks to be Walker's showing, I should say; vote hasn't actually happened...

Got my answer: "The criterion is simple: if you've been an active member of the BBWAA for 10 consecutive years at any point in your career, you get a Hall vote for life." So it's like the Supreme Court. They'd do well to give Barry Stanton's vote to Judge Judy or Lance Ito.

I'm looking at a blog kept by one of the mlb.com writers, and there's this: "Note on Jeff Bagwell: His numbers are very similar to Steve Garvey -- Bags .297 batting average to .294 for the Garv, 2,314 hits to 2,599, 449 homers to 272, 1,529 RBIs to 1,308." Leaving aside eras and everything else, do those numbers seem very similar once you get past BA? A 175-homer difference is very similar?

not when it leads to Bagwell having a SLG that's almost 100 points better.

and a career .329 OBP for Garvey to Bag's .408? dude needs to lay off the meth.

it amazes me how many sportswriters see no significant difference between a .280/.330/.500 hitter and a .280/.400/.500 hitter, still, in the year 2011

Bagwell should be more of a sure thing than Alomar was last year, so 40% does seem very low to me. In the bigger picture though, if Bagwell gets only 40% on his first try, then nobody who hit HR's in the 90's has any shot at being elected on the first ballot. Which would be stupid.

lol @ 449 vs. 272

I just noticed that Juan Pierre's numbers from last year were really similar to Albert Pujols' -- 179 hits for Pierre vs 183 for Pujols, 79% SB rate for Pierre vs 78% for Pujols, 1 HR for Pierre vs 42 for Pujols.

I noticed too that Harmon Killebrew and Maury Wills both had the double-l in their surnames. Yet Killebrew's in the HOF and Wills isn't. I don't get it.

http://bit.ly/eQZV4S

Sorry I could not resist posting that great pic.

nobody who hit HR's in the 90's has any shot at being elected on the first ballot. Which would be stupid.

stupid true sportswriter tricks

I don't know exactly how he would have phrased it, but I thought Blyleven today might somehow acknowledge the sabermetric push to get him into the Hall. Wasn't there one guy in particular who adopted Blyleven's induction as a personal project?