Who would you vote for?

by Ed Valentine on Nov 28, 2009 9:12 AM EST in Analysis Comment 22 comments

The Hall of Fame candidates have been announced.

Here is the full list.

Roberto Alomar
Kevin Appier
Harold Baines
Bert Blyleven
Ellis Burks
Andre Dawson
Andres Galarraga
Pat Hentgen
Mike Jackson
Eric Karros
Ray Lankford
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Don Mattingly
Fred McGriff
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Tim Raines
Shane Reynolds
David Segui
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
Robin Ventura
Todd Zeile

I think Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin are locks to get in, either this year or very soon. There are a bunch of other names on here I am on the fence about -- including Mark McGwire, Edgar Martinez and Bert Blyleven. I would love to say Don Mattingly should get in, but I can't. He didn't dominate long enough.

So, your task for today is to convince me who should get in. Or, who shouldn't, depending on your point of view.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Still thinking but . . .

Raines, Blyleven, McGwire, and Alomar would be on my ballot for sure. Still debating Edgar, Larkin, McGriff, and Trammell. Interested to see what others have to say.

by stusviews on Nov 28, 2009 9:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

My ballot

Roberto Alomar
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Edgar Martinez
Don Mattingly
Fred McGriff
Mark McGuire
Tim Raines

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Nov 28, 2009 10:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

All of them?

How do you justify Mattingly? McGriff and Raines, too?

by Ed Valentine on Nov 28, 2009 10:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Raines is the # 1 in my mind

Overshadowed by Rickey, he was a terrific player for a very long time. .380 lifetime OBP with 808 sb (84% success rate). Moderate power was just a bonus for a leadoff hitter who would have been the best in 50 years if it weren’t for the best all time playing at the same time.

by stusviews on Nov 28, 2009 12:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not trying to convince anyone to agree with me, I just think these are the guys I’d vote for.

I get up to 10 picks, don’t I?
Mattingly at his peak was the premier offensive and defensive player at his position. From 84-89 Mattingly OPS’d 147.
McGriff was a great slugger who was overshadowed by the ‘roiders who came after him. From ’88-’01 he never had an off year, and his great year (‘94) was strike shortened. Over that stretch he hit .289/.382/.515.
Raines was a great basestealer and had a great OBP in an era that didn’t understand the value of OBP. He’s the second best leadoff hitter in baseball history.

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Nov 28, 2009 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

McGriff

I think McGriff’s a lot closer than people think. I’d say no personally but its a tough call. He hit 30 or more homers 9 times and had 100 or more RBI 8 times. The problem with him is he played in an era where guys were routinely hitting 45 and driving in 130 at his position and he never did that. He never finished better than 4th for MVP. I’d put him in the very good but not great category.

Mattingly’s an interesting case too. From 1984-89 he was arguably the best player in baseball. Unfortunately from 90 on he was well below average for his position. He had greatness but not longevity, which unfortunately doesn’t get you in the hall of fame, while longevity but not greatness does in some cases. Mattingly falls into a category with guys like Dwight Gooden and Albert Belle.

by Let's Talk About Tex Baby on Nov 28, 2009 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mattingly

With all due respect, Mattingly dominated the game for a longer time than Gooden or Belle did. Six years is a significant period of time! He also put up his numbers without juicing, gets bonus points in my book for that.

He also brought an intangible to the team: several core players from the 1996-2001 run credited Mattingly with bringing them along as young players, inspiring them day-to-day, and teaching them how to win. That’s gotta count for something in my book, too.

Strictly on numbers, Mattingly compares well against Jim Rice… and Rice is in the HOF.

by pinstriper on Nov 28, 2009 7:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No offense to Mattingly

but that’s why Rice shouldn’t have gotten in. Now there are easily a dozen recent hitters about whom one can say “XXX is better than Rice and Rice got in.” Dawson, Murphy and Dave Parker come to mind on the current ballot (besides those like McGriff and Edgar Martinez who may actually deserve to get in).

by stusviews on Nov 28, 2009 8:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think..

The two locks should be Roberto Alomar and Andre Dawson. I have always thought Barry Larkin to be overrated. I am not to sure his career stats justify making the Hall, if his stats are good enough, why aren’t Mattingly’s?

I think Eventually you will see Blyleven, Mcgriff, McGwire, Raines, Edgar, and possibly an Dale Murphy, who dominated the 80’s.

by BigDanz2000 on Nov 28, 2009 10:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

My vote

I would vote for Alomar, Larkin, Edgar and Bert Blyleven. They were all elite players in their prime whereas guys like Raines and McGriff weren’t, although I think they’re both close to being hall of famers.

Alomar and Larkin were both the best or 2nd best players at their position in their prime, Larkin 2nd only to Ripken. Larkin doesn’t really have the sheer numbers, but in the late 80’s/early 90’s he was always mentioned among the best players in baseball, and rightfully so.

Edgar I don’t think will actually get in, as his numbers aren’t great enough to compensate for him being a DH which many voters don’t approve of. Still in the 90’s if I could pick one guy who I didn’t want at the plate against my team late in the game, it was Edgar Martinez. He should get rewarded for thart.

Blyleven should really be in by now. He’s 5th all time in strikeouts and he was better than pitchers who are already in like Sutton and Neikro.

by Let's Talk About Tex Baby on Nov 28, 2009 12:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

TIm Raines, Mark McGwire, Roberto Alomar

I’ve always liked the Hall of Fame as more of an exclusive club, and am therefore hesitant to include anyone I think is close to borderline (Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Blyleven, etc). I value how the player compared to his generation as one of the most important factors, and I think this raises my there candidates as the most qualified. McGwire had the best AB/HR in MLB history (and would have had a chance at the career HR record if not for injuries). Steroids obviously is a big hinderance in him getting in, but so many players were taking that it’s hard to decide where to draw the line. Alomar was the best 2B in the Al for many years, and made countless all-star teams because of it. He was actually the most qualified player in my opinion, heads and shoulders above his other 90’s 2B-playing peers both offensively and defensively. I like Raines for many of the reasons mentioned before as well as for the fact that he really was one of the best historically at what he did, and was heavily overshadowed by the BEST historically at what he did (Henderson). As far as who I don’t want to see in, Edgar Martinez offensively was absurdly consistent and good for some years, but I think his defense (or lack thereof) and his just-not-long-enough peak ultimately does him in.

by jirwin on Nov 28, 2009 12:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree completely

“Borderline” = out

You’re either a Hall of Famer or you’re not, and if there’s any debate, you’re not. I always like to use the criteria that if you can tell the story of a player’s era and his name doesn’t immediately come to mind at his position, he shouldn’t be in the HOF.

My Ballot:

Alomar
McGwire

Tim Raines was a fine player, but I’m never going to tell my grandkids about seeing him play.

As for Mattingly, I love the guy more than any other player in any other sport, EVER, but there isn’t a case to be made for him. It’s a shame, because he would have been a no-doubt HOFer with another 4 or 5 years of healthy play, but he seems destined to just be a favorite of Yankee fans in my generation.

by New York Sports Jerk on Nov 29, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Which is why I’m inclined to be more limiting in my votes.

They’re all very good players. It’s hard in my mind to say they were great. Not to sound like a curmudgeon, but just because you have the votes doesn’t mean you have to use them.

Many of them had good solid long careers. For most of them, it’s their collected body of work of good seasons consistently, with a great season here or there. But if I had to pick a few, my ballot would be:

Alomar
Lee Smith – If Gossage is in, he’s gotta be in, by the numbers.
Larkin

Three I might consider voting for:
Dale Murphy – in his prime 79-87 – two rbi titles, two hr titles, 2 mvps. Problems – terrible last six years, low lifetime BA, HR numbers don’t look spectacular in the age of Roids.
Raines.
Blyleven – nice stats, but not much in the way of “dominance” – never led the league in wins, just kept pluggin on, a lot of losses, but to be fair, he played for a lot of lousy teams. 3.31 ERA is decent…

by mrljdavid on Nov 29, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Alomar, Raines, Blyleven, Larkin

Alomar is the only lock to get in, I’d think, but it’s a crime that Blyleven is still waiting for induction.

by long time listener on Nov 28, 2009 3:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not so sure

People are not going to easily forget the John Hirschbeck spitting incident although they’re both good friends now. Of course, I believe that he should get in.

by Scooby Snacks on Nov 28, 2009 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

Alomar and Larkin are the only ones I think are definites. McGwire maybe if he mans up and admits he took PED’s

by Wraithpk on Nov 28, 2009 5:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

He probably will 'fess up

closer to Spring Training now that the Cards have announced him as hitting coach.

by Scooby Snacks on Nov 28, 2009 9:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

better to fess up now and let it get lost amid free agents and the hot stove.

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Nov 28, 2009 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hahaha

So now just admitting a crime forgives one for the crime. Because if we don’t forgive McGwire, then Pettitte and A-Rod have no shot at the Hall. Jeebus.

The sportswriters so far hate steroids far more than they hate the Yankees.

by 209209 on Nov 29, 2009 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mattingly

Let’s not forget Mattingly’s defense. He’s the all-time A.L. leader in fielding percentage for first basemen and won 9 gold gloves, also most in the league. He holds the record for grand slams in a season (6) and shares the record for consecutive games with a homer…

by david d on Nov 29, 2009 4:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Alomar, Larkin and yes, Edgar

Alomar and Larkin for all of the obvious reasons stated above. Now…Edgar was a DH. That, in itself is a problem, but you can’t let that be a problem if you really have a vote in this. The DH is a valid position, like it or not. And as Jirkin said above, he was “absurdly consistent” … and as Lets Talk About Tex Baby said, Edgar was one batter you wouldn’t have wanted to see at the plate against you. That definitely says something about him as a player in the DH position. I know, I know, a LOTof people are just plain against the existence of the DH position, but it is there, it is a valid position, and he should be rewarded for being one of, if not THE, the best at the position. Anyone out there know a BETTER long time DH than Edgar? If the answer is no, then he was the BEST at his position, and isn’t that what qualifies you for the HOF?

by Peg38 on Nov 29, 2009 6:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs