Comments on: HOF election results announced today

By: the most felonious vocalist in the wide world of showbusiness

the most felonious vocalist in the wide world of showbusiness — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:47:55 +0000

Park factors. Era adjustments. Stop looking at unadjusted numbers and you will see the vast differences between the two players. Plus, Reggie won a bunch of rings and had quite a few “moments.”

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:51:27 +0000

Heh, it’s interesting you bring up Reggie Jackson, I always thought he was one of the most overrated Hall of Famers. Here’s my thought process: I think Reggie is the last one into the Hall, and Jim Rice is the first one out of the Hall. I’d put the line right between them.

They actually have eerily similar rate stats:
Jim Rice (.298/.352/.502/.854/.375)
Reggie Jackson (.262/.356/.490/.856/.375)

But yes, I think Reggie sticking around and reaching milestones, but more importantly remaining a force into his late 30′s (look at his very good 1985 and 1986 seasons at 39 and 40) is the bump that puts him in, and if Rice had put up a few more seasons like that, instead of falling off a cliff at age 33, maybe I’d support his candidacy more.

Here’s the thing, though: I understand most of this is subjective. My line is between the two; if you have a line that’s further back and you have both Jackson and Rice in, I get that; if you’re a small-hall guy and you leave both Reggie and Rice out, I get that too. Difference of opinion is okay, but lack of intellectual consistency and integrity is not okay. So, if you put Rice in, you damn well better put Tim Raines in (as well as Thome, Edgar Martinez, Frank Thomas, etc. etc.)

I have a problem with voters who vote for a guy who’s borderline (like Rice) but not a guy who’s a slam-dunk (like Raines). I have a problem with a voters who vote for a guy they like or from their favorite team but not a similar or better guy they have no personal affinity for. That shit is unconscionable.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:28:42 +0000

2000 walks and 3000 hits.

Wow?

By: Whitey14

Whitey14 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:08:11 +0000

Honestly, if I thought it was hot bullshit I wouldn’t say it.

We can agree to disagree on the perceived value of OBP over the years but we all know it’s a stat that is valued more now than ever. Every year more and more people migrate away from BA, HR and RBI as the best measures of a hitter as we look to find better ways to analyze these guys.

Just curious, should Reggie Jackson’s career OBP of .356 have kept him out of the HOF, or does the fact that he played until he was 65 and hit certain “milestones” cancel that out

By: crapmaster general

crapmaster general — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:09:57 +0000

the thing about Mattingly is that even though many people – from casual fans to HoF voters agree he doesn’t make the cut for the Hall, it’s odd that so many up-and-coming players name him as their boyhood idol. starting with Gregg Jeffries in the late 80′s, all the way to now with Tex. as a kid myself during his heyday, there were few players more beloved than Mattingly.

I know the WS rings probably negate the possibility of this rhetorical question, but fast-forward several years – is there any way Jeter could have the same fate as Donny? I personally hope not, but time does strange things.

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:04:41 +0000

Come on guys, you know that ALMOST NOBODY talked about OBP in the freakin’ 70’s and it didn’t become a popular stat until the late 80’s before really taking off ion the 90’s. They just didn’t care about it the way we do now.

Whitey, that’s hot bullshit and you know it. I will grant you that the statistic of OBP was not commonplace and not discussed, in terms of the statistic itself. But baseball people talked about outs being bad and the importance of not making outs, since they were bad. How OBP was discussed may have changed, but the notion that nobody cared about making or not making outs and how frequently players did that is simply not true.

FWIW, it seems like all the old players who make the claim that “we didn’t care about OBP back then” were players with shitty OBP’s.

“We didn’t care about OBP back then” = “It’s not the size, it’s how you use it”

By: crapmaster general

crapmaster general — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:01:24 +0000

that is exactly right. I think frank thomas is strong enough in the voters’ minds to break the stigma of the DH. that is what I was alluding to, anyway…

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:57:39 +0000

No, seeing as how McGwire was unquestionably a better and more productive player than Canseco.

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:56:52 +0000

That’s ludicrous and insane.

You don’t vote for a guy who you think shouldn’t be in just to keep him on the ballot. That’s the exact opposite of your charged duty as a BBWAA voting member.

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:55:28 +0000

This is where we agree to disagree, I suppose. Steroids were such a pervasive, widespread factor in the game that I’m not going to penalize a guy for doing something that practically everyone was doing. It’s a futile exercise, because you don’t really know who was using and who wasn’t. The only two intellectually honest, morally consistent options are to either not induct anyone who played from 1980-2010 or to not consider steroids as a factor.