Skip to content

How to handle this overstuffed Hall of Fame ballot

Nov 26, 2013, 3:00 PM EDT

thomas

We have a problem here, one that’s going to keep getting worse in future years. The Hall of Fame electorate is permitted to vote for only 10 players per year, but this ballot contains more than 10 Hall of Famers:

Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Tom Glavine
Greg Maddux
Mark McGwire
Mike Mussina
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
Frank Thomas
Alan Trammell

That’s 13 clear Hall of Famers in my book, without even counting the still interesting cases of Jeff Kent, Edgar Martinez, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa and Larry Walker.

Maddux is getting in. That we know. Biggio, Glavine and Thomas have shots; I’m guessing that all three will end up in the 70-80 percent range (with 75 being the cutoff for election). Perhaps one of the trio will get in, probably Glavine or Thomas, but I doubt all three will.

If two get in, that still doesn’t alleviate things for next year. Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz and Gary Sheffield are all joining the ballot then.

So, what’s a voter to do? Or at least a stats-friendly voter? Some will check the names of Maddux and Jack Morris, maybe one or two more, and be done with it. But let’s think instead about the more modern voter who recognizes that most or all of these guys above surpass the Hall of Fame standard.

My thought would be to leave Bonds, Clemens and McGwire off the list. I would have voted for all three last year, and I’d vote for the three again. However, I don’t want to take either over cleaner players. Not that everyone else on my 13-man ballot was necessarily clean. I don’t really believe that.

Subtracting those three gives me a ballot of Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Maddux, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Thomas and Trammell.

But, I would be wavering on one subject: I’d hate to see Kent fall off the ballot after one year, something I think has a legitimate chance of happening. An adequate defender with a career .290/.356/.500 line, Kent has 76 more homers than any other second baseman in history (377), and he’s second to Rogers Hornsby with 1,518 RBI. That’s not too shabby, and it deserves a heck of a lot more than a one-and-done.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to remove my support from any of the other guys who need it. Maybe take it from the one guy who doesn’t: Maddux. He’s going in, but it’s not like it’d be unanimous anyway. Let’s squeeze Kent in there in his place.

  1. Jack Marshall - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM

    Jeff Bagwell
    Craig Biggio
    Tom Glavine
    Greg Maddux
    Mike Piazza
    Tim Raines
    Frank Thomas
    Alan Trammell
    Curt Schilling

    Leave off the PED cheaters and the borderliners (I don’t think Mussina or Morris quite make the cut; Raines and Schilling could go either way), and its not too hard.

    • Kevin S. - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:42 PM

      Calling Moose, Raines and Schilling “borderliners” just demonstrates your analytical skills are as week as your moralizing.

      • nocitpeced - Nov 27, 2013 at 4:25 PM

        It’s the Hall of Fame, not the hall of very good over a long period of time including eight years in New York pinstripes. Other than his own family members, has ANYONE ever gone to a baseball game because “OOH Mike Mussina is pitching!” I don’t think so. Moose was a very good, and at times exceptional pitcher, but the man never was a must-see player. Clemens despite steroid use, Schilling, Pedro, Maddux & Glavine all had more of a draw than Moose ever did. The pitchers that you saw on the schedule and said to yourself “I want to see that guy sling it” those are HOF pitchers, Moose isn’t one of them.

        In his entire career Mussina never won a Cy Young, won 20 games in a season once, never threw a no-hitter, never threw a perfect game, didn’t win 300 games (over a 17.5 year career), and never had an ERA under 2.54. If pitching consistently well for a long period of time is all it takes to get into the HOF does that mean in a few years that Jamie Moyer is a no-brainer? I doubt it.

        Moose to me is in the grey area where his value to the fans that he played for is far greater than the value to baseball fans as a whole. I doubt many people outside of Baltimore and New York think of him as a HOF’er, and if they do it’s in the vein of ‘Eh, why not?’ To me he’s similar to Mark Buehrle, constantly good but not great, except Buehrle has a perfect game & has a no-hitter in his credentials, unlike Moose who came oh so close several times only to have it go sideways time and time again.

      • largebill - Nov 28, 2013 at 8:08 AM

        nocitpeced,

        If you watched American League baseball during the last 20 some years you would be aware that Mike Mussina was one hell of a pitcher. During his Orioles years he was a “must watch” starter. 10 times in the top six in ERA. 15 times in the top 10 for least walks per 9 IP. Admittedly, Mussina was over-shadowed by some historically great pitchers, but he would fit right in with the established standards for Hall of Fame pitchers.

      • nocitpeced - Dec 1, 2013 at 1:05 AM

        largebill,

        I predominantly watch AL baseball as I’m a White Sox fan, and have for over 30 years. I’ve seen Moose pitch in person several times, and don’t hold a negative opinion of the guy, it is just he’s got a very stacked field to contend with. And if you processed what I’d written instead of just seeing what you wanted to see, I said flat out he was “a very good and at times exceptional pitcher”

        I took issue with the notion that Mussina is considered an automatic HOF’er by some, and in my opinion I just don’t see it. Not on this ballot at least. I’m not going to throw a tantrum if he gets in this year or in a few years, it’s fine with me. My point was simply, it’s a Hall of FAME, and if you’re going to sit a kid down in 10 years and say to them “Let me tell you about pitchers from the 90′s and early 00′s” you’ll go through a ton of names before Mike Mussina gets mentioned.

        Further complicating matters is the fact that I have absolutely no problem with letting the steroid guys into the Hall for several reasons. First and foremost, there is no way to tell who was and wasn’t using, just because they didn’t get caught only means they were more clever than those that did get caught. For instance, Mussina was on Orioles teams with both Brady Anderson and the aforementioned Palmerio, AND was on Yankees teams with Clemens, Pettite, & A-Rod. Is it so unreasonable to not at least have a shred of doubt concerning whether Mussina was clean?

        Second, people so often forget that when Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc. were juicing, it wasn’t being tested for, nor was there any protocol in place to suspend players for use. Fay Vincent’s 1991 memo meant nothing since MLB never did anything about it. If there aren’t consequences, it isn’t against the rules. You might not agree with what they did, and you certainly don’t have to like what they did, but it wasn’t against the rules (or at least it wasn’t against the rules that MLB cared to enforce). Palmerio got caught AFTER they were testing, so I didn’t include him. How many players from the 60′s, 70′s and 80s are already in the hall who popped amphetamines like they were pez? Are they suddenly going to get kicked out? Not a chance. Do I approve of steroid use? No, but if it happened during a time when MLB didn’t care to do anything about it, I am in no place to pass judgement on what they chose to do to their own bodies.

        As such, when looking at the list of candidates, Mussina is near the bottom of my list. In no certain order, Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Edgar Martinez, Glavine, Maddux, McGwire, Piazza, Raines, Thomas, Schilling, Trammell, Jack Morris, & Lee Smith would all be in front of him. Larry Walker & Mattingly I’d put on the same plane as Moose, and only Palmerio and Kent would be behind him on that list. Palmerio incidentally is only behind Moose because of getting caught after they were outlawed, the man was a hitting machine. That being said, it’s one hell of a list. Moose can go to Cooperstown, I don’t have a problem with that at all, there’s just a massive log jam of better players in front of him.

  2. chip56 - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:10 PM

    I agree that you can remove Bonds, Clemens and McGwire – they’re wasted votes.

    Drop Raines and Trammel – arguments can be made for both, but Edgar and Kent deserve it more.

    • metroplexsouthsider - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:18 PM

      I’m halfway with you. On Kent, and I can’t believe Pouliot is worried about him falling off the ballot after one year.

      On Edgar? Hall of Very Good, but not a HOFer. Injured too much and missed too many games for a career DH. Counting stats are worth something, along with various sabermetrics, especially, again, if you’re DH and get to rest, etc. http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2012/12/edgar-martinez-hall-of-fame-for-gar-or.html

      • ireportyoudecide - Nov 26, 2013 at 4:01 PM

        So if Edgar was a below average 1B then you think he would qualify? Would you also not vote for an AL pitcher because they don’t hit?

      • metroplexsouthsider - Nov 26, 2013 at 5:34 PM

        No, I don’t think Gar would qualify at 1B, either.

        Pitchers aren’t judge on hitting, but if an NL pitcher could hit, and were otherwise borderline, it might be a “bump.”

        I always add the disclaimer: I’m a Cards fan, and I don’t think Big Mac should be in the Hall, beyond the roiding, and I don’t think Larry Walker should be in the Hall, either.

      • weaselpuppy - Nov 26, 2013 at 6:08 PM

        No one thought Lou Whitaker would either.

      • Pete - Dec 5, 2013 at 6:47 PM

        That link you mentioned doesn’t hurt Edgar’s case much. He says: “It wouldn’t crush me if he never got in.”

        And then later admits “I am a “small Hall” guy. In fact, I think there’s plenty of people we should vote back OUT of Cooperstown.”

        So you have this extreme small hall guy saying he wouldn’t be crushed if Edgar doesn’t get in. Hardly a ringing indictment of Martinez’s case. He’s the best DH ever, or at least he easily was when he retired. Did you know its actually harder to hit as a DH than as a position player? This has been demonstrated by more than one study. As a mediocre first baseman his numbers would have gone UP. And he did play a few seasons at third base and actually his fielding numbers are pretty good. They moved him to DH to save his hamstrings. Also incompetent mariner management left him in AAA way too long as he won the AAA triple crown I believe 2 years in a row and laid waste to triple A pitchers as the M’s rolled Jim Presley out night after night. He should be in.

        Schoenfield has a good article on his case: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof10/news/story?id=4755544

  3. jdd428 - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:11 PM

    Here’s how you fix it. First, you raise the ballot maximum from 10 to 15. Then you lower the election percentage to 70% – I know that sounds low, but the third and most necessary change is why you do this: You eliminate the multiple years of eligibility. If a guy doesn’t get in on first crack, he doesn’t get in. This would eliminate all that BS about “well, he’s a Hall of Famer, but he’s not a ‘first-ballot’ guy” – either he is or he isn’t, cut and dry.

    Or you could keep the election threshhold at 75 percent, allow guys to stay on the ballot (if they meet a minimum percentage) for up to 5 or 10 years, but institute this rule: If a voter leaves a guy off once, he’s not allowed to bring him back on. Again, if you don’t vote for a guy in Year 1 of his eligibility, you can’t vote for him in Year 2 or Year 5 or Year 10. Again, either he is or he isn’t. It’s not like a guy is doing anything to bolster his case in retirement (apparently unless his name is Jack Morris).

    • metroplexsouthsider - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:15 PM

      Oh, doorknob, no. No, no, no. That might lead to an even “bigger” Hall than now. If anything, we had too many “big Hall” votes in the past and need to vote a few out.

      • jdd428 - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM

        I don’t think it would make it a bigger Hall. You just don’t have these prolonged arguments over whether a guy is HOF or isn’t because guys fall off the ballot quicker and guys aren’t allowed to leave someone off that they think would eventually deserve it.

        Case in point: Tim Raines. If you think he’s a Hall of Famer you vote for him every time. You don’t leave him off one year and bring him back the next; it’s not like he’s going to improve his qualifications in that time frame.

        Now, how many guys – given a yes or no, once and for all – are still going to vote him in. Enough? Tough to say, my guess (even though I personally would say yes) is that he wouldn’t get enough. And that’s the end of it. So, it doesn’t overpack the Hall.

    • xdj511 - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:23 PM

      If players were only eligible for one year, we wouldn’t need to raise the ballot to 15 people, that would cover just about every nominee in any given year.

      • jdd428 - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM

        Good point.

  4. metroplexsouthsider - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:12 PM

    I’m a lifelong Cards fan who says Big Mac ain’t a HOFer. Take away the roids and he’s Dave Kingman. In fact, I’ve “defactored” roiding from a bunch of candidates. http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2011/01/de-factoring-steroids-from-possible-hof.html

    • cohnjusack - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:36 PM

      Take away the roids and he’s Dave Kingman

      Except that he wasn’t. Dave Kingman couldn’t get on base to save his career. McGwire could, ranking in the top 10 in OBP 3 times before his 93/94 start of steroid use.

      • metroplexsouthsider - Nov 26, 2013 at 5:40 PM

        Are you sure his steroid use started that late? I’m not. I’m using a bit of hyperbole, I admit. But, take away the roids, and Mac has about exactly Kong’s 442 HRs. An OPS+ down to 130. A WAA on B-R down below 30. Hyperbole aside, he’s at least in Kong’s neighborhood. Oh, and in case you say, “what about greenies,” I’m convinced that issue is apples and oranges, even if Kingman did take amphetamines on a regular basis.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 26, 2013 at 4:16 PM

      I’m curious how often you are going to keep posting this? You literally took a players numbers, went “hocus pocus” here’s how he’d be without steroids. No math, no science, no applying any of this to anyone else who played at the same time. Some of your other stuff might be good, but after reading this one article I can’t take any of your analysis seriously.

      Also, for the 136320967th time, David Ortiz was not named on the Mitchell Report (which you also say). No Red Sox player as on the report, which was a major point of contention since George Mitchell was affiliated with the Red Sox at the time.

      • metroplexsouthsider - Nov 26, 2013 at 5:52 PM

        No, he was named before the Mitchell Report. He was named, though. And, the one blog post that I wrote about Ortiz that specifically mentioned the Mitchell Report (which the one above does NOT, and doesn’t even mention Ortiz’s name) has been corrected. That said, this isn’t the link I posted when I wrote specifically about Ortiz.

        So, when are you going to stop being in denial? As I said, I’m a Cards fan, but not a “homer” like that.

        As for the “not scientific,” since I don’t know exactly what these players took, it can’t be that scientific, overall. But, in Bonds’ case, between hat size and the infamous orchidometer, we DO have some scientific evidence.

        But, back to the basics.

        Since, for the 136320968th time, Ortiz WAS mentioned on a pre-Mitchell Report list, when are you going to stop being in denial? Here’s the facts: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/sports/baseball/31doping.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

      • metroplexsouthsider - Nov 26, 2013 at 6:00 PM

        Oh, and Manny was on that pre-Mitchell Report list, too. Semantics, semantics. Tsk, tsk.

        I’m curious how often you’ll remain in denial?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 26, 2013 at 8:43 PM

        No, he was named before the Mitchell Report.

        Wrong again:
        Mitchell Report – released 12/13/07
        NY Times Article – 7/30/09

        Also forgive me if I don’t give a lot of credence to a report that has lawyers breaking the law reporting on something that was deemed illegal (seizure).

        So, when are you going to stop being in denial? As I said, I’m a Cards fan, but not a “homer” like that.

        You’re continuing to post incorrect information. I said nothing about Ortiz taking or not taking ‘roids. You should also stick around more and realize I’m not a Sox fan.

        As for the “not scientific,” since I don’t know exactly what these players took, it can’t be that scientific, overall. But, in Bonds’ case, between hat size and the infamous orchidometer, we DO have some scientific evidence.

        And science, it works! Which has just as much to do with what science I was referring to as your comment. I’m not arguing that science has no place here. I’m arguing that you literally chopped 10/15% of a player’s numbers off because, hell I don’t know why you picked that. The size, or lack thereof, of Bonds’ testicles has nothing to do with the matter.

        Oh, and Manny was on that pre-Mitchell Report list, too. Semantics, semantics. Tsk, tsk.

        I’m curious how often you’ll remain in denial?

        What the hell are you talking about?

  5. tywebb76 - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:13 PM

    Maddox is an absolute shoe in and I think that Glavine and Thomas are as well. It’s time for Alan Trammel and Jack Morris to get their spots, Trammel more than anything. His ommision from the hall of fame thus far is proof that the election process is perpetually flawed.

    • jdd428 - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:26 PM

      Again, outfielder Gary Maddox is not on the ballot. I think you mean Maddux (spelled with a U), a completely different player.

    • xdj511 - Nov 27, 2013 at 9:24 AM

      Also, two l’s in Trammell… but that’s just nitpicking at this point.

      • largebill - Nov 28, 2013 at 8:17 AM

        Wait a second, you guys are picking on him getting a letter wrong in a couple names but missed that he listed Jack Morris and not any of more than a dozen better players? However, if you insist on picking on his spelling, he also missed on “omission.”

  6. wallio - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:20 PM

    Am I the only one who thinks theres only about 6-7 legit HOVers on there? Maybe I’m too picky…..

  7. xdj511 - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:25 PM

    The good news is that this ballot will finally give the veterans committee something constructive to do, because it’s obvious that at least a few potentially worthy candidates are going to get crowded off of the ballot without a chance to get seriously considered.

  8. johnnysoda - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM

    Mussina is definitely not a “clear” Hall of Famer, especially not on the first ballot. McGwire’s not one to me, either. My ballot would be:

    Maddux
    Thomas
    Biggio
    Bagwell
    Piazza
    Bonds (as much as I dislike him on a personal level, his stats- even pre-steroids- are just too good)
    Raines

    • asimonetti88 - Nov 26, 2013 at 5:16 PM

      I think Mussina will get elected eventually because he is deserving. I don’t think him not getting in on the first ballot would be a tragedy though.

      If you aren’t filling out the full 10 on your ballot, your list isn’t that terrible. All of those players are more than deserving.

    • metroplexsouthsider - Nov 26, 2013 at 5:53 PM

      I’d rank Moose at least even with Glavine.

  9. billybawl - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM

    I take a hard line on PED use generally, but have a really difficult time justifying keeping Bonds, Clemens, et al out of the HOF when the current penalty is 50 games for a first offense, and escalates from there. It takes several offenses to earn a lifetime ban. For better or worse, baseball has taken the position that PED use — let alone suspected use — isn’t a lifetime ban. Gambling is a lifetime ban, it’s in the rules.

    But until somebody gives the voters clear guidelines, I wouldn’t waste a vote on the blacklisted players until the atmosphere changes. Otherwise, you’re keeping deserving players out of the HOF for reasons having nothing to do with their merits.

  10. ptfu - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:47 PM

    What we need is mass collusion among the voters. Make enough voters vote for each player with a case to be made, such that none of the players drops off the ballot.

    There will be ~570 total ballots. You need 428 (75%) to get elected and 29 (5%) to avoid falling off the ballot.

    Matthew lists 13 clear HOFers and 5 more with a case to be made. Those 18 people need a total of (18 x 29) 522 votes to not fall off.

    Solution: each HOF voter will be assigned one of those 18 players, and that voter MUST vote for that player. Period. I don’t care if the guy personally insulted your family honor, you vote for him anyway.

    The voters can do what they like with the remaining nine places on their ballots. In this way, everyone with a case to be made will at least hang on for another year.

    The process continues every year until there are no more than ten worthy candidates remaining on the ballot. Yes, it will take years to clear the backlog–it would go faster but for some voters’ pigheadedness…never mind. Bottom line is that everyone who deserves to make the HOF will eventually get in.

    If you’ve made it this far, congratulations. No, this isn’t a serious proposal :)

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 26, 2013 at 4:20 PM

      One thing to keep in mind is there are a group of voters that either A, Don’t turn in ballots, and B, turn in blank ballots. The ones who don’t turn in ballots don’t harm anyone, as it doesn’t count as a vote so the number goes from a [hypothetical] 570 to 569 (or whatever). Those who turn in blank ballots make it harder because that ballot counts as a no vote for anyone.

  11. jcmeyer10 - Nov 26, 2013 at 3:58 PM

    Deadspin bought a vote, we have a voice!

    http://deadspin.com/deadspin-buys-hall-of-fame-vote-will-turn-it-over-to-d-1467003665

  12. wogggs - Nov 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM

    This is really not that hard, since you get 10 votes:

    Jeff Bagwell
    Craig Biggio
    Barry Bonds
    Jeff Kent
    Tom Glavine
    Greg Maddux
    Edgar Martinez
    Mike Piazza
    Larry Walker
    Frank Thomas

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 26, 2013 at 4:22 PM

      Tim Raines > Jeff Kent, yet you didn’t put Raines on your list. Also no Clemens either? Or Schilling/Moose?

      • wogggs - Nov 27, 2013 at 9:41 PM

        You only get 10 votes… I’m not sure if I think of Schilling, Mussina or Raines as HOFers, and there were too many other people to include clemens.

  13. ireportyoudecide - Nov 26, 2013 at 4:05 PM

    Bonds and Clemons were eligible last year, they didn’t make it. So by that logic none of these guys should get in. Just vote the best players, like somebody said earlier a failed PED test is a 50 game suspension not a ban from baseball, and those guys were never even suspended.

  14. bowltr - Nov 26, 2013 at 5:12 PM

    You know PED’s have ruined the game or should I say ruined the opinion’s of people regarding the game.
    Why all this morality when it comes to baseball? No one exercises the same morality when it comes to football. It’s OK to do PED’s in the NFL at least that’s the impression I get.
    It was OK for Hammerin Hank to pop greenies for years, or was it leaded coffee.
    Gaylord Perry admitted to cheating yet he’s glorified as this great old man pitcher who pushed the envelope. BS he cheated.
    I say let em all in because you can’t tell me there aren’t hundreds of players who’ve never been outed during this so called steroid era. My point is if most if not all were doing it wasn’t it a level playing field?
    The HOF should be comprised of the greatest players of their era. Not the greatest stats of all time.
    Jack Morris for example has good if not very good stats all time, but he is not a HOF. Neither is Trammel. Hell Don Sutton shouldn’t be in there but everyone makes mistakes.

    Let’s get on with it.

    No brainers:
    Bonds
    Sosa
    Maddux
    Piazza
    Clemens

    Tough to leave off:
    Bagwell
    Kent

    Not getting my vote (if I had one) and never will:
    Biggio………don’t care about 3K hits. Never considered him one of the best 2B of his ERA. Besides he also played C and CF. No for me.

    E. Martinez………very very good hitter but never feared him, plus no defense. Strictly a DH . Now I’m not against a DH getting in I just think one needs to be better than Edgar.
    No for me.

    Morris and Mussina……..the same for both. Excellent pitchers but never considered either to be among the elite of their time. No for both.

    Trammel……..a lot like Mussina and Morris. Very good player but never truly elite. Not for me.

    Palmeiro………Great numbers. 3K hits, 500 HR’s all those ribbies. But did you ever view him as one of the top 5 1B during his time? I didn’t either. No for me.

    Everyone else…………….not worth my time to mention them. Just take them off the ballot.

    That’s all for me so let loose on me people. I know my opinion will not be popular but I want a smaller HOF not a larger one

    Should get in:
    Glavine
    Schilling
    McGwire
    Raines
    Thomas

    • largebill - Nov 28, 2013 at 8:20 AM

      So, you consider playing catcher and center field a knock on Biggio? That is a unique position.

  15. bowltr - Nov 26, 2013 at 5:14 PM

    Not sure what happened with my post above but let’s try this again.

    You know PED’s have ruined the game or should I say ruined the opinion’s of people regarding the game.
    Why all this morality when it comes to baseball? No one exercises the same morality when it comes to football. It’s OK to do PED’s in the NFL at least that’s the impression I get.
    It was OK for Hammerin Hank to pop greenies for years, or was it leaded coffee.
    Gaylord Perry admitted to cheating yet he’s glorified as this great old man pitcher who pushed the envelope. BS he cheated.
    I say let em all in because you can’t tell me there aren’t hundreds of players who’ve never been outed during this so called steroid era. My point is if most if not all were doing it wasn’t it a level playing field?
    The HOF should be comprised of the greatest players of their era. Not the greatest stats of all time.
    Jack Morris for example has good if not very good stats all time, but he is not a HOF. Neither is Trammel. Hell Don Sutton shouldn’t be in there but everyone makes mistakes.

    Let’s get on with it.

    No brainers:
    Bonds
    Sosa
    Maddux
    Piazza
    Clemens

    Should get in:
    Glavine
    Schilling
    McGwire
    Raines
    Thomas

    Tough to leave off:
    Bagwell
    Kent

    Not getting my vote (if I had one) and never will:
    Biggio………don’t care about 3K hits. Never considered him one of the best 2B of his ERA. Besides he also played C and CF. No for me.

    E. Martinez………very very good hitter but never feared him, plus no defense. Strictly a DH . Now I’m not against a DH getting in I just think one needs to be better than Edgar.
    No for me.

    Morris and Mussina……..the same for both. Excellent pitchers but never considered either to be among the elite of their time. No for both.

    Trammel……..a lot like Mussina and Morris. Very good player but never truly elite. Not for me.

    Palmeiro………Great numbers. 3K hits, 500 HR’s all those ribbies. But did you ever view him as one of the top 5 1B during his time? I didn’t either. No for me.

    Everyone else…………….not worth my time to mention them. Just take them off the ballot.

    That’s all for me so let loose on me people. I know my opinion will not be popular but I want a smaller HOF not a larger one

  16. linedrivehit - Nov 26, 2013 at 5:26 PM

    Since when does a 300 game winner only “Perhaps” get in? Tom Glavine’s 305 wins should make him a shoe in; if not, just scrap the whole process and quit pretending it means something.

  17. crackersnap - Nov 26, 2013 at 5:45 PM

    RE: Kent…

    I fail to understand the logic of praising Kent’s accomplishments on offense for a guy who played his career at the 2B position while, at the same time, acknowledging that he wasn’t unusually accomplished as a 2B defender.

    If he wasn’t a stellar defender at 2B, the implication is that he could have played one or more other positions instead. So why give him HoF credit for above average offense, simply because he consumed a defensive spot where much better defenders typically hit below average?

    (And, for the record, Jeff Kent has no business taking up residence in a Hall that has failed to grant occupancy to Bobby Grich.)

    • weaselpuppy - Nov 26, 2013 at 6:11 PM

      or Lou Whitaker, whose WAR is the highest of anyone not in the Hall, not on the ballot and not blacklisted

  18. tigerman3 - Nov 26, 2013 at 6:39 PM

    The whole voting process is a joke. Alan Trammell desrves to be in look it up his numbers are almost identical to Barry Larkin except for stolen basses. there is no reasonable argument that Makes Larkin a Hof er and Tram not

  19. weaselpuppy - Nov 26, 2013 at 11:59 PM

    Jeff Bagwell- Unfair phantom PED tainting. Yes
    Craig Biggio- Will get in, maybe this year. Age 38-40 power spike is fishy. Lower WAR than Lou Whitaker.Yes (and Yes for Whitaker too if I could…and Grich)
    Barry Bonds- HOF before PED use, but now won’t see it. Egomania.No
    Roger Clemens- See Bonds.No
    Tom Glavine- Has the key numbers. Will make it. yes.
    Greg Maddux- Lock. Yes
    Mark McGwire- Not a HOF. Cheater. no.
    Mike Mussina- Hall of Very Good. Modern Day Don Sutton.No.
    Mike Piazza- Will make it. DH playing C though. Even then, Yes.
    Tim Raines- Why isn’t he in yet? Yes. Sheesh.
    Curt Schilling- Confounding me still. No. Right to change vote in future.
    Frank Thomas- Yes. Duh.
    Alan Trammell- Yes. WAR,WAR7and JAWS nearly identical to Jeter’s level. All better than Larkin. Why does the HOF HATE the 80s Tigers?
    Jeff Kent-Very borderline. Terrible WAR as compared to HOF 2B, hitting peak during juiceball/player era skews raw numbers.Average fielder. No.
    Jack Morris- Love him. Hall of Very Good, but tempted to vote yes since Tram and Lou are getting cornholed. No.

    • largebill - Nov 28, 2013 at 11:48 AM

      Not being elected to the Hall of Fame does not mean the HoF “hates the 80′s Tigers.” A team can be great and not have any of its players end up in the HoF. Personally, as I enjoyed baseball in the 1980′s I assumed Whitaker and Trammell would both eventually get in the Hall of Fame. However, neither of those players was an automatic slam dunk Hall of Famer. Whitaker dropping after one ballot is a travesty and both deserved serious consideration.

  20. weaselpuppy - Nov 27, 2013 at 12:38 AM

    Seasons at or above 6 WAR?
    Jeter 3
    Larkin? 4
    Trammell? 6

    Jeter Gold Gloves in a year he had a NEGATIVE defensive WAR rating? 4 (out of 5)
    Trammell seasons of 2+ defensive WAR w/o winning a GG? 3 (won 4 GG competing with Yount Ripken Fernandez and Vizquel)
    Larkin?2 seasons (won 3 GG after Ozzie retired)

  21. peddealer - Nov 27, 2013 at 8:05 AM

    Hey metroplex… U from DFW? I’m in Arligton

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Three legends off to Cooperstown
Top 10 MLB Player Searches