2014 HOF Vote (Angelswin Results are in!)

[AngelsLakersFan]

I don't like this argument at all.  Why should I respect somebody "putting a lot of thought into it" if that thought is poorly reasoned and logically retarded?  

 

Hitler put a lot of thought into the Holocaust...

[mancini79]

I find it more interesting that Larry Walker didn't get a single vote. Career .313 BA, 1 MVP, 3 time batting champ, 7 GGs. I have a feeling the BWAA's will get him 10%-20% the vote.

[Ohtaniland]

WTF? No Jack Clark?  

[mancini79]

WTF? No Jack Clark?  

 

He's already in the HOF...right??

[YouthofToday]

It isn't stunning, but it is disappointing, and I don't like his chances long term, especially considering how crowded the ballot has become.

He was awesome. The "he was only a DH" argument is fair if you are comparing him to someone that performed as well as he did offensively, but not many did when he was playing. The voting also leans too much towards longevity and not enough towards dominance for my liking. Funny to say when talking about a guy that played 2,000 games over 18 seasons. He "only" accumulated 2,247 hits. Nevermind the fact he has the 21st highest OBP in MLB history and led the AL three times... and is 95th in AVG for his career. Only a couple guys ahead of him in career OBP played after 1900 and aren't in the Hall Of Fame.

"Part-time" player...

[YouthofToday]

Some of you guys need to relax.

I disagree with Ken's ballot but I know and respect him and know he put a lot of thought into it. It doesn't mean he shouldn't vote and it certainly doesn't mean the system is broken if Greg Maddux gets 99 percent of the votes instead of 100 percent.

The system is broken if a voter picks Morris and not Maddux. There is no logical explanation for this decision that I can conceive of. An individual whose thought process results in this outcome has little credibility IMO.

The process how people make decisions is important and need to be evidence based. I fail to recognize how voting for Morris and not Maddux is the result of a sound, evidence-based decision process.

[HaloFan85]

What's crazy is that most if not all of those on the ballot have better numbers than several current HOFers at their respective positions, with several of those inducted within the last 25 years which isn't that long ago.  It makes you really wonder what criteria these guys are using because if they went by simply comparing their stats to current HOFers at the same position, almost all should be voted in.

[happybat4]

At least Ken has an argument of sorts that is logical. Remember that voter that did not vote for Rickey Henderson because he felt he was not a HOF even though he voted for Tim Raines citing how Tim Raines was so good at walking and stealing bases while having some pop. The same guy left Mcgwire of his ballot for steroids, then turned around and voted for matt williams despite the fact he took steroids as well. I have more of a problem with guys like that. I think his name was corky simpson. He should of had his vote taken away right then.

Edited January 8, 2014 by happybat4

[Inside Pitch]

Some of you guys need to relax.

I disagree with Ken's ballot but I know and respect him and know he put a lot of thought into it. It doesn't mean he shouldn't vote and it certainly doesn't mean the system is broken if Greg Maddux gets 99 percent of the votes instead of 100 percent.

 

That's just wonderful.  

 

I'm certain the people who "know and respect" Greg Maddux will take comfort in knowing that Kenny "gave it a lot of thought" before he decided he would rob him of any chance of being the first player in MLB history to go into the HOF with a unanimous vote -- I mean, that wouldn't have been a huge deal or anything.  Snarkiness aside, I really hope this guy isn't the only person that leaves Maddux off his ballot, cause if that happens he will have gone from a guy who's job it is to report the news to a guy who ended up becoming the news.  A sort of Steve Bartman of sportswriters..    

 

BTW, since you and Ken are buddies -- do you have any insight into whether or not this guy voted for any of the major awards over the last 20 years  Sure would be hypocritical if he voted for any of the MVP, ROY, or Cy Young awards given his stance on the HOF.   

Edited January 8, 2014 by Inside Pitch

[Inside Pitch]

I find it more interesting that Larry Walker didn't get a single vote. Career .313 BA, 1 MVP, 3 time batting champ, 7 GGs. I have a feeling the BWAA's will get him 10%-20% the vote.

 

I'm guessing its due to the number of candidates on the ballot.

[ukyah]

i disagree with jeff completely. i would not vote for some of the steroid users, but you have to have the ability to reason between light and dark. greg maddux, etc. played in the steroid era. bonds, mcgwire, sosa, clemens, etc. were the steroid era. it's not a fact, it's my opinion.

[Mark68]

As far as Ken Crasnick's sole vote for Jack Morris, but non-vote for Maddux because he couldn't vote for anyone who played during the steroid era...Morris retired after the 1994 season, so I guess his assumption is that the steroid era began in 1995? How convenient.

 

McGwire and Canseco (at least) were on the juice well before then, Ken. So your premise fails.

 

Morris was a good, not great, pitcher who happened to play for some really good teams.

 

Maddux was a pitcher who defined the era in which he pitched. An era that happened to overlap Morris' career for 9 years. Maddux's ERA+ in 1994 was 271, and, just to show that wasn't a fluke, the next year it was 260. For eleven years, his ERA+ only dropped below 146 once (to a measly 126 in 1999).

 

Morris' highest ERA+ was 133.

 

To me, Morris is not a Hall of Famer. If there was a Hall of Very Good, then Morris should go in, as should Larry Walker.

 

Crasnick's reasoning was just plain stupid, and I really don't think he put much thought into it.

[Jeff Fletcher]

The "system is broken" because Greg Maddux gets 99 percent of the votes instead of 100 percent?

I disagree that getting 100 percent would be anything historic in terms of being memorable. Ask 100 fans at a game who holds the record for highest vote total. Does having the highest vote total make you the best player? All that matters is whether you get in.

What about this?

30 percent of fans wouldn't vote for Maddux....

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=sweetspot&id=42689&src=desktop

There is nothing black and white about this. It's an opinion. You can disagree with an opinion, and I disagree with a lot of them (including Ken's), but they aren't wrong.

If Ken wants to eliminate everyone from the steroid era, that's his right. It's more logical in some ways than attempting to draw some crazy gerrymandered line through the era.

Finally, I'm interested to see this group has about the same view of the steroid era as the writers.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Jeff Fletcher

[YouthofToday]

Jeff,

You completely avoided the question of the validity of voting for Morris and not Maddux. Morris pitched in the steroid era. That is a fact.

Frankly I could care less if Maddux gets in with 99, 90 or 100 percent of the vote. That is irrelevant to this conversation.

----

I would vote for Bonds and Clemens on a hypothetical HOF ballot. Instead of kicking all steroid users out I simply think KNOWN abusers should have a higher bar than players without any solid evidence of steroid use.

Bonds biggest problem is he was a terrible teammate and a complete and utter douche and an asshole to media. If he had Jack Morris' personality he would be receiving a lot more votes from BBWAA members most likely.

The sanctimonious way some see the steroid era is absolutely ridiculous. Should we exclude every player from the HOF before racial integration since those players played against artificially weaker competition?

Should we exclude everybody from the HOF that was in the greenie era as they might have used amphetamines (which I believe are just as significant as a performance enhancing drug)?

Alcohol use and DUIs are a bigger issue with society than steroids -- perhaps we should kick anybody with a DUI or known alcohol issues out of the hall then? Bye-bye Mickey Mantle -- dude gets the boot.

The HOF quickly becomes totally vacant in an ivory tower.

Edited January 8, 2014 by YouthofToday

[Jeff Fletcher]

News flash: Jack Morris was a douche too.

And having covered Barry Bonds for 8 years, he was not as bad as the stories, to the media or his teammates.

As for saying Morris did not pitch in the steroid era, I think it's using semantics to claim he did. Did players use steroids while he was pitching? Of course. But the vast majority of his career was before use became rampant, as the offensive numbers show.

[Spirit]

News flash: Jack Morris was a douche too.

 

 

I realize the day is still young, but I have serious doubts that I'm going to read anything as good as this today. 

[sneaky_flute]

This association should be ****ing dismantled after shafting Jeff Bagwell. What the hell is wrong with these idiots?

[Erstad Grit]

Why no love for the Crime Dog?

[Angelsjunky]

Who's the racist that voted for Clemens but not for Bonds

[Angelsjunky]

Why no love for the Crime Dog?

 

Two reasons, I think. One, McGriff's peak--1988-94--was right before era of inflated hitting numbers (1994-2009) got rolling, so he only had one season, 1994, of era-inflated stats, and that was a strike-shortened season. In 1995 he was 31 years old and starting to decline, so his numbers then and previously looked only decent compared to the stars who were peaking at the right time to catch the wave. Also, he finished with 493 HR with a lot of his career occurring the most inflated HR era in baseball history. It is kind of silly, but even if he had gotten 7 more HR there would be more serious conversation about his candidacy.

 

Secondly, he's a classic borderline case: 57.2 fWAR. But more so, he was good to very good for a long period of time. Hall of Fame voters seem more impressed by players who have a higher peak, even if their plateau is shorter (e.g. Jim Rice, 50.8 WAR). Although someone like Reggie Smith (64.6 fWAR) receives no love, probably because voters don't well account for the fact he played much of his career in an era--the late 60s and early 70s--that was a low run-scoring context.

 

I could see McGriff becoming a sleeper case in a couple decades once the hullabaloo about steroids has settled down. If people become more accepting, he might not get voted in, but if people remain unaccepting then he might be voted in because he was perceived of as a clean player in an un-clean era.

[happybat4]

I wonder why Kenny Lofton was taken off the ballot so quickly. The dude has a career 68.1 WAR. He was right there with Tony Gwynn and Tim Raines as it goes to WAR.

[xboom28x]

If Ken wants to make a statement, do it with his column on MLB.com... don't do it with his HOF vote.

[Tank]

i don't understand what piazza needs to do get votes from people around here. 

[Tank]

sportswriters are an odd breed. it's hard to understand that players like ruth, gehrig, musial, dimaggio, mays, bench, ryan, aaron, mathewson, walter johnson, cy young, etc. never got in on a completely unanimous vote. 

[sneaky_flute]

Cuz there's always that one douchebag who wants to be a contrarian douchebag for attention. WHY IS JACK MORRIS EVEN ON THE BALLOT?