cryptique Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 An all-star 19 timesThe number of All-Star game appearances should be excluded from all HOF deliberations. Anything subject to fan voting is not a real statistic. That said, Ripken's enshrinement is deserved. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 Yeah, All-Star appearances reflect popularity a whole lot more than how good he was. That being said, Ripken is certainly deserving. As for those that didn't vote for him and Gwynn, I read an article yesterday from a writer who said he was not voting for them because he felt that if Ruth, Mays, etc. didn't get 100% of the vote, then those two don't deserve it. Pretty stupid reasoning, if you ask me. Basically, he decided not to vote for Ripken and Gwynn because some other dudes decided not to vote for Ruth or Mays several decades ago. Makes no sense. I don't think any of those guys really care exactly what their percentage was anyway, they just care that they're getting in. I'm on board for the Bagwell HOF push though. He's certainly at least as deserving as Rice (who is the very definition of a borderline guy). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
parisisstale Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Rice was the most dominant and feared hitter in the game for a decade. End of story. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tongue-tied lightning Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 here's another name, Tony Perez ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I dont know about other people, but I find the bottom of the ballot much more interesting than the top. Bobby Bonilla actually received 2 votes. This blows my mind much more than the fact that Jim Rice got hosed again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I dont know about other people, but I find the bottom of the ballot much more interesting than the top. Bobby Bonilla actually received 2 votes. This blows my mind much more than the fact that Jim Rice got hosed again.Yeah, that list gets pretty crazy as you go down. Maybe some are a result of bets. "You would never really vote for Dante Bichette!" "OH YEAH??" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Maybe some are a result of bets. "You would never really vote for Dante Bichette!" "OH YEAH??" I hope that's what it is. Because if its not the result of some bet or a joke of some sort, it means that some tool with the ability to vote players into the baseball hall of fame is secretly harboring the opinion that Dante Bichette is an underrated player and that the media never appreciated his ability to hit 6th in a below average California Angels lineup. Although I suppose he put up some nice numbers for a couple of years in Colorado. EDIT: by the way, if you were on steroids and played at Coors Field, is there any way to calculate the impact that these two things would have on your numbers? Not that Dante was juicin', but hey... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 I think that a lot of reporters put votes in for players that were nice to them, just because they were nice to them. Not because they think that they deserve it, but just as a thank you for not being a dick. I think they probably wouldn't do it if they thought that there were enough people doing it to actually elect the guy. Just a token vote. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I think that a lot of reporters put votes in for players that were nice to them, just because they were nice to them. Not because they think that they deserve it, but just as a thank you for not being a dick. I think they probably wouldn't do it if they thought that there were enough people doing it to actually elect the guy. Just a token vote.But how would the players know, as it's private ballot(I guess Dante could possibly figure out it was one of the two guys, but...), and why would they care? The players at that end of the list know they are not HOF material. I think it's just ineptness. There's bound to be dregs/numbskulls that shouldn't be voting but have been allowed to simply due to longevity. There are plenty of old-timers that I'd imagine are simply out of touch with the sport but still cast their votes as a formality each year. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 They could vote for a player as a thank-you without expecting the player to know it was them. As in "he was a good guy, I'm going to vote for him so he can have a wee bit of an ego stroke." Not "I'm going to vote for him so he knows all those years of answering my questions really meant something to me, personally." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 Or he might say, "Hey Dante, I voted for you." Don't get me wrong, I think most of the writers who get to vote are idiots. I just don't think that that's why they're voting for such obviously marginal players. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Another borderline candidate (as is Rice) for the HOF, IMO, was Albert Belle. He received less than 5% of the votes (down there with the Bichette crew, actually) and so will be removed from the ballot for good. That was pretty quick. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 That is kinda crazy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Oil Can Boyd Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Another borderline candidate (as is Rice) for the HOF, IMO, was Albert Belle. I am a huge Jim Rice fan but his numbers (.298, 382 HR, 1451 RBIs) and Belle's (.295 381 HR 1239 RBI) are pretty similar. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 And Albert did it in what amounts to little more than 10 full seasons. However, he did play in a different era and there is a bit of steroid taint on him (hello, roid rage). However, off the ballot? That's nuts...and has been pointed out before, it's only because he's such a sourpuss. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
quarter23cd Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Another borderline candidate (as is Rice) for the HOF, IMO, was Albert Belle.Gee, I didn't realize he was eligible yet. Isn't he still on Baltimore's payroll?(worst signing ever!) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Twisted Acres Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Belle was not a friend of the media, and that, I think, kept him from the 5% needed to stay on. Ripken could play for my team any day. He's deserving, for sure. I'm thrilled that he and Gwynn, two career-long one-team-players, are going in together. Can't wait to hear their speeches. Gossage will get in next year. The ballot will be very light, and no player that has ever gotten 70+% of the vote hasn't gotten in. He got, what, 72% this year? We'll see that moustache on the podium in July of '08. Let's have some fun... let's talk about who you'd take OUT of the Hall of Fame given the chance and why. I'll start with George "Highpockets" Kelly, Travis Jackson, Dave "Beauty" Bancroft, and Ross "Pep" Youngs, all players from the early 1920s New York Giants. In the late 60s/early 70s, the Veterans Committee was more like a club inducting their buddies, so those guys got in on that. Take a look at their stats and tell me if they really belong with the likes of Cobb, Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Mathewson, Williams and Johnson. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Rice was the most dominant and feared hitter in the game for a decade. End of story. Rice had 3 seasons where he could truly be considered a great player. He never topped 1.000 in OPS. I mean, was he feared in 1981 when he Slugged a Juan Encarnacion-esque .441? Not deserving of the Hall. I'd put Albert in before him for sure. Bill James calls him the most overrated player of the last 30 years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 He said that pre-Jeter I think. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 I think Bert Blylevlyn is the 2nd most deserving person on the ballot after McGwire, but for some reason the sports writers have a grudge against him because the "statheads" are big fans of his... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
parisisstale Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 I stand corrected. If Bill James says it, it must be true. For the record, Rice's career OPS was .854, Ripken's was .787. Not saying Ripken's not a hall of famer, but Rice definitely belongs too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 But Ripken was a shortstop while Rice was an outfielder/occasional DH. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rareair Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 andre dawson > jim rice > joey belle Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 That's crazy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Is John Lowenstein in yet? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.