Trevor Hoffman Elected to Hall of Fame

[nate82]

Vlad did more than just hit though. Vlad is probably only 2nd to Clemente as a corner OF defensively.

[pacopete4]

Vlad did more than just hit though. Vlad is probably only 2nd to Clemente as a corner OF defensively.

 

As did Chipper.

[nate82]

Vlad did more than just hit though. Vlad is probably only 2nd to Clemente as a corner OF defensively.

 

As did Chipper.

 

I don't remember Chipper being anything more than average defensively at 3B.

[Devinep]

Vlad did more than just hit though. Vlad is probably only 2nd to Clemente as a corner OF defensively.

 

As did Chipper.

 

I don't remember Chipper being anything more than average defensively at 3B.

 

Nor would he have to be with the way he hit to get into the HOF

[FidoMcCokefiend]

The HOF and the voters continue to baffle me. The 4 voted in are fine. Would have voted for all of them. There's so many others deserving that are left by the wayside because of pettiness, bad assumptions, or just plain weirdness. I should know better, but I can't help it and the last week of January every year riles me up.

 

It boggles my mind to no end how a voter would look at Trevor Hoffman, vote him in, and then not also vote for Billy Wagner. I've no issue with Hoffman being in. Wagner is simply a better pitcher across the board than Hoffman. Better ERA+, better FIP, better WHIP, 11.9 K/9 vs 9.4.

 

Edgar Martinez deserves to be in and it shouldn't even be close. In a year where another specialist made it in, excluding him because he was a specialist that's been a legit position since 1973 makes no sense whatsoever. Go look at Molitor's numbers and then Edgar's. Other than counting stats, Edgar is as good/better in every one. It's criminal that voters are holding the DH against him.

 

Likewise, holding "Colorado" against Larry Walker is silly. If only there were a statistic that adjusted for park effects of each player, alas, we'll never really understand if Larry Walker was any good. Wait, what's this? OPS+? A stat that does adjust for individual ballparks? Well I'll be. Well obviously, Walker will be proven not all that good here. I mean, HOFers have an OPS+ like Chipper Jones 141. Or Vlad's 140. Or Thome's 147. Walker must have been like 100 or something, right? Oh, he was 141.

 

I'd have also voted in Clemens, Bonds, and Manny without question. I could go either way on Mussina, Schilling, Sosa, and Sheffield. I think a case could easily be made for any of them, I could also agree that they are very good, but not HOF.

[pacopete4]

The HOF and the voters continue to baffle me. The 4 voted in are fine. Would have voted for all of them. There's so many others deserving that are left by the wayside because of pettiness, bad assumptions, or just plain weirdness. I should know better, but I can't help it and the last week of January every year riles me up.

 

It boggles my mind to no end how a voter would look at Trevor Hoffman, vote him in, and then not also vote for Billy Wagner. I've no issue with Hoffman being in. Wagner is simply a better pitcher across the board than Hoffman. Better ERA+, better FIP, better WHIP, 11.9 K/9 vs 9.4.

 

Edgar Martinez deserves to be in and it shouldn't even be close. In a year where another specialist made it in, excluding him because he was a specialist that's been a legit position since 1973 makes no sense whatsoever. Go look at Molitor's numbers and then Edgar's. Other than counting stats, Edgar is as good/better in every one. It's criminal that voters are holding the DH against him.

 

Likewise, holding "Colorado" against Larry Walker is silly. If only there were a statistic that adjusted for park effects of each player, alas, we'll never really understand if Larry Walker was any good. Wait, what's this? OPS+? A stat that does adjust for individual ballparks? Well I'll be. Well obviously, Walker will be proven not all that good here. I mean, HOFers have an OPS+ like Chipper Jones 141. Or Vlad's 140. Or Thome's 147. Walker must have been like 100 or something, right? Oh, he was 141.

 

I'd have also voted in Clemens, Bonds, and Manny without question. I could go either way on Mussina, Schilling, Sosa, and Sheffield. I think a case could easily be made for any of them, I could also agree that they are very good, but not HOF.

 

This was very well stated and I agree. The baseball HOF has become petty and annoying each and every year.

[AKCheesehead]

I guess I'll probably get some push back over this, but the one that bothered me was Omar Vizquel getting only 37%. I realize his .688 ops isn't special, and his 2,877 hits were spread over 24 years, but he was so much more than that. His ability to get on base, score runs, and make sacrifices to advance baserunners was valuable, and he was one of the best pure shortstops to ever play (11 GG, most games played at SS, highest career fielding % at SS, most DP turned at SS.) To me it's befuddling that The Wizard of Oz was a slam dunk first balloter and Omar got 37%, but then again I'm not in BBWAA.

[folly412]

I actually like that the baseball Hall of Fame still feels elite. The last thing they need is to take the NFL approach and have an old fart's committee that dumps a couple of average players from the 60's in every year.

[Outlander]

Well they added an old fart's committee this year that added a couple of guys from the 70's/80's. We'll see if it continues.

[Devinep]

Well they added an old fart's committee this year that added a couple of guys from the 70's/80's. We'll see if it continues.

 

And they definitely added one that didn’t deserve it - Morris. Trammel probably should have gotten in by voting though

[owbc]

The HOF and the voters continue to baffle me. The 4 voted in are fine. Would have voted for all of them. There's so many others deserving that are left by the wayside because of pettiness, bad assumptions, or just plain weirdness. I should know better, but I can't help it and the last week of January every year riles me up.

 

It boggles my mind to no end how a voter would look at Trevor Hoffman, vote him in, and then not also vote for Billy Wagner. I've no issue with Hoffman being in. Wagner is simply a better pitcher across the board than Hoffman. Better ERA+, better FIP, better WHIP, 11.9 K/9 vs 9.4.

 

Edgar Martinez deserves to be in and it shouldn't even be close. In a year where another specialist made it in, excluding him because he was a specialist that's been a legit position since 1973 makes no sense whatsoever. Go look at Molitor's numbers and then Edgar's. Other than counting stats, Edgar is as good/better in every one. It's criminal that voters are holding the DH against him.

 

Likewise, holding "Colorado" against Larry Walker is silly. If only there were a statistic that adjusted for park effects of each player, alas, we'll never really understand if Larry Walker was any good. Wait, what's this? OPS+? A stat that does adjust for individual ballparks? Well I'll be. Well obviously, Walker will be proven not all that good here. I mean, HOFers have an OPS+ like Chipper Jones 141. Or Vlad's 140. Or Thome's 147. Walker must have been like 100 or something, right? Oh, he was 141.

 

Nailed it. It's also not surprising that it's the old guard of voters that is keeping Edgar out, the same ones that are keeping their ballots hidden. Edgar is over 75% of revealed ballots. Fortunately it seems like Walker is picking up momentum, I bet he will continue to gain with the ballot being a little less crowded the next few years.

 

As for the PED users...I would personally vote them in but I can't hold it against those who disagree.

[Devinep]

I would not vote the PED users - I don’t really get the argument that there are surely ones already in. That would be like eliminating prisons because there some innocents in and guilty ones not caught. Edgar should be in and as mentioned in another post, Billy Wagner would be on my ballot too. Larry Walker is hard due to the amount of games missed. HOFer while on the field though

[MrTPlush]

I am so sick of people getting mad at voters for not voting for Bonds/Clemens/etc. Those writers are perfectly justified in their decision to leave those guys off their ballots. The baseball hall of fame is not solely based off of statistics:

 

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

 

The HOF decided it wanted to be more than about statistics and on the field performance. They wanted to put good ballplayers that are also good people into the HOF. It is their organization and they have the right to make the rules. If you don't like them don't get mad at the writers who are actually following the guidelines. Go the the board of directors and demand a rule change. If it is made to be all about on the field performance and these guys still get snubbed then you have a right to be angry at a writer.

[Outlander]

LOL, I have been there and it is filled with scum and villiany.

[pacopete4]

LOL, I have been there and it is filled with scum and villiany.

 

Yep. Can’t pick and choose when you want to have morals or high character. Sorry MrTPlush, but baseball is letting these guys burn for something they knew about and we complicit about.

[Devinep]

LOL, I have been there and it is filled with scum and villiany.

 

Yep. Can’t pick and choose when you want to have morals or high character. Sorry MrTPlush, but baseball is letting these guys burn for something they knew about and we complicit about.

 

Something us they did know about, and knew was wrong, hence the hiding and still lack of admission for the most part today. Plus, Ty Cobb’s personality didn’t hedge competition like PEDs.

[brooks_quichenick]

I am so sick of people getting mad at voters for not voting for Bonds/Clemens/etc. Those writers are perfectly justified in their decision to leave those guys off their ballots. The baseball hall of fame is not solely based off of statistics:

 

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

 

The HOF decided it wanted to be more than about statistics and on the field performance. They wanted to put good ballplayers that are also good people into the HOF. It is their organization and they have the right to make the rules. If you don't like them don't get mad at the writers who are actually following the guidelines. Go the the board of directors and demand a rule change. If it is made to be all about on the field performance and these guys still get snubbed then you have a right to be angry at a writer.

 

Good people? Why is Cap Anson in there then?

 

Sosa, McGwire and all the steroid guys essentially saved baseball and made A TON of money for owners and the league itself. They should be in.

 

Keep the awful racists like Schilling out, but Bonds absolutely should be in the HOF.

[DocLuna7]

I am so sick of people getting mad at voters for not voting for Bonds/Clemens/etc. Those writers are perfectly justified in their decision to leave those guys off their ballots. The baseball hall of fame is not solely based off of statistics:

 

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

 

The HOF decided it wanted to be more than about statistics and on the field performance. They wanted to put good ballplayers that are also good people into the HOF. It is their organization and they have the right to make the rules. If you don't like them don't get mad at the writers who are actually following the guidelines. Go the the board of directors and demand a rule change. If it is made to be all about on the field performance and these guys still get snubbed then you have a right to be angry at a writer.

 

Good people? Why is Cap Anson in there then?

 

Sosa, McGwire and all the steroid guys essentially saved baseball and made A TON of money for owners and the league itself. They should be in.

 

Keep the awful racists like Schilling out, but Bonds absolutely should be in the HOF.

 

Making a ton of money for owners is not the criteria which is used to determine Hall of Fame worthiness.

[brooks_quichenick]

I am so sick of people getting mad at voters for not voting for Bonds/Clemens/etc. Those writers are perfectly justified in their decision to leave those guys off their ballots. The baseball hall of fame is not solely based off of statistics:

 

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

 

The HOF decided it wanted to be more than about statistics and on the field performance. They wanted to put good ballplayers that are also good people into the HOF. It is their organization and they have the right to make the rules. If you don't like them don't get mad at the writers who are actually following the guidelines. Go the the board of directors and demand a rule change. If it is made to be all about on the field performance and these guys still get snubbed then you have a right to be angry at a writer.

 

Good people? Why is Cap Anson in there then?

 

Sosa, McGwire and all the steroid guys essentially saved baseball and made A TON of money for owners and the league itself. They should be in.

 

Keep the awful racists like Schilling out, but Bonds absolutely should be in the HOF.

 

Making a ton of money for owners is not the criteria which is used to determine Hall of Fame worthiness.

 

Where did I say it was? The players I'm talking about absolutely put up HOF numbers, and should be treated with far more respect by MLB when the league got absurdly rich off their backs and fan interest increased tremendously at a time when the future of baseball was in question.

[FidoMcCokefiend]

I am so sick of people getting mad at voters for not voting for Bonds/Clemens/etc. Those writers are perfectly justified in their decision to leave those guys off their ballots. The baseball hall of fame is not solely based off of statistics:

 

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

 

The HOF decided it wanted to be more than about statistics and on the field performance. They wanted to put good ballplayers that are also good people into the HOF. It is their organization and they have the right to make the rules. If you don't like them don't get mad at the writers who are actually following the guidelines. Go the the board of directors and demand a rule change. If it is made to be all about on the field performance and these guys still get snubbed then you have a right to be angry at a writer.

 

Ty Cobb pauses from beating a man with no hands (well, missing one whole hand and 3 fingers from other hand if we're being precise) and gives you the thumbs up. Then gets back to beating him up because Ty Cobb don't care!

[MrTPlush]

LOL, I have been there and it is filled with scum and villiany.

 

Yep. Can’t pick and choose when you want to have morals or high character. Sorry MrTPlush, but baseball is letting these guys burn for something they knew about and we complicit about.

 

Pause there for a second. MLB does not own the hall of fame last I checked and does not run it in any way...it is a seperate entity. The baseball hall of fame did not allow those players to use steroids and turn a blind eye, that was MLB. I think it is a little silly arguing if Barry Bonds etc. should be in the HOF, THEY ARE! Their stories and accomplishments are all on display there. In my opinion that is what is important. It is a part of the history, although bad. Being inducted into the hall of fame is different. Those are people the hall wants to put on pedestals as great examples of ballplayers and as people.

 

All I am trying to say is the current writers are well within their rights to keep these players out of the hall of fame. The HOFs definition of a hall of famer is different than yours. It is what it is.