Fielder on HOF ballot

[bork]

ARod, Ortiz and Fielder among those on the HOF ballot for the first time. I don't see any sure things this year.

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/2022-hall-of-fame-ballot-mlb

[Outlander]

Will be interesting to see what kind of bump Clemens and Bonds get on their final time on the ballot. Ortiz gets a pass sometimes but voters have shown they don't forget. Imagine Schilling finally gets in.

[nate82]

Will be interesting to see what kind of bump Clemens and Bonds get on their final time on the ballot. Ortiz gets a pass sometimes but voters have shown they don't forget. Imagine Schilling finally gets in.

 

Doubt it on Schilling. Hopefully Bonds and Clemens get in. I could see A-Rod getting in and I am hesitant on Ortiz but he will get in at some point.

[Joseph Zarr]

I admit: I look at this year's HOF Ballot and I question the criteria of a lot of candidates. Maybe I mis-remember these careers or am out of touch with the HOF process? BUT, then again, Tina Turner was only in the Rock and Roll HOF for decades as Ike and Tina but only just in 2021 for her Solo career. I guess, I just don't understand how HOF are supposed to work.

[sveumrules]

I admit: I look at this year's HOF Ballot and I question the criteria of a lot of candidates. Maybe I mis-remember these careers or am out of touch with the HOF process? BUT, then again, Tina Turner was only in the Rock and Roll HOF for decades as Ike and Tina but only just in 2021 for her Solo career. I guess, I just don't understand how HOF are supposed to work.

 

The HOF adds howsoever many newly eligible players every year as a perfunctory gesture, with most of them falling off after the first year when they receive less than 5% of the vote.

 

Last few years...

 

2021: 11 new players added, 8 fell off. (Only Buehrle, Hunter & Hudson got over 5%)

2020: 18 new players added, 16 fell off. (Jeter elected, Abreu over 5%)

2019: 20 new players added, 16 fell off (Mariano/Roy elected, Helton/Pettitte over 5%)

2018: 19 new players added, 14 fell off (Chipper/Thome elected, Omar/Rolen/Andruw over 5%)

2017: 19 new players added, 16 fell off (Ivan elected, Vlad/Manny over 5%)

 

Out of this year's 13 newly added players ARod and Ortiz look like the only locks to stick around. Teixeira & Rollins are probably the next best bets, but they'll likely struggle to get the 5% needed to stay on the ballot.

[Joseph Zarr]

I admit: I look at this year's HOF Ballot and I question the criteria of a lot of candidates. Maybe I mis-remember these careers or am out of touch with the HOF process? BUT, then again, Tina Turner was only in the Rock and Roll HOF for decades as Ike and Tina but only just in 2021 for her Solo career. I guess, I just don't understand how HOF are supposed to work.

 

The HOF adds howsoever many newly eligible players every year as a perfunctory gesture, with most of them falling off after the first year when they receive less than 5% of the vote.

 

Last few years...

 

2021: 11 new players added, 8 fell off. (Only Buehrle, Hunter & Hudson got over 5%)

2020: 18 new players added, 16 fell off. (Jeter elected, Abreu over 5%)

2019: 20 new players added, 16 fell off (Mariano/Roy elected, Helton/Pettitte over 5%)

2018: 19 new players added, 14 fell off (Chipper/Thome elected, Omar/Rolen/Andruw over 5%)

2017: 19 new players added, 16 fell off (Ivan elected, Vlad/Manny over 5%)

 

Out of this year's 13 newly added players ARod and Ortiz look like the only locks to stick around. Teixeira & Rollins are probably the next best bets, but they'll likely struggle to get the 5% needed to stay on the ballot.

 

Thank You! I clearly did NOT understand how the HOF ballot ring worked and now I do. Much appreciated.

[TURBO]

I hope Bonds never gets in... NEVER!

[sixtolezcano16]

I hope Bonds never gets in... NEVER!

 

I’m right there with you. I’ll add Clemens, Schilling, Rose and ARod to that list.

[dlk9s]

Obviously Prince won't get in, but boy if there was a HOF for home run swings, he's first ballot easily. Too bad he had that neck problem. Might have had a chance.

[trwi7]

Obviously Prince won't get in, but boy if there was a HOF for home run swings, he's first ballot easily. Too bad he had that neck problem. Might have had a chance.

 

The bowling ball celebration that pissed off Ken Macha would be enough for my vote.

[SRB]

I guess, I just don't understand how HOF are supposed to work.

 

Sadly it's become an irrelevant forum for egotistical writers to grandstand, considering the arguable greatest player of all time is very likely to fall off the ballot this year.

[JosephC]

I hope Bonds never gets in... NEVER!

 

I’m right there with you. I’ll add Clemens, Schilling, Rose and ARod to that list.

 

I have flipped on Rose. Once MLB owners starting making money on gambling from kiosks and sportsbooks located in, or attached to, MLB stadiums...it's pretty much impossible for MLB to make the claim now that gambling can/could leave a big stain on the game. It would be different if he bet against his own team, but to my knowledge there was never any evidence that he did.

 

If I had a ballot I'd be including him as a write-in. Also want to point out that he was one of my least favorite players during his playing days, so it's not like I would have ever looked for some excuse to argue for his inclusion. The guy always came off as a huge jerk.

[CheeseheadInQC]

I guess, I just don't understand how HOF are supposed to work.

 

Sadly it's become an irrelevant forum for egotistical writers to grandstand, considering the arguable greatest player of all time is very likely to fall off the ballot this year.

 

Might there be a number who can get a bit sanctimonious, sure. But can you say with certainty Bonds or Clemens would get 75% from any group, be it former players or even fans? To some degree, it kind of feels like there is some notion that they are taking a “we didn’t create this mess; you decide how to handle it,” in just passing off the lot of them to the era committee.

 

I can’t completely blame them. They have murky instructions and a plethora of options (take the numbers at face value, put none in, try to divine who would be in the Hall without steroids and who wouldn’t). With no set standards of course you aren’t going to get consensus.

[BrewCrewForever]

I would vote for 9 players on this ballot. Fielder while I will always love him, he of course falls shy of the Hall. I will say this ballot is filled with Hall of Very Good players. Guys who are not quite HOF caliber, but were really, really good players in their days. So many good names on here.

[Underachiever]

I hope Bonds never gets in... NEVER!

 

I’m right there with you. I’ll add Clemens, Schilling, Rose and ARod to that list.

 

I have flipped on Rose. Once MLB owners starting making money on gambling from kiosks and sportsbooks located in, or attached to, MLB stadiums...it's pretty much impossible for MLB to make the claim now that gambling can/could leave a big stain on the game. It would be different if he bet against his own team, but to my knowledge there was never any evidence that he did.

 

If I had a ballot I'd be including him as a write-in. Also want to point out that he was one of my least favorite players during his playing days, so it's not like I would have ever looked for some excuse to argue for his inclusion. The guy always came off as a huge jerk.

Tangent: When I lived in Cincinnati, I heard a lot of Pete Rose stories. I loved the guy as a player, but as the post above says, he was known as a jerk. There was a restaurant that gave a gift certificate to the player of the game. The players had an idea that they should pool the certificates and have a huge party at the end of the year. Rose allegedly said words to the effect of, "I'm going to be winning most of those, why should I share with the rest of you?"

[StearnsFTW]

I would vote for 9 players on this ballot. Fielder while I will always love him, he of course falls shy of the Hall. I will say this ballot is filled with Hall of Very Good players. Guys who are not quite HOF caliber, but were really, really good players in their days. So many good names on here.

 

Wow. I can't find one.

 

Obviously we disagree on the steroid issue.

 

Who are your 9, just out of curiosity?

 

Edit: I lied. I would definitely vote for Rolen. Missed him the first time. And I would also strongly consider Pettitte.

[sveumrules]

Nine of my ten on this ballot would be Bonds, Clemens, ARod, Manny, Ortiz, Schilling, Rolen, Pettitte & Wagner.

 

Andruw, Helton & Sheff also have adequate statistical cases based on the established standard so they would be fighting it out for my last spot.

 

I personally don't really consider the character/PED stuff since the Hall already has elected plenty of questionable characters & didn't have any problem rewarding LaRussa/Torre for all their successes derived from PED enhanced players.

[NievesNoNO]

Nine of my ten on this ballot would be Bonds, Clemens, ARod, Manny, Ortiz, Schilling, Rolen, Pettitte & Wagner.

 

Andruw, Helton & Sheff also have adequate statistical cases based on the established standard so they would be fighting it out for my last spot.

 

I personally don't really consider the character/PED stuff since the Hall already has elected plenty of questionable characters & didn't have any problem rewarding LaRussa/Torre for all their successes derived from PED enhanced players.

 

I agree, I'd put Bonds, Clemens, ARod, Manny, Ortiz, Schilling, and Sheffield all in. All that matters to me is final numbers and how they compared in the era they played in. You can call steroids whatever you want; many think it was cheating but MLB knew about it and encouraged it and did nothing for many years. If the players were allowed to play in the game and accumulate the number then you kind of have to accept it don't you? Did they take away any Championships? Are we accounting for the changes in bat technology, shifting, the sticky #$# allowed on baseballs recently as well? I just think there's too many variables that start to get introduced and makes the decisions too subjective when you start trying to determine who did what, and when.

[SRB]

I guess, I just don't understand how HOF are supposed to work.

 

Sadly it's become an irrelevant forum for egotistical writers to grandstand, considering the arguable greatest player of all time is very likely to fall off the ballot this year.

 

Might there be a number who can get a bit sanctimonious, sure. But can you say with certainty Bonds or Clemens would get 75% from any group, be it former players or even fans? To some degree, it kind of feels like there is some notion that they are taking a “we didn’t create this mess; you decide how to handle it,” in just passing off the lot of them to the era committee.

 

I can’t completely blame them. They have murky instructions and a plethora of options (take the numbers at face value, put none in, try to divine who would be in the Hall without steroids and who wouldn’t). With no set standards of course you aren’t going to get consensus.

 

It's tough to say, fans might hate Bonds at this point just as much as the writers, but in the end that is also the writers' fault for deliberately torpedoing his legacy with tabloid journalism. Few people have an accurate understanding of the Bonds allegations, even though everyone thinks they do. I won't get into it here, but the popular notion that Bonds is the arch-villain of taking massive doses of steroids is far from certain. Even if you want to keep steroid-users out of the HOF, the simplest bright line is to simply keep out anyone who actually tested positive and was suspended by MLB.

 

And they don't have to divine anything with regard to Bonds. Even taking the anti-Bonds position at face value, it is undisputed that he did not start taking illegal substances until 1999-2000. He had already had one of the greatest careers of all time if he had retired then and there. The sole reason to not include him in the HOF is that they don't like him on a personal level.

[JosephC]

I'd vote for Schilling and then write in Rose and Lou Whitaker.

[JohnBriggs12]

Prince was on a HOF trajectory through his 20s. His slugging/HR totals slipped a bit when he went to Detroit so had he stayed healthy I don't know if he would have sustained it but had he stayed a Brewer and played full seasons into his mid 30's, I think he would have amassed numbers that would have put him in. The ironic thing was that he was in there every day with 9 seasons of at least 157 games played and he played in all 162 four times.

[JosephC]

It would have been interesting to see if Fielder had stayed with the Brewers, adding the Miller Park factor. But since he left, I think the trajectory he was on would have left him short of the Hall of Fame.

 

I definitely do not consider WAR a definitive measure on if a player should be elected into the Hall of Fame, but I do think it's a good place to start. Fielder finished with a 27.5 fWAR and 23.8 bWAR. There are some early year players in the Hall of Fame with WARs in that area, but a good modern-day measure is probably something like 70 WAR is on the border, 90 WAR is a guarantee, 50 WAR is probably not. Obviously doesn't apply to every position. Relievers deserve consideration if they get into the high 20s. Great defensive catchers merit consideration once they get in 40 WAR territory.

 

Fielder's final year was impacted by injury, so we'll just throw that out. The previous 3 years, covering 1583 plate appearances, Fielder had an .818 OPS and was good for 5.5 bWAR. Note that his missed a big chunk of one of those seasons due to injury, but it's a fair assumption that the older players get, the more time they will miss with injuries. My best guess, had he not had a career ending injury, that he probably would have averaged 2 WAR for about 5 more years and then would have been done. So he's probably a guy who would have finished with a career WAR in the 35-40 range, 440 HR and 1400-1450 RBIs. And since his bat was really all he brought to the table, IMO he really only has the HR/RBI numbers to rely on. The 440 HR's would have put him in with Dave Kingman, Jason Giambi and Paul Konerko. Players with similar RBI numbers include Jason Giambi, George Davis and Luis Gonzalez. Maybe Fielder would have rebounded and had a few more 50 HR seasons, but on the trajectory that he was on, I don't think he would have been a Hall of Fame player.

 

All-bat players will have to post some massive, massive numbers in this era to get into the Hall of Fame (unless you are a Yankee, Red Sox, Dodger or get a worked, backdoor induction from a someone like Reinsdorf)...Fred McGriff is not in the Hall of Fame and I don't think Fielder's numbers would have matched what McGriff posted (.886 OPS, 493 HR, 1550 RBI).

[BrewCrewForever]

I would vote for 9 players on this ballot. Fielder while I will always love him, he of course falls shy of the Hall. I will say this ballot is filled with Hall of Very Good players. Guys who are not quite HOF caliber, but were really, really good players in their days. So many good names on here.

 

Wow. I can't find one.

 

Obviously we disagree on the steroid issue.

 

Who are your 9, just out of curiosity?

 

Edit: I lied. I would definitely vote for Rolen. Missed him the first time. And I would also strongly consider Pettitte.

 

Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Ortiz, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Rolen, Schilling, Sheffield.

[LouisEly]

I hope Bonds never gets in... NEVER!

 

I’m right there with you. I’ll add Clemens, Schilling, Rose and ARod to that list.

Can I ask what Schilling did during his playing career that would disqualify him from HOF consideration?

 

Simply being a jerk hasn't stopped dozens of guys from being enshrined.

[nate82]

Can I ask what Schilling did during his playing career that would disqualify him from HOF consideration?

 

Simply being a jerk hasn't stopped dozens of guys from being enshrined.

 

It is rather overly political which is against the forum rules. Plus I doubt many of the voters are going to go anywhere near the hand grenade that Schilling created himself due to the current political climate.