Your HOF ballot

by joerote on Jan 9, 2007 3:34 PM EST Comment 24 comments

Just want to see what the prevailing opinion is here on a site of die hard baseball fans as to who should and shouldn't be in the Hall. I left Ripken and Gwynn off as I'm sure they'd get close to 100% on here too. I'm curious to see how the percentages compare to what the actual vote was. Vote for as many as you think are deserving.

Poll

Which of the following players that didn't make the HOF this year deserve to get in? Vote for as many as you think are deserving.

None of the above

6 votes

Goose Gossage

17 votes

Jim Rice

10 votes

Andre Dawson

10 votes

Bert Blyleven

53 votes

Lee Smith

2 votes

Jack Morris

6 votes

Mark McGwire

20 votes

Tommy John

0 votes

Steve Garvey

0 votes

124 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Problem with Poll

I checked the box that said, allow multiple selections in the poll but when I tried to vote, it didn't actually allow it. Does that function not actually exist? That's not going to really give a clear picture of what I was looking for. You'd have to do an up or down vote on all of the candidates in seperate diaries, which I don't want to do nor do I want to take up that much space on John's site.

by joerote on Jan 9, 2007 3:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

yeah

it says that but as far as i know it's never actually worked. i tried it a couple of times like a year ago and no dice.

by wily mo on Jan 9, 2007 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Blyleven...

...not being in the Hall is a crime against baseball.

by evilgenius on Jan 10, 2007 1:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ooops

I meant to reply to the original topic, but I drink too much...

by evilgenius on Jan 10, 2007 1:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yep - flawed...

since it looks like you can only vote for ONE player.

by heister on Jan 9, 2007 3:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My picks

I'd vote for Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven and MARK MCGWIRE! Mac not being in the HOF is a crime. Where would baseball be without him and Sammy? There are countless cheaters and liars in the HOF already, I don't know why we all of the sudden have to protect the moral integrity of the game by keeping out a man simply SUSPECTED of steroids.

And I don't even care if he did take steroids. He helped save the game, while we all turned a blind eye to the obvious because we were enjoying the ride. Let the man in, he's done no wrong.

by nyr2k2 on Jan 9, 2007 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Big Mac

The reason you can't let him in is because we have no idea what type of player or what kind of numbers he would have put up if clean. Sure I have heard the "innocent until proven guilty" argument in the past, but while pleading the 5th is allowed in a court of law, the Hall of Fame is not the same. He essentially showed he was guilty by not denying anything. If you would vote McGwire in, would you vote Sosa in as well? Better career BA and more HRs. I am a huge Cubs fan and there is no way I would put Sosa in. I think McGwire and Sosa are proof that guys like Andre Dawson, who didn't get the magical 3,000 hits or 500 HRs should be re-evaluated.

by goose102977 on Jan 9, 2007 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely...

...would i vote for Sosa. I feel like both of them took steroids. I don't know, but I think it's likely. I'm sure Mac hit a ton of steroid-aided homeruns, off of steroid-aided fastballs. If you believe the stories of Jose Canseco, Ken Caminiti and other as I do, then you'd believe steroids was a huge problem for a huge portion of major leaguers. Unfortunately, that's how the game way played in that era. The stats in that era, for me, are just as legitimate as any other era. Unless you are to believe steroids were exclusive to batters, which is foolish. I also cannot remember steroids being illegal in baseball when Mark McGwire played. If we are to persecute him, why not persecute any HOF player who was ever arrested? In the eyes of baseball- when McGwire played- steroids were no more serious an offense than drug abuse.

Roger Clemens is a beast, and he had suspicious spikes in performance late in his career. Maybe he took steroids. Cal Ripken's muscles sure healed quickly, and he had a knack for playing as hard in game 162 as in game 1. Did he take steroids? There's no evidence they did, but no one can say for certain that they didn't. What's the difference between that and Mark McGwire? None, in my mind, as I believe that you are innocent until proven guilty. You can tell me that doesn't apply to the HOF, but I feel it should. And even if he WAS guilty, so were a great deal of pitchers, leveling the playing field.

So many people turned a blind eye to the obvious signs of steroids present in guys like Sosa and McGwire, and now many of those same people feign shock and disappointment when the steroid "scandal" broke. The general baseball fan base is as much at fault for the steroid epidemic as are the players. Everyone has done things in their lives that they wish they hadn't, so I don't understand why so many people feel like it's okay for them to become the defenders of moral sanctity in baseball. It's a joke, IMO. Ty Cobb was a terrible human being, yet he is allowed in because he was a great performer. Mark McGwire helped save baseball, has never admitted guilt (regardless of how you construe his statements to Congress), and was a great ambassador to the game. There's no reason why he shouldn't be in the Hall.

by nyr2k2 on Jan 9, 2007 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh...

And Pete Rose and Joe Jackson ought to be in, as well.

by nyr2k2 on Jan 9, 2007 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dawson

Can someone help explain why Jim Rice gets more love than Dawson. I am a Cubs fan so I am probably a little biased. I am also too young to have a real good memory of how good Dawson was and I never actually saw Jim Rice play at all. I have seen some of their numbers compared and to me it looked like Dawson had better numbers pretty much across the board. At the very least they should be considered equals and should be neck and neck in the voting. I just don't see, other than the East coast (ESPN) biased, that Jim Rice is a far superior player to Dawson.

by snodums on Jan 9, 2007 4:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dawson v Rice

100% agree on Dawson. I think the main thing, in my eyes, that puts Dawson ahead of Rice is the 8 gold gloves to Rice's zero. What percent of an individual's game is spent on defense?

by goose102977 on Jan 9, 2007 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My Ballot

Cal Ripken
Tony Gwynn
Goose Gossage
Bert Blyleven
Alan Trammell
Jim Rice
Andre Dawson

I can be persuaded either way on Rice and Dawson almost any day.

by count sutton on Jan 9, 2007 4:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

ballot

Ripken
Gwynn
Gossage
Blyleven
Rice

I'm on the fence with Trammell.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Jan 9, 2007 4:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

forgot

McGuire. I'd vote for him.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Jan 9, 2007 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Trammell

I will never be convinced otherwise: If you were to poll GMs, and tell them they could choose either Trammell and his career, or Ozzie and his, I really think the majority would choose Tram. His bat was much better than his glove was less. Tram was an excellent defender. Of course, the guy didn't do backflips.

by drwmsu1 on Jan 9, 2007 5:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It's borderline criminal

for Bert and Goose to not be in. The others I don't feel nearly as strong about, although Dawson and Trammel would make my ballot. I'd probably vote for McGwire as well.

I'm on the fence with Rice and Murphy. While Rice was probably marginally better, they're kind of grouped together in my mind - dominant peaks that don't look as dominant in hindsight, most feared hitters in the league for a while, etc. What surprises me is that Rice gets so much more support than Murphy. Put them both in a neutral park, and they're very similar players, only Rice had a better batting average and Murphy was much better defensively. Seems odd to me that one of them is on the verge of getting in and the other's barely staying on the ballot.

People who voted for Concepcion but not Trammell should be shot.

by Brickhaus on Jan 9, 2007 5:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My ballot

Cal Ripken
Tony Gwynn
Bert Blyleven
Goose Gossage
Mark McGwire
Alan Trammell

pretty much in that same order. Not quite convinced on Dawson....no on Rice or Murphy.

by BaseballBrain on Jan 9, 2007 5:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'd vote for everyone...

on that list except Garvey. And I would throw on Canseco. Not sure where I stand on Trammell right now. Haven't really looked at his final career stats. Throw Dale Murphy on the list as well as Pete Rose. And as much as I hate him, in about 6 years or so, I would vote for Bonds.

The Hall of Fame is first and foremost a museum where people can go and learn everything there is to know about the game. The good and the bad. Let in the cheaters as well, but make sure there is something about the suspicions when their plaque is posted. For a long time I was against letting the cheaters in, but I have changed my mind on the subject. And if I am going to let one or two in, then all of them have to get in if they had the career to earn it.

Not sure I would let Palmeiro in. Not because he tested positive, but because I just never felt like he was at any time one of the best players in the league. He always seemed like a second fiddle to me. And Sosa, I don't know. Haven't made up my mind yet. Right now I would lean towards a "nay" vote there.

As for Canseco, I think it's a crime how few votes he got. It's like the press is blaming him for tarnishing the image of the game. I see him as the Deep Throat of the baseball steroids scandal. At one time, he was likely the most feared hitter in baseball, he deserves to be in there.

by Boxkutter on Jan 9, 2007 5:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Oh....

and the fact that Buck O'Neil is not in the HOF is an even bigger travesty than anyone else not being in there.

The man campaigned to get as many negro leaguers into the Hall as he could. And he succeeded. Unfortunately, they never let him in. They should have let him in years ago so he could have been there on the day he was enshrined. Instead it will be done post-humously (spelling?) sooner or later. And the sooner the better.

by Boxkutter on Jan 9, 2007 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs