|
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 6, 2016 19:37:35 GMT -5
Do we even bother touching this topic ?
I could make arguments for a number of players, Trevor Hoffman, Edgar Martinez ect, but I'm just going to focus on the ex Giants.
Barry was again snubbed by the voters, receiving only 44%, based on his PED allegations. The voters assume it's their job to judge the character off the field, and not the player on the field. I can't agree with their method. If that is the prerequisite for the Hall of Fame, they would have to remove a lot of players already enshrined.
Jeff Kent only received 11% of the vote. Compare his numbers to Ryne Sandberg and tell me why he's not a Hall of Famer and Sandberg is. If Kent was a Yankee or Redsox, he would have been in last season.
That being said, I can't argue with Griffey Jr. being voted in. But he didn't receive 100% of the votes. That in itself tells you the wrong people are voting.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 6, 2016 19:39:43 GMT -5
Correction, Jeff Kent received 16% of the votes.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Jan 7, 2016 8:11:28 GMT -5
Piazza probably would have gotten in earlier if not for steroid allegations, so why let him in now? I don't get the whole process. Babe Ruth was 11 votes short of unanimous, so I don't have a problem if a writer decides that if the greatest players in the history of the game didn't get in unanimously, why should he?
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 7, 2016 13:08:06 GMT -5
Mark- Babe Ruth was 11 votes short of unanimous, so I don't have a problem if a writer decides that if the greatest players in the history of the game didn't get in unanimously, why should he?
Boagie- That's my point, the voters aren't just voting, they're playing guardian of the Hall. They're snubbing a player to stroke the ego of someone who's been dead for nearly 70 years, that's not what the voting should be about. And IF they are thinking that deeply about it, as you say, then why haven't they thought deeper into Barry Bonds and if he was a Hall of Fame caliber player before he took steroids, or Jeff Kent's numbers compared to other Hall of Fame second basemen?
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jan 7, 2016 17:29:09 GMT -5
It's all at least partly a popularity contest. If Clemens and Bonds had been amiable to the press (translation, if they'd kissed their asses like Griffey Jr. had), then they would have gotten voted in on the first ballot, and rightly so. I think if the HOF voters were held to the same moral standard that they hold the potential enshrinees to, most would be selling used cars or life insurance today. Ann Killion, for example, would be holding a big arrow sign on a street corner at minimum wage.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 7, 2016 21:15:02 GMT -5
Remember how Boly used to complain that Jeff Kent was kind of a statue at second base? That's why he isn't in the Hall of Fame. That, and the competition is much tougher right now.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 7, 2016 21:19:30 GMT -5
Ann Killion, for example, would be holding a big arrow sign on a street corner at minimum wage. Rog -- And she speaks so highly of you! I have a feeling you don't like me, Randy, so here is what I suggest you do. Speak positively about something or especially someone, and there is a good chance I'll immediately die of a heart attack! Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3182/hall-fame?page=1#ixzz3wcCdjdLP
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 7, 2016 21:43:57 GMT -5
Regarding the voters, they're getting better. There are something like 100 of them who no longer vote but who were voting just a year or two ago. Also, the voters are now more educated about the game and have more information available to them.
Remember too that even intelligent people don't always agree.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 7, 2016 21:45:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jan 7, 2016 22:03:05 GMT -5
Kent WAS a statue at 2B, that's for sure.
But his offense should get him in.
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jan 7, 2016 22:54:20 GMT -5
Rog -- You don't think the primary reason Clemens and Bonds haven't gotten in is steroids?
Dood - { think the juicing allegations provides the jealous crybaby voters a reason to keep people they hate out of their club
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 7, 2016 22:54:29 GMT -5
Jeff didn't get hit much at all for his defense in WAR, which values him at 55 WAR. That's pretty darn good. About twice where Buster is right now.
My guess is that he makes it during his final year or so of eligibility or via the Veterans' Committee. He wouldn't make my personal Hall, but it is stricter than the actual Hall.
Here's something I've got to give Jeff a lot of credit for. He had very little decline period. Even in his final season, he hit .280, which was just 10 points below his career average. His OPS did dip to just .745 that season, but if we look at his five before that, they were an extremely consistent .860, .880, .889, .861 and .875. Those were all just a little above his career mark of .855.
Jeff played until he was 40, and he hit exceptionally well through age 39 -- and not too horrible at 40.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 7, 2016 23:12:09 GMT -5
Rog -- You don't think the primary reason Clemens and Bonds haven't gotten in is steroids?
Dood - { think the juicing allegations provides the jealous crybaby voters a reason to keep people they hate out of their club
Boagie- I agree, Randy. Look at how they treat David Ortiz. I don't think I've heard steroids and Ortiz in the same sentence since the day that story broke. It's a witch hunt, and the media folks have their list of players that wronged them.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 7, 2016 23:37:49 GMT -5
Rog- My guess is that he makes it during his final year or so of eligibility or via the Veterans' Committee. He wouldn't make my personal Hall, but it is stricter than the actual Hall.
Boagie- Who are the second baseman in your Hall if someone with the most homeruns and 3rd most RBIs for second basemen isn't?
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 8, 2016 4:16:44 GMT -5
Rog -- You don't think the primary reason Clemens and Bonds haven't gotten in is steroids? Dood - { think the juicing allegations provides the jealous crybaby voters a reason to keep people they hate out of their club Boagie- I agree, Randy. Look at how they treat David Ortiz. I don't think I've heard steroids and Ortiz in the same sentence since the day that story broke. It's a witch hunt, and the media folks have their list of players that wronged them. Rog -- Do you guys know of ANY known steroids players who have gotten into the Hall, whether liked or not? Meanwhile, there are unpopular players in the Hall. Thus, the evidence contradicts your point. Even Piazza's entrance into the Hall was delayed by his likely association with steroids. And he's the best-hitting catcher in history -- by a lot. I hope Tim Raines makes it into the Hall next year in his final season of eligibility. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3182/hall-fame#ixzz3wdtNAScr
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 8, 2016 4:26:19 GMT -5
Boagie- Who are the second baseman in your Hall if someone with the most homeruns and 3rd most RBIs for second basemen isn't? Rog -- In my personal Hall at second base is Rogers Hornsby. (What a great name!) I think there would be a very few others, but I would need to research them. I would like to see Jeff in the actual Hall, and I think he'll get there. But my personal Hall is more exclusive. Again without research, the Giants (I believe Hornsby played for them briefly.) in my Hall would be Christy Mathewson, Willie Mays, Mel Ott and Barry Bonds for sure. Juan Marichal almost for sure. Maybe Willie McCovey. Quite possibly Carl Hubbell. Buck Ewing I think. No doubt others I have forgotten or would need to research. Not Orlando Cepeda, even though he was one of my favorites. Buster Posey will very likely make it. Probably not Madison Bumgarner, although he certainly still has oodles of time to do so. Johnny Cueto. Just checking to see if you were paying attention. I don't think my own Hall would have even half as many as are in the actual Hall. I'm not saying my Hall is better than the actual one, but as you can see, it's more exclusive. I think the biggest offender in allowing players into the Hall has been the Veterans' Committee. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3182/hall-fame?page=1#ixzz3wdunIo9b
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 8, 2016 4:28:33 GMT -5
Randy, you must be the most cynical guy I know. I would like to ask you a question though.
Are you still unhappy with the Giants' front office, or have you come to your senses?
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 8, 2016 4:30:27 GMT -5
And are those who felt they were lied to feeling a little less deceived now? Still feeling they're cheap even as they're now heavily into the luxury tax?
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Jan 8, 2016 9:12:50 GMT -5
I don't think the voters hated Mark McGwire. He was always good to the press, and look at his numbers. It's only because of steroids. The steroids are the only reason Bonds and Clemens aren't in not their personalities. I've seen voters not vote for players their first year of eligibility as payback for being tough with the media, but they usually vote them in next time around.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jan 8, 2016 11:06:46 GMT -5
Randy, you must be the most cynical guy I know. I would like to ask you a question though.
Are you still unhappy with the Giants' front office, or have you come to your senses?
Dood - I'm still unhappy with their lack of urgency following championship seasons...it's irritating that they need a failing season to convince them to act decisively.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 8, 2016 14:12:53 GMT -5
I'm still unhappy with their lack of urgency following championship seasons...it's irritating that they need a failing season to convince them to act decisively. Rog -- Given how their results have fallen off in the year following their World Series championships, I can somewhat understand your position here. Two counterpoints do come to mind though. First, after winning the World Series, the Giants have been very loyal to their players. Perhaps to a fault. But it may be that attitude and action helped cement their team chemistry. Second, they approached last off-season with urgency, but things didn't work out the way they had hoped. The Giants haven't scrimped in their salaries the year after winning. If we take the salary increases they gave out the year after winning and compare it with the increases in the year after losing, the difference has been about 4% a year -- in FAVOR of higher spending after the winning seasons. So while I hadn't thought of it until I began my response, the truth is that in terms of spending they HAVE approached the year after winning more aggressively than the year after losing. The one thing they did during this off-season that differs though is in making a huge commitment to the long term. If we add the salaries promised over as long as six years to Cueto, Samardzija, Crawford and now Span, they committed nearly a third of a BILLION dollars. And if we look at the situation from a strategic standpoint, this was the year to make those types of commitments. Through a combination of good planning and good fortune, the Giants had by far their biggest amount available for free agents in the off-season in which the market was rich (in more ways than one!) with free agents. Until very recently we badly panned the efforts by the Giants over the past two winters. But as we now look back objectively, they appear to have done a very good job. Even as their Plan A has fallen through in each of the two off-seasons. I hope Span is healthy and the Giants can help Samardzija bounce back (both of which I'm optimistic about). If so, I think we would have to give them a very high grade for the past two off-seasons combined. The Giants took their good fortune in not being able to re-sign Pablo Sandoval (There they went, being overly loyal again.) and ran with it. They didn't quit, and it seems to have worked out very nicely. I haven't looked at it closely, but is there truly any team out there who appears to be better than the Giants? A side note: Remember how the Nationals' acquisition of Span was met here three years ago with first praise and then doubt? It turns out the initial reaction was probably more accurate. Let's pray our it our hopes, not those of the Nationals' fans, which are met this time by Denard. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3182/hall-fame#ixzz3wgFH864v
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 8, 2016 14:36:53 GMT -5
Nicely done, Rog. I don't think the Giants dropped the ball during the 2010-2011 offseason. They waited to drop the ball during the season (pun intended.) They also couldn't hit the ball.
But, I remember feeling very good about the Giants going into the 2011 season. I liked Burrell in left, Torres in center, and Ross in right. I don't think anyone could have predicted they'd all shit the bed.
And of course, nobody could predict a season ending injury to Posey in may, and a dislocated shoulder to Sanchez a short time later.
2012-2013 off season was maybe not quite as optimistic, but after a great season from Pagan and having Scutaro and Pence for an entire season, the 2013 season was also looking pretty good. Again, who knew Scutaro and Pagan would go out with injuries for a large part of the season?
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 9, 2016 3:06:56 GMT -5
I think if we look back, the Giants' biggest problem in the past three odd years has been injuries. It was a big problem in 2014 too, but somehow the Giants overcame it go all the way. The 2014 World Championship may have been their biggest accomplishment.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jan 9, 2016 10:15:24 GMT -5
championship teams don't use injuries as an excuse for failure
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jan 9, 2016 11:52:33 GMT -5
Randy, I agree; they don't use it for an excuse. But sometimes it IS the reason.
Especially in this era of OUTRAGEOUS salaries where teams simply can't afford to have tremendous depth.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 9, 2016 14:24:34 GMT -5
Randy- championship teams don't use injuries as an excuse for failure
Boagie- For someone who consistently blames umpires for losing, this is a surprising statement.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jan 9, 2016 16:46:37 GMT -5
I never blame them for losing, boagie, I've ALWAYS said they cheat.
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jan 9, 2016 23:38:27 GMT -5
Randy- championship teams don't use injuries as an excuse for failure
Boagie- For someone who consistently blames umpires for losing, this is a surprising statement.
Dood - this is a blatant falsehood and it frankly surprises me, Boagie. I make no apologies for pointing out the lousy calls by umpires but there are 9 innings, 27 outs and bad calls should be able to be overcome in most cases by a great team.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 11, 2016 23:08:29 GMT -5
championship teams don't use injuries as an excuse for failure Rog -- That depends on when we are talking about. In the season they are champions, they certainly don't, since there isn't failure. In the season after a championship, injuries might easily be a primary reason for failure (such as the 2015 Giants). Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3182/hall-fame#ixzz3x02p7MnC
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jan 11, 2016 23:16:34 GMT -5
there are 9 innings, 27 outs and bad calls should be able to be overcome in most cases by a great team. Rog -- Sometimes. Other times it can be pretty tough. As an example, there are indeed nine innings in a game, but I'll bet the WINNING team scores on average in four innings or fewer. Thus, if an inning is disrupted by a poor call or other bad luck, it can have a great meaning to the outcome. Given 10 seasons, luck likely evens out. Over a single season, it usually comes within a few games of doing so. In a single game? Luck can have a lot to do with the outcome. And let's not forget that luck doesn't always go both ways. For example, it was poor execution that caused the Vikings to lose Sunday's football game via the missed kick -- not bad luck. But it was clearly good luck for the Seahawks that he missed it. The Seahawks deserved to lose at that particular point, but they lucked out. That often happens in a single game in just about any sport. The Warriors have lost only two games this season, but it was good fortune that allowed them not to lose a third. The night before their first loss (to the Bucks), the Celtics took them into double overtime. The Warriors played plenty badly enough to lose in the first overtime (if not in regulation), but the Celtics played poorly and didn't take advantage. Sometimes in basketball, of course, a team plays badly because of the other team's pressure. But in that Celtics game, the Celtics just couldn't make open shots. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3182/hall-fame?page=1#ixzz3x03LkKF9
|
|