These new committees will be how Bonds, Clemens, etc. all get in after they’re off the ballots. The Today’s Game committee will meet in 2018, ‘21, ‘23. Good chance the steroid guys get in then.
2 and they probably won't be eligible for at least 10 years, Kershaw and Scherzer (Clemens is the 3rd)Johan Santana really is an interesting case. He was absolutely robbed of the 2005 Cy Young, which went to a guy who he beat handily in literally every metric except wins (Bartolo Colon).
Had he rightfully won in 2005, Santana would have had three consecutive Cy Young awards. How many three-time Cy Young winners aren't in the Hall (non-steroid division), let alone winners of three straight?
I don't think that Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame at all, but you could say the exact same thing about Alan Trammell.So every year from 2000 through 2014 a group of 550+ voters determined that Jack Morris wasn't worthy of the Hall of Fame, but just three years later a different group of 16 people decided they know better? What a pointless process.
*
Morris certainly got a higher percentage of votes from the BBWAA over the years than did Trammell.Good for Alan Trammell. Morris in over Tiant is ridiculous, but that's likely due to the committee being an Old Boys Network that remembers Morris more than they remember the guy that threw his last pitch in 1982, and had his last good season in 1979.
There are only about 12% of the votes in. Check the green boxes too. Those are votes changed from last year to add those guys this year. None of the writers have changed their minds yet, and one took Bonds off.Rajah is currently at 75% in the tracker, and Barry has one less vote than him. Seems like both will get in next year.
I know the ballot is overloaded, but how the bleep does someone take Bonds off it.There are only about 12% of the votes in. Check the green boxes too, those are votes changed from last year to add those guys this year. None of the writers have changed their minds yet, and one took Bonds off.
His production has dropped off a cliff in recent years.I know the ballot is overloaded, but how the bleep does someone take Bonds off it.
We have enough anecdotal evidence from recent years to safely believe that those voters who don't choose to make their ballots available trend toward the more traditional in criteria and harsher toward PED types.I do agree that their numbers will likely drop, it seems to me that in years past they have overperformed their final numbers in the early voting
Click the "+" sign above column AI and it will unhide all of the people expected to get under 5% (and in most cases, 0%). Damon is in there.Why did Thibs take Johnny Damon out of the grid?
Thanks. the only reason I wondered was that he was there earlier ... and they hadn't similarly removed SantanaClick the "+" sign above column AI and it will unhide all of the people expected to get under 5% (and in most cases, 0%). Damon is in there.
But. . but. . Coors Field!I'm trying to fathom how oblivious to evidence you have to be to vote for Guerrero but not Walker. They played the same position, in roughly the same era, for roughly similar amounts of time, and even if you are as digitally disadvantaged as Mordecai Brown, you can count the things Guerrero was better at on one hand and still have a finger left to flip the bird to America's sportswriters.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/rick-telander-baseball-hall-of-fame-ballot/Johnny Damon: He’ll never get in, but the guy thrilled many of us during those magical Red Sox-Yankees battles when the Theo Epstein-led Sox were emerging from their Cubs-like title drought. In 2002, Damon led the American League in triples. In 2004, he was second in the AL in runs scored. He sported wild hair and a lumberjack beard years before the latter became fashionable. I dug it.
Honestly, there's worse players who have gotten many more votes than Johnny Damon. Almost 2800 hits, 56 career WAR, 2004 Idiot, certainly has the fame part down with being the Unfrozen Caveman Ballplayer, which he turned into a DHL campaign at one point.Johnny Damon got a vote ... from Rick Telander of the Chicago Sun-Times. Here's the rationale:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/rick-telander-baseball-hall-of-fame-ballot/
Yeah but Rolen was really good at hitting (122 OPS+) for barely more than 2000 games, while Vizquel was very bad at hitting (82 OPS+) for nearly 3000 games. He subtracted value with every plate appearance, but he made it up in volume!Vizquel has 25% which is good because he doesn't deserve it, but Scott Rolen has less than 10% which kind of shows that voters are still kind of clueless. I guess slap hitting defensive wizards at shortstop are way better than actual good hitting defensive wizards at 3b?
1. Pedro. What is understood needs not be discussed.All statistics, all mathematical models aside, have you watched players you just knew were Hall of Famers?
It wasn't until 1951 that total strikeouts exceeded total walks in every season for MLB. Before that, it varied. All of which makes Bonds's feat more remarkable. You had people like Joe DiMaggio, who struck out 369 times in 7672 PA; Joe Sewell, who in his final 10 seasons struck out 48 times in 5539 PA.Sick fact: From his age 24 season (1989) until his last season (age 42/2007), he always finished with more total BB's than K's.
You should start a thread so we can talk about Eric Davis. It's an interesting topic because there are a lot of all-world type players who couldn't stay healthy.All statistics, all mathematical models aside, have you watched players you just knew were Hall of Famers?
All very true, but those votes usually come from hometown writers or people with connections. For a random voter from Chicago to vote for him seems odd, given how many more qualified candidates there are right now. To your last point, it is indeed seemingly wasting a vote.Honestly, there's worse players who have gotten many more votes than Johnny Damon. Almost 2800 hits, 56 career WAR, 2004 Idiot, certainly has the fame part down with being the Unfrozen Caveman Ballplayer, which he turned into a DHL campaign at one point.
One of the unfortunate side effects of the steroid logjam is guys like him can't hang around the ballot for a few years because you really can't waste a vote on someone you don't firmly believe should be in.
I think Ted Williams might object to that statement...1. Pedro. What is understood needs not be discussed.
2. Barry Bonds. Arguably the best hitter ever.
He was screwed over by voters on MLB season superlatives (such as NL MVP) more times than any other player - and that occurred a number of times before the McSosa-stained 1998 season.
Sick fact: From his age 24 season (1989) until his last season (age 42/2007), he always finished with more total BB's than K's.
Kind of depends on how you feel about pitchers and MVPs. In addition to the years he won, Bonds was the probably best NL position player in 1991, 1995, 1996, and 1998. Glavine had a case over him in 91 (Pendleton won), Maddux could have won in 1992 and 1995 (Bonds won in 92, Larkin won in 95), and Kevin Brown had a great 1998 (Sosa won). Bonds should have won in 96. Bonds finished first in NL position player WAR 11 times in 16 years, plus 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, and 4th place finishes (the one year he didn't place highly was 1999, when he missed 50 games with an injury). That's amazing.I think Ted Williams might object to that statement...
Also Roy Halladay next year and some guy named Papi in 4 yearsThe backlog should clean out soon enough. The next four years the only real viable candidates (ironically enough) is Rivera, Jeter and A-Rod. Helton might get some votes but lol coors.