Baseball Hall of Fame

^ yeah buddy on all counts. Never been. Almost went one year of Vibes out that way, but couldn't pull it off. Fail

Enough with Schilling already, forget that he's a bloated, Nazi sympathizing, human rights abusing, domestic terrorist that wants reporters to be lynched, the numbers aren't there.

Career: 216-146  3.46 ERA 

Add 11 wins and 3 losses if you want to include the Postseason. ERA approaching 3.50 is OK for a good number 3 starter.

Only pitcher in the last 60 years in the Hall with fewer wins is John Smoltz (213), who spent 4 of his peak years as a closer, saving almost 155 games. 

From the Washington Post: Source used just for Curt and the rest of the MAGA scumbags.

"Given that the HOF is still voted upon by baseball writers, it probably was not a wise idea to praise the message on a T-shirt advocating for the lynching of journalists."

Jeter, Clemens, Bonds and let's completely end the charade and get Pete Rose in there too some day. 
 

He should be in the HOF and not holed up in a booth at Mandalay Bay or MGM selling $100 autographs 

What he said.

Last I saw Pete he was at Caesar’s.

You think Rose stops selling autographs and being creepy in general if he's voted in?

That dude is a mess, and that won't stop if he's in the HOF. He'll just charge more for his autograph.

And Bonds out again.

Good.

Screw that guy.

Is Walker the first player to go in as a Rockie?  

Omar Vizquel had a nice jump in his voting percentage.

Baseball could always have an induction of a tainted class with living members like Bonds, Clemens, Rose, McGwire, Sosa and A-Rod, with Shoeless Joe Jackson voted in by the Veteran's Comittee.  Acknowledge they were all dominant players with some flaws.

Yeah.  No.  F 'em.

It's that time of year. Some of the BBWAA Hall of Fame voters perennially have their heads up their assholes, as expected. At least they got Derek Jeter correct (except 1 or 2 self important morons). After all, only Mariano Rivera got 100%. Nobody else, ever. Over the years, writers have omitted such iconic names as Seaver, Mays, Aaron, some even thought Babe Ruth wasn't worthy at the time! Ty Cobb probably would be left out off modern ballots, because he was a bad, bad man. Dingbats.  

If I had a vote this year, it would have been Jeter, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling and Vizquel. I'm batting a weak .200! I'm not surprised though.

I think Larry Walker squeaked in only because it was his last year of eligibility. This years sympathy vote. Walker was a great player, but a borderline HOFer in my opinion. I understand arguments for and against, and don't think it's bad that he got in. But it doesn't make too much sense for so many writers to withhold a vote for a guy for many years, and then suddenly decide he is worthy on the last try. If they think Walker is a HOFer now, why wasn't he then? Why wouldn't they have voted for him in previous years? Nothing about Walker's qualifications have changed, so why should he (or any player) be so much more worthy in later years on the ballot than earlier? Either he is, or isn't a HOFer, and somebody's professional opinion shouldn't change that dramatically over a period of 10 years, unless new information is available, which it isn't in Walker's case. It's a crock of shit.

Schilling should be IN, and probably will next year. He got 70% this year (75% required to get inducted). His overall credentials for regular season and post season compare well to Jack Morris and Roy Halliday (see links below). Schilling is a douchebag, but has good numbers, and 2 World Series MVPs (1 co-MVP w Randy Johnson). As a baseball player he deserves to be in The Hall for his achievements. His personality, and his big mouth should not be a deciding factor. In my opinion, Halliday was borderline, and got in so quickly only because he died tragically, and was well liked, as opposed to the abrasive Schilling, who has said stupid things, and not endeared himself well to journalists and others in the biz. Jack Morris was a total Boss, and 100% deserves to be in The Hall! So, even if you (understandably) can't stand the guy, Schilling should be in, since Halliday and Morris are in. It just makes sense.

Bonds and Clemens were the best hitter and pitcher of their era, far superior even compared to other suspected steroid users, with numbers that can't be denied. They each should have got in on the 1st ballot. Yes, they juiced. Yes they both seemed like dicks, and often left writers hanging, or insulted them or denied interviews, or whatever else pissed off some voters. Some voters feel strongly about not voting for suspected steroid users, and that is valid if they feel that way, and if they are consistent. I believe that some writers have been using the steroid issue as justification for not voting for Bonds or Clemens, and I suspect the real motivation is revenge, to stick it to the bloated star athletes who weren't nice to them over the years. This personal bias I suspect can't possibly be proven, but it is a possibility in the real world. No matter. I'll always consider Bonds, Clemens and Pete Rose all obvious Hall Of Famers regardless of actual induction, or not!

Omar Vizquel was the best defensive shortstop of his era, and arguably in the top 5 of all time. He'll get in within the next few years.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schilcu01.shtml

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/morrija02.shtml

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml

My first reaction is that I don’t believe Larry Walker had a HOF level career either, but he was a very well rounded player and always on the better side of average. Good player for a Canuck. 

I am very surprised to learn he is actually 2 positions higher than Derek Jeter (88th vs 86th) in all-time career wins above replacement. Which, in my opinion (along with career longevity/multi-decade productivity), is the #1 defining statistic of a hall of famer.

Bonds #4 all time 

Clemens #8

Rose #64

respectively

>>>Screw that guy

That's the Greatest San Francisco Giants Baseball Player ever. Just so you know. He deserves a place in the HOF. 

>>>>wins above replacement. Which, in my opinion (along with career longevity/multi-decade productivity), is the #1 defining statistic of a hall of famer.

can you explain this statistic? thanks 

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

Oh, well.

F Clemens and Bonds.

Double-F Shilling

Walker may have Jeter beat 88-86 in WAR, but Jeter beats Walker 5-0 in World Series rings!

That's not a knock on Walker. He played for the Rockies. At least he made it to the WS once. Great hitter.

Jeter is the man of the hour though! My type of player. Jeter's contributions to the Yankees Dynasty: 5 championship teams + 7 AL pennants is major shit (even if you dislike the Evil Empire)! Baseball history.

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

As far as I know, the guidelines do not specify that a player needs to get a passing grade in all 6 categories to be in the Hall. Are all categories of voting criteria of equal weight? I think not. I think the player's record, playing ability and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played is much more important criteria to consider than integrity, sportsmanship, and character, and carries more weight when considering a HOF vote. 

I think players like Bonds, Clemens, Schilling (& Rose) have such overwhelming qualifications based on 3 of the 6 criteria, the more objective and tangible things - player's record, playing ability and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played, that their weaknesses in the other 3, more subjective and intangible categories - integrity, sportsmanship, character, is not enough to keep them out of the Hall of Fame. 

YMMV, as the mileage varies for BBWAA voters.

Wins Above Replacement (WAR) measures how much better that player is than an average, replacement player. If you are interested furthur, see link below

https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained.shtml 

Bucky it is a measurement of a player’s overall contribution to his whole team based on a number of statistics. Basically it’s how many wins the team gets because of the clutch player’s contributions alone versus how many they would likely have with a rookie in the same position. If that makes sense?

I think players cheating is like cops committing perjury.  It's existence and (acceptance by some of those not participating) casts doubt on the entire institution.

Of course, no one ever did time because Bonds was juicing.

'Cept in the minors, maybe.

Yeah not the same

>>>no one ever did time because Bonds was juicing<<<

That is absolutely incorrect. His good friend since childhood Greg Anderson (I won't say "best" friend because Barry Bonds best friend is Barry Bonds) went to prison for almost two years solely to protect Bonds image and his chances of getting into the stupid HOF. Not to keep Bonds out of jail, or to keep him in the league, or to protect his family, but to protect his fucking image.

And Bonds let that happen. One would hope that Bonds paid the guy well for his loyalty (Anderson was also Bonds steroid supplier) but still, "Sorry buddy. Go to jail for me, ruin your reputation forever and I'll pay you later."

Dude is a piece of shit. And not because he cheated, because LOTS of players cheat, it's WHY he cheated that shows why he is a piece of shit.

And poor Bucky. Wrong again. Bonds was the most talented player to play for the Giants, and maybe to ever play the game, but he wasn't the best or the greatest, because he did not play to win; he played for his personal statistics, he played for his self-aggrandizement, he played for himself. Period. 

And the proof of that is so ample in so many ways that it's very difficult to know where to begin. 

I don't think he should be in the HOF, but not because he juiced. And not even for the reason WHY he juiced, which is just a window into the real issue; that guy never cared about any thing or anyone but himself. He didn't play for his team, he didn't play to win, he played for himself.

And that does not deserve recognition.

You are correct, sir.

I forgot all about Bonds' patsy.

Semantics Lance. Bonds is the best SFG ever better than McCovey and Willie too since Mays was really a Met. And don't poor Bucky me. Sorry the truth hurts you so much, that's a very strange thing to be so sensitive about by the way. 

As far as the integrity of the Hall Of Fame and who they have been letting in, they recently admitted Tim Raines, Jeff Bagwell and Ivan Rodriguez, cocaine, steroids, steroids. So there you go. They let those guys in but they're going to keep Bonds and Clemens out? Ridiculous. Cheaters and jerks are already in the Hall, might as well let all of the rest of the qualified ones in too. 

Lance, I agree with some of the things you wrote, about Bonds being a shit head in so many ways, except for the idea that he didn't play to win. I doubt that. He was highly competitive with a huge ego. He wanted to win World Series championships, just never did. 2002 ouch, almost :( Seriously, I don't think Bonds ever did anything that hurt his team's chances to win baseball games. 

Mo got the unanimous nod. Jeter can be #2

Acknowledging he is among a handful of GOATs but undeserving of same HOF recognition because his big motivation was to play for himself?

That’s a very odd litmus test you are employing.

Most intentional walks in baseball history, by a huge margin. When managers are so scared of you that they will WALK with the bases loaded, who the hell is left for a man to legitimately compete against?

I read that Larry Walker only had approx 20% of the votes on the 1st few ballots, then as recently as 2018 he had approx 35%. yet 2 years later 76%. It's fucked up because, even accounting for new voters and those who retired or died, approx 50% of the voters who voted Walker in in 2020, thought he wasn't good enough just 2 years ago. Even if that number was 10-20% who dramatically changed their minds, that isn't objective. It's too subjective, manipulative, and illogical.

The only reason it would make sense to omit a player on a ballot one year, and then vote for him on a subsequent ballot later, would be if there were more than 10 candidates on a ballot that year who the writers thought were more worthy than a player like Walker, and all those writers voted for the maximum 10. That rarely, if ever happens, that 10 more players on a ballot are more qualified for the HOF than a player like Larry Walker. It's bullshit, for writers to omit players (unless there is a better 10 that year, which is rare) when they have years left on the ballot, while planning to vote for that same player in later years. 

It is possible, but extremely unlikely that Walker was #11 on so many ballots for so many years, and finally he gets squeezed in with enough votes in a rare down year that has 9 or less better candidates, which coincidentally is his last year of eligibility. No, that's not the way it works. No way to justify logically how Walker was really #11 for all those years, then jumps to #2 in the final year.

Some of the writers are flexing their power and creating ongoing stories that are somewhat contrived. Maybe they are pressured to do so by the media corporations that pay them. It's more interesting when a borderline candidate gets in on the last try, than on the 4th or 5th try. Even more interesting when personal tragedy is involved. If Walker got killed in a plane crash shortly after retiring, he may have been 1st ballot like Roy Halliday, another borderline HOFer. 

Mo got the unanimous nod. Jeter can be #2<

I see what you did there.

How you doin? 

Only thing Jeter never had was an mvp

Bonds ? The Greatest SF Giant ? Really ? Better Than Say Hey ?  Really ?

Wow, just wow. I've heard some lame ass comments here but this one takes the cake. Sorry bucky, sports cred all gone buddy.

Willie Mays the Catch
https://youtu.be/7dK6zPbkFnE