2018 HOF Ballot

[Ken]

This is outrageous, I won't post again until Edgar is in the Hall of Fame !

It is oddly appropriate for the mannequin to be a fan of the DH

[onejayhawk]

I'm actually a bit surprised that Thome was first ballot. I would have passed at least once.

J

[Hi.I'm.Mandy]

I'm actually a bit surprised that Thome was first ballot. I would have passed at least once.

J

Well then you don't know crap ! oooops, i wasn't going to post

[Ken]

I'm actually a bit surprised that Thome was first ballot. I would have passed at least once.

J

Never understood this mentality. Was he a HOFer or not? If yes, then vote for him. If not then don't.

The only reason to "skip" a year is if there happen to be 10 more deserving candidates that all deserve to be in.

[Mithrandir]

Never understood this mentality. Was he a HOFer or not? If yes, then vote for him. If not then don't.

The only reason to "skip" a year is if there happen to be 10 more deserving candidates that all deserve to be in.

My thoughts too. But is there that issue of not wanting to put in players on the first ballot unless they were among the pantheons of the game? Stupid, but possible

[Ken]

My thoughts too. But is there that issue of not wanting to put in players on the first ballot unless they were among the pantheons of the game? Stupid, but possible

Of course, I'm aware of that ridiculous notion. I'll stick with the "Stupid" part and agree with you completely.

[onejayhawk]

Never understood this mentality. Was he a HOFer or not? If yes, then vote for him. If not then don't.

The only reason to "skip" a year is if there happen to be 10 more deserving candidates that all deserve to be in.

I understand that viewpoint, but do not agree. It is a special honor to be a first ballot inductee, hence special rules.

Also, Thome's lack of defense is unfairly overlooked, at the expense of gifted defensive players. While I consider him worthy, it's a close call.

J

[Ken]

It is a special honor to be a first ballot inductee, hence special rules.

But that's just the thing, there aren't "rules", there's this notion that some people have that it "should" be special and it's not.

Any designation that doesn't include Jackie Robinson among those with the "special honor", is not a designation worth recognizing.

[revo]

But that's just the thing, there aren't "rules", there's this notion that some people have that it "should" be special and it's not.

Any designation that doesn't include Jackie Robinson among those with the "special honor", is not a designation worth recognizing.

While I agree with you, Jackie Robinson was indeed a first-ballot HOFer.

[onejayhawk]

But that's just the thing, there aren't "rules", there's this notion that some people have that it "should" be special and it's not.

Any designation that doesn't include Jackie Robinson among those with the "special honor", is not a designation worth recognizing.

Sure there are rules. They say who gets a ballot. They say how many ballots it takes to get inducted. The rest is tradition and personal choice. I happen to think that the tradition of treating 1st ballot as special is a reasonable choice.

While I agree with you, Jackie Robinson was indeed a first-ballot HOFer.

JR was not inducted because of his play. On his numbers, he's out, unless you include something for play in other leagues. He was inducted because of the change he represents. One person said it this way, "You do not want the first Jackie Robinson. You want the first Henry Aaron." Politics is inseparable from the process. Hence Clemens and Bond are still out, even though they are both far better than Thome.

J

[Judge Jude]

well, "first ballot Hall of Famer" even as an unofficial thing is less than 40 years old.

so guys like Joe DiMaggio, Jimmie Foxx, Yogi Berra, Cy Young, Tris Speaker, Eddie Mathews, and Roy Campanella didn't get the honor (for a variety of reasons), while Lou Brock, Tom Glavine, Dennis Eckersley, Robin Yount, Kirby Puckett, and Willie Stargell did, among others. if you want to show off some list of "first ballot Hall of Famers" as some great identifier, well it just doesn't work terribly well. the "snubbed" list here is better than the "first ballot" bunch.

[Ken]

Sure there are rules. They say who gets a ballot. They say how many ballots it takes to get inducted.

Not sure if serious - we were referring to "first ballot" rules. There are no established rules of who should be first ballot and who should be second ballot. It's not a "thing"

The rest is tradition and personal choice. I happen to think that the tradition of treating 1st ballot as special is a reasonable choice.

Maybe if we started over and had a new HOF. The one that exists now didn't even always follow those "rules" so it's difficult to say why we would want to do it now.

JR was not inducted because of his play. On his numbers, he's out, unless you include something for play in other leagues. He was inducted because of the change he represents. One person said it this way, "You do not want the first Jackie Robinson. You want the first Henry Aaron." Politics is inseparable from the process.

Arguing why he got in is not the point. Is there a day every year devoted to Babe Ruth? Or how about Hank Aaron?

There's not, but there is for Jackie, because, to be frank, he's the most "important" player that has played the game. And if he's not in your exclusive club, in my opinion, you need to rethink your club. Judge Jude has some better examples as well.

[Judge Jude]

JR was not inducted because of his play. On his numbers, he's out, unless you include something for play in other leagues.

I assume you don't have room for Koufax, either (if you want to be consistent. both had spectacular peaks; Koufax's a bit higher and a bit shorter)

[onejayhawk]

I assume you don't have room for Koufax, either (if you want to be consistent. both had spectacular peaks; Koufax's a bit higher and a bit shorter)

To the contrary. A bit higher is understating things, plus it was longer, not shorter. The cases have some parallel. Robinson lost his early years to segregation. Koufax lost his later years to injury, plus he was more dominant. Others lost years to military service. It's worth something. The question is always how much.

Arguing why he got in is not the point. Is there a day every year devoted to Babe Ruth? Or how about Hank Aaron? There's not, but there is for Jackie, because, to be frank, he's the most "important" player that has played the game. And if he's not in your exclusive club, in my opinion, you need to rethink your club. Judge Jude has some better examples as well.

You claim something is not the point, then immediately raise it again. Make up your mind. Jackie Robinson is borderline as a player. He's no-brainer as historical figure. Just understand that it is the historical figure that was inducted.

J

[Judge Jude]

Koufax ERA+, best to worst, full seasons
190 186 160 159 143 122 101 093

Robinson OPS+, best to worst, full seasons
154 152 149 139 137 135 117 112

Koufax ERA+ rank, top 10s, full seasons
1 1 2 3 4 5

Robinson OPS+ rank, top 10s, full seasons
2 3 4 8 9

Koufax Wins Above Replacement, top 10s
1 2 4 8

Robinson Wins Above Replacement, top 10s
1 1 2 2 8 10

the latter category reflects the fact that Robinson was an everyday player, often at second base (ranking in the top 5 defensively there 5 times). Koufax, of course, was one of the worst hitters of all time (.097 AVG)

huh, after review, if someone stuck to their guns that Koufax is clearly in purely for playing skill while Robinson clearly is not deserving on that front alone - I would almost think someone was being set in their ways from decades ago, unwilling to take a fresh look at the evidence

that is one heck of a tightrope to walk in placing the "in/out" peak line right in between them, when it's debatable which one even has the better peak case

either both are borderline as players - or neither one is