Sosa a Hall of Famer?

by slink on Feb 17, 2006 9:39 AM CST

Should Sammy Sosa be placed in the hall of fame if he were to retire today? According to espn online poll, he should not. Not even in the Cubbies home state! 47/50 States and 58% of all people feel that he's not. That surprises me. Even with his precipitous fall from grace, his contribution to baseball seems to merit the hall to me. What's the concensus here?

Poll

Sammy to the Hall?

Yay

65 votes

Nay

21 votes

86 votes | Poll has closed

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 53 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Tough Call...

On the one hand, he did do a lot for the game of baseball, as well as the Cubs, and put up great numbers for about half of his career. On the other hand (the one I lean toward), he's corked his bat and possibly, dare I say, took steroids. I know, I know, we don't know for sure that he took them, blah blah blah. I personally beleive he did, and we do know he corked his bat. For those two reasons alone I don't feel Sosa is Hall of Fame caliber, no matter what kind of numbers he put up.

"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want somebody else to go chase it.

by 10 14 23 26 on Feb 17, 2006 10:23 AM CST reply actions

Sosa in the H.O.F.

I'm split too, judging by his stats, yes I would, but as far as his character, no. Even though it was one game, he walked out on his team and his fans. We ALL know his downfalls,the corked bat and steroids,ect.. But in 1998 he and Big Mac were the face of America's past-time. So the thought of him on the juice is sort of like hiring a babysitter for my 2 year old son that comes to the front door reaking of pot. (Sparkles, do you babysit?)

by fuzzycubfan on Feb 17, 2006 11:03 AM CST up reply actions

Yeah good point

compare him to the Rhyno induction...you think we'd get a speech like that out of Sammy (not even considering the obvious language issues). I'm guessing he'd bust out the good old "Baseball's been beddy beddy good to me". Or maybe not after his most recent offer from Washington...

Hey Norm...if you were a hot dog...would ya eat yourself? -Will Farrell as Harry Carray

by EbbyCalvinNukeLaLoosh on Feb 17, 2006 11:30 AM CST up reply actions

I do babysit...

and I would never go to anyone's house reeking of pot. That's not me.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes.

by sparkles721 on Feb 18, 2006 6:01 PM CST up reply actions

Even though I am not a fan (as many now know)

I think that what he did for baseball may qualify him. I think that he may not though, from the sound of things.

Hey Norm...if you were a hot dog...would ya eat yourself? -Will Farrell as Harry Carray

by EbbyCalvinNukeLaLoosh on Feb 17, 2006 10:55 AM CST reply actions

Character ....

has nothing to do with the Hall. Ask Cobb, Ruth, Williams, etc. It is about numbers. Sosa has them - .274, 588 HR, 1575 RBI, 1422 R, 234 SB.

Granted this is in the steroids era, but that fact is there is no solid proof (unless you call going from 180 lbs to 230 lbs overnight - but hey, who is counting lbs.). Sure, he probably juiced up, but they were not illegal in baseball during that time. I heard a good argument about the raised pitching mound in the 60's to go with this.

Bottom line is that Sammy, like him or hate him, has Hall #'s. He DID provide baseball and us, Cubs fan, some great memories. Let's not let a bad exit let us forget that...

by airweino on Feb 17, 2006 11:38 AM CST reply actions

Character...

I know, I agree with you. I forgot to mention in my post that based on stats that he would get in. But I don't think fist ballot. Heck, look how long it took Sandberg to get in. Back to character, I was gonna mention the thing about Roger Maris, just because he wasn't "America's son" they wanted to put "*" next to his record!? So I too, believe he'll get in! If so many of you don't think steoids will impede his induction, let me ask you this, "what about Palmeiro?" many,many people don't think he'll get in!Even Peter Gammons!

by fuzzycubfan on Feb 17, 2006 12:47 PM CST up reply actions

Palmeiro

wouldn't get in, steroids or no steroids. 500 HRs is no longer a ticket into the hall. Palmeiro reached that plateau in a long, drawn out, unspectacular fashion, unlike Sosa who truly was great for half a decade.

by slink on Feb 17, 2006 12:51 PM CST up reply actions

Sosa's five year plan

In my opinion, a H.O.F.'er is someone who has greatness over a long period of time not just a flash in the pan with a five year plan. Not that Sosa's a flash in the pan,though.

by fuzzycubfan on Feb 17, 2006 1:03 PM CST up reply actions

Not to debate the merits of Palmeiro's HOF case...

now that he's had positive drug test, but he does have those 3000 hits. That's still a HOF ticket, 500 HR's or not. He would have been a lock.

As for Sosa...I want to see what happens Mark Gwire. I'd say yes on Sosa, but they'll likely both have to wait it out.

by bison on Feb 17, 2006 4:02 PM CST up reply actions

this is a no-brainer

Yes. Sosa is a first ballot HOF. Period. End of discussion.

by socalbob on Feb 17, 2006 11:53 AM CST reply actions

Not according to the nation as polled by espn...

I haven't checked the poll recently, but there were enough votes to call the results trustworthy, and people weren't even 50/50 on him being elected, be it 1st 2nd 3rd or whatever ballot. What really prompted me to start this thread is that even Illinois results showed him as not being worthy. Obviously this poll isn't reflecting theirs, and has come to the obvious conclusion, I guess I just had no idea how many people in the state jumped on the Sox's bandwagon.

by slink on Feb 17, 2006 12:35 PM CST up reply actions

fortunately

the nation doesn't vote.

i agree w/ socal. first-ballot lock, not even close.

by gaius marius on Feb 17, 2006 12:37 PM CST up reply actions

Statistically...

... yes, he's a Hall of Famer.

So is Mark McGwire, and yet the rumble is that many may not vote for him next year. Now, that may just be a "teach him a lesson" vote, as he would have been a first-ballot lock too, before the steroid scandal broke.

As I have written many times, we will likely never know whether Sammy did them or not. He has indeed put up a HoF career if all you do is look at his stat line.

But many feel that stat line is tainted. Thus, the vote may not be as clear-cut. You're right, gaius, the nation doesn't vote.

And the writers who do vote may send a message. If Sosa is indeed retired as of now, we'll know about this in 2011.

by Al Yellon on Feb 17, 2006 2:47 PM CST up reply actions

could be

after all, they've certainly taken out their long-standing grudges against others (cough SANTO cough). mcgwire was nothing if not churlish with the media -- and it may haunt him. fwiw, i suspect any "rumbling" has at least as much to do with this as with andro or higher steroids.

sosa, of course, was as quotable as shakespeare (if not as eloquent) -- and will have the benefit of some years passing before his name comes up for consideration.

by gaius marius on Feb 17, 2006 3:14 PM CST up reply actions

That, of course...

... is the reason for the five-year waiting period, to provide some perspective and time off from the "heat of the moment".

by Al Yellon on Feb 17, 2006 3:19 PM CST up reply actions

First Ballot...

...undoubtedly.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on Feb 17, 2006 11:55 AM CST reply actions

Character

What makes someone a bad character in baseball? Sure he walked out on the last day of a lost season, very bad, and I was disappointed when Hendry dropped the fine. But, this is also someone who came to play and play hard everyday of the season. Take Kerry Wood's comments. Clearly, Wood fell into the Mark Grace camp, and may very well have been the boombox smasher, but, he recognized how hard Sosa worked, and complemented him for it. How can anyone argue that Sosa should be kept out of the Hall for poor taste in music and too many decibels on his stereo?!? To me, the player who works hard has good character, and we should give him credit for that. He is a more complex person than simply being good/bad.

'Roids? maybe he juiced, maybe he didn't. I posted before that we have no good evidence. Yeah he bulked up pretty quick, but none of us (correct me if I am wrong) are experts on human physiology and can intelligently comment on the possibility of someone bulking up using a workout regime and legal supplements. Remember, that the thing that makes professional athletes different than the rest of us schlubs is that they are gifted with remarkable bodies and skills.

by WGNstatic on Feb 17, 2006 12:11 PM CST reply actions

While I agree he is first ballot lock...

I do not agree that character = hard work. There are, and have been, plenty of professional athletes that work their asses off but display a poor character (or at leat what popular sociaety believes is poor character). Sammy made some poor decisions, he is also a self centered individual but I have to agree, it does not taint his accomplishments enough to even consider not voting him in to the HOF. As for steroids and such well...I have already expressed enough of my opinions on that here but I think that he will, no doubt, be voted in and rightfully so. Maybe they should put an * next to any suspected steroid user...of course I am joking!

Hey Norm...if you were a hot dog...would ya eat yourself? -Will Farrell as Harry Carray

by EbbyCalvinNukeLaLoosh on Feb 17, 2006 2:06 PM CST up reply actions

Well you know

Babe Ruth used a "tricked bat", shall we oust him?

Babe Ruth. Oh the Babe. Quick history lesson here, does anyone know why corked bats are illegal to use? They were banned after it was found that The Babe had been using a "trick bat" (read corked bat) after his record season. Sorry Babe but you get an asterisk as well.

http://blogs.foxsports.com/tkesaint521/Babe_Ruth

Sammy's story checked out about the corked bat and until hard evidence comes out on any type of steroid use, Sammy's a 1st ballot HOF'er. Can't hold a guy out of the Hall on rumors and conjecture.

by RobG @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Feb 17, 2006 12:36 PM CST reply actions

Slam Dunk First Ballot Hall of Famer

Anyone who maintains that he is isn't is nothing more than a playa hata.

Chuck

by chasfh on Feb 17, 2006 1:16 PM CST reply actions

No question

HOF'er, 1st year of eligiblity.

Though I'll never hold him up as an example for how others should behave, and I'll always think of him with a tinge of sadness.

by helen on Feb 17, 2006 2:05 PM CST reply actions

While I think

he DESERVES to be a 1st ballot HOF'er w/o question; I don't think that's how it will play out. I think it will take a few years before he gets in just cause many of the voters just like to wield their power.

by RobG @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Feb 17, 2006 2:21 PM CST reply actions

No question?

It seems that there's something of a consensus (here and elsewhere) that the arguments for and against Sosa in the Hall are more or less as follows:

Based on the numbers, he's a first ballot lock
But, hey, we all know that he juiced, and what about the corked bat?

I'd like to take the maximally contrary position that both arguments are questionable. Starting with number 2, and leaving aside the fact that nothing has been proven, there were no rules against steriods (let alone HGH, or whatever he was actually using) when Sammy was piling up the big numbers with the big arms. How can we ban someone from the Hall for suspected use of something that MLB hadn't outlawed? Sosa vs. Gaylord Perry, anyone?
Secondly, how good are those numbers, really? The stats in question seem to be his big half decade, and his homer totals. Yes, there are about five years (1998-2002) of absolute monster numbers. Those years aren't surrounded by a nice slope up and down, though. Just look at his career up through 1997, and I don't think those numbers scream "future plaque." O.K., maybe five years is enough. Sandy Koufax, right? Then, there are the homers. Steriods or no steriods, an awful lot of folks were piling up the homers in those years. Drugs? Small parks? Juiced balls? Don't we have to discount late 90s homers a little, just as we ought to value 1980s homers a little more?
I don't expect any of this to effect the actual election. The voters are no more likely to compensate for the fact that homers were very cheap and very plentiful for much of Sammy's career than they were to realize that, oh, say, Ryno's numbers were huge for his time. He'll either get elected for the homers, or dismissed for the drugs. I don't think that either result is fair.

by Slats Grobnik on Feb 17, 2006 4:16 PM CST reply actions

good points

Let me take it a step furhter.

Numbers--only player in MLB history with 3 60 HR seasons. No one ever!!!!

Roids--he may have or may not have. There is still no difinitive proof. For those who say he did--SO WHAT? He merely did what many others did. And if they all were juicing, how come no one else put up the numbers Sammy did? What about all the pitchers? If you feel that I'm not being genuine in characterizing all players, how come Juan Rincon, Alex Sanchez, and Matt Lawton ALL GOT POPPED? It because the little guys were doing them as much or more than the bigger players.

He played by the rules of the game in his day. And he was better than all comers.

by socalbob on Feb 17, 2006 4:22 PM CST up reply actions

Agree....

...with all who believe that, unless some scandal comes about where it's proven that Sammy hit the majority of his homers with an aluminium bat, he will be an unquestionable first ballot HOF inductee.

by Santos L Halper on Feb 17, 2006 5:13 PM CST reply actions

Sammy and the hall

I guess I'm old school. I'd LIKE to see Sammy in the hall. But many of you don't think the steroid scandal will hurt his chances at least the first time? Think of one person:PETE ROSE. That scandal hurt him didn't it? AL, you would have to agree now,right?

by fuzzycubfan on Feb 17, 2006 5:34 PM CST reply actions

The difference is...

... that gambling on baseball has been illegal for over 70 years. It's posted on the walls of every clubhouse. If ANYONE should have known about gambling, it was Pete Rose.

You can debate the steroid issue, but the fact is until a couple of years ago, there were no penalties for steroid use.

That said, I think a lot of the writers might decide to send a "message" to suspected steroid users like Sosa, McGwire and Palmeiro, keeping them out on the first ballot, before eventually voting them in.

Barry Bonds' case ought to be REAL interesting.

by Al Yellon on Feb 17, 2006 7:46 PM CST up reply actions

I agree...

...the Bonds HOF balloting should be interesting but, we should learn how the voters feel about the issue of steroids before he comes up for a vote. (Sammy, are you reading this...or your agent? I say this Al, because any agent worth his salt, should be regularly reading the #1 Cub site.) Mark should be an interesting "read" for the HOF. Will it change after the first vote of a "suspect" into the HOF? Will there be an uprising one way or the other? Do we know how much politics has entered the selection process? An interesting time coming up.

"1958-NL MVP; 1959- NL MVP; 1960-GOLD GLOVE SS"

by letsplaytwo on Feb 17, 2006 8:33 PM CST up reply actions

Pete Rose

was banned from the game for violating a rule that is posted in every clubhouse in baseball. Apples to oranges...

by RobG @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Feb 17, 2006 7:26 PM CST reply actions

Stats were more important...

...at one time for HOF. But, things have been changing slowly, IMO, since the Pete Rose incident. I think politics have always been involved in the selection process but over time it has become more so. Guys like Cobb and definitely Anson, all stats. I'm not sure in today's atmosphere they would make it first ballot (and today, Anson would never make it with his and Spaulding's prejudice's).
Stats...Sosa first ballot, no doubt.
Today's politics, eventually in, since there is no proof of steroids.

"1958-NL MVP; 1959- NL MVP; 1960-GOLD GLOVE SS"

by letsplaytwo on Feb 17, 2006 7:34 PM CST reply actions

I hate to belabor this...

Since I already ran it up the flagpole once today, and no one saluted, but is it really so obvious that Sammy should be a shoo-in for the Hall? I'm certainly not arguing that he won't be voted right in, and probably not arguing that he shouldn't be, but I'm a little surprised that no one feels that it's even worth discussing (outside of the steroids issue).
So far, I've heard two arguments in favor of Sammy:

He's a no brainer, dead cert, lock for the Hall
He hit a ton of home runs

The first may very well be true, but it's not exactly an argument. The second is also true, but might be worth examining. Sammy did exactly two things really well: hit home runs and strike out. He didn't play a skill defensive position, and was, to put it charitably, an erratic fielder. He didn't get on base or hit for average much (he finished in the top ten in the NL in BA and OBP once each, both in 2001). Yes, he hit a load of homers, but he picked an awfully good time to be a one-dimensional slugger. He hit 292 of those homers (almost exactly half of his career total) in that magic stretch from 1998-2002. O.K., he still hit them, but a lot of other folks were hitting a lot of home runs then. Greg Vaughn hit 95 in 1998-99. Vinnie Castilla hit 126 from 1997-99. Andres Galarraga hit 132 from 1996-98. Sammy was clearly better than those guys (and for longer), but he wasn't on another planet. All I'm saying is that a bunch of homers ca. 2000 isn't as impressive as a bunch of homers ca. 1985. How much would we have to discount those homers before Sammy doesn't look like a Hall of Famer? Sure, he'll go into the Hall, but I think that if he'd been born 10 years earlier, he'd be Fred McGriff or Dale Murphy, and we'd be having a very different conversation.

by Slats Grobnik on Feb 17, 2006 10:15 PM CST reply actions

slats

ONLY PLAYER WITH 3 60-HR seasons. No Babe, Hank, Willie, Ted, Frank, Mark, Barry, Joe, Mickey, et al. NO ONE.

as for your argument with all the others, it should have been noted you wrote Gallaraga and Castilla as examples. I shall say one word "COORS" and it ends those guys as comps. Sammy would have hit 90 HR/year in that period playing in Coors.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is depsite all the harping about 'roids and the like, why doesn't anyone want to give him credit for actually making adjustments as a hitter which turned him from a slugger into a complete hitter. Jeff Pentland got Sammy's attention and it worked. His plate discipline was better, his using the whole field better, his mental preparation better.

How can anyone look his single seasons and say they are not HOF worthy with some of the greatest offensive seasons in baseball history and then look at the body of his work over his career and not say he's a sure-fire HOF? It really blows me away.

by socalbob on Feb 18, 2006 11:35 AM CST up reply actions

Your argument doesn't hold water

I hesitate to contradict someone with such a distinguished screen name, but I can't let your dismissal of Sosa's hitting stand. Even taking your argument at face value (which doesn't give Sosa proper credit: he was never "just a home run hitter", being a double-digit base stealer when he was younger and posting a 5 year OBP well over .390 starting in '98), the only guys in his neighborhood were McGwire and Bonds. You mention that Vaughn hit 95 homers in 2 years; in those same 2 years, Sosa hit 129, 34 more, or 36% if you prefer -- or 17 a year, which is a lot when you consider that a guy who hits 30 a year is considered a power hitter. Sosa hit 179 in his best 3 year period, considerably more than either Castilla or Galarraga.

But a better way to put him in focus is to consider this. Before 1998, Roger Maris held the major league single season record and Babe Ruth held the records for most homers in 2 years, 3 years, 4, and so on up to 10 years. Now Bonds holds the single season record, while McGwire holds the 2, 3, and 4 year records -- and Sosa holds the rest up to 10 years (Sosa is second best to McGwire in the 2, 3, and 4 year periods, and has the third best single season mark). Sammy hit more homers in 7 years than Vaughn did in his 15 year career, more in 8 than Galarraga did in 19, more in a mere 6 than Castilla has in his 15 years to date -- without ever calling Coors home (not that Coors did any good for Vaughn, who was done before he got there). Looking just at his good contemporaries, Sosa's best 9 year period matches Bonds's 10 year best; over their respective best 10 year periods, Sosa outhomered McGwire by 74. A-Rod is 20 behind Bonds in 10 year bests. Pujols has hit 201 in his 5 years -- 91 less than Sosa's top 5 year mark. Jim Thome's top single season effort is 14 less than Sosa's, and the gap widens over every single period up to 10, by which time Sosa is 88 ahead. Griffey barely outhomered Thome, hitting only 7 more over their respective 10 year bests.
So even discounting his other accomplishments, this isn't Dave Kingman (who had trouble just matching Mike Schmidt's homer total, never mind Schmidt's other positives) we're talking about. Only Ruth had a comparable 10 year run as a home run hitter: Sosa's 10 year figure, 479, is only 12 better than Ruth's. Even if I conceded that Sosa was just a home run hitter, I would have to say he was a very good home run hitter who on the face of the numbers doesn't have to apologize to anybody in baseball history on that score.

by One of Als Pals on Feb 18, 2006 5:38 PM CST up reply actions

No argument, Al's pal...

Yes, you're right....and thank you for the thorough and well-reasoned post. I'm not going to try and rebut, since I was never trying to demonstrate that Sammy wasn't qualified for the Hall for in the first place. I can't help noticing, though, that (with two honorable exceptions, both from you) all of the pro-Sammy posts deal either with homers, the stretch from 1998-2002, or the homers that he hit from 1998-2002. Yes, he had an excellent OBP - for those five years - but not good enough to crack the top 10 outside of 2001. "One-dimensional" still doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

by Slats Grobnik on Feb 18, 2006 6:27 PM CST up reply actions

That may be a higher standard than the writers use

In those 5 seasons, Sosa was pretty good: in 2001, he was the best hitter in baseball whose initials weren't BB, and in the other 4 years he was one of the 5-to-10 best. In '94 to '96 and again in 2003, he was an above average player, posting park-adjusted OBPs around the league average while putting up good slugging percentages; he stole some bases, and played better defense in the first 3, posted a stronger OBP in the last. In 5 other years, he was wavering on either side of league average as a player, neither much of an asset nor much of a liability. He didn't play much his first season, wasn't too good last year, and stunk one of his years with the Sox. So that's 5 very good years, 4 above average, 5 average, 1 below average, 1 stinkeroo, and an incomplete.

The thing is, there are lots of guys in the Hall whose careers shake out in similar fashion: they aren't all Barry Bonds, dominating year after year after year after year after blinking year. For one, Sandberg: he had 6 years where he was first rate, 8 years where he was pretty average. Ernie Banks, who really was nothing but a home run hitter (park-adjusted career OBP was below league average; Sosa's is above league average, and he bettered Banks's career-best OBP 4 times): 5 seasons where he was top notch, a couple where he was above average. Joe Medwick had 5 dominant years, 5 above average in a 17 year career. Interpreting Kirby Puckett's career in the best possible light, he had 5 years where he was pretty good, 5 where he was above average in 12 tries. These are all guys elected by the BBWA; if the rest of your career is okay and long enough, 5 really good years can get you in. Or even none at all: Lou Brock never had a season where he was an impact player, just 5 where he was an above average hitter and was pretty much average for the bulk of his career. But he had the stolen base record and 3,000 hits; that was good enough for the writers. Sosa has the 10 year homer record and 500+ dingers; so I think if the writers forgive and/or forget about the off-the-field stuff before his eligibility runs out, he has a pretty good chance of election.

by One of Als Pals on Feb 18, 2006 9:51 PM CST up reply actions

Here's the key phrase...

Sosa has the 10 year homer record and 500+ dingers; so I think if the writers forgive and/or forget about the off-the-field stuff before his eligibility runs out, he has a pretty good chance of election.

Absolutely correct; however, I think that in the case of Sosa, and McGwire too, that many writers want to send a "message" that due to the off-the-field stuff, neither should be a first-ballot inductee.

I expect both will get in, perhaps in year two.

As I wrote a couple of days ago, the case of Barry Bonds will be REAL interesting when he becomes eligible. Not only does he have the steroid accusations, but his sour personality, working against him. Statistically, of course, Bonds is a lock -- and was even before his HR barrage began in the mid-90s.

But I suspect he might even miss in year one.

by Al Yellon on Feb 19, 2006 4:15 AM CST up reply actions

Yeah

I would even suggest that Sosa carries so much baggage -- not just the steroid suspicions, but the bat corking, the walkout, the "we have to do things my way" attitude that went way beyond the boom box -- that there will probably be a chunk of writers who want to punish Sosa, who won't vote for him for more than just the first year to try to teach him some humility. I suspect this bloc may be large enough to keep him out past the first ballot unless his second year is a dead year lacking Hall-worthy candidates. I expect to see some of the same arguments Slats raised come up again, brandished by writers whose real reason for passing on Sosa is more like what I'm describing.
But after a certain amount of years (maybe just 1, maybe a few more than that), the writers are going to remember the good times and all the material Sosa gave them to write about. Steroids or something similar may have been a factor in Sosa's performance, but Sosa nevertheless was one of the standout players of the steroids era; in the absence of a positive test result, the discussion eventually should shift back to Sosa versus his contemporaries: his 5 year run and career stats should tell in his favor then. In particular, once they put McGwire in, they'll probably have a hard time continuing to reject Sosa.

Now Bonds -- well, your suspicion may prove true, I don't deny the possibility. None of the Bs in Barry's initials stand for "beloved", that's for sure. But I think it'll be like when the writers finally gave him his 4th MVP. There were a couple of seasons where they could have given Bonds a 4th MVP, but nobody had ever won 4; for much the reasons you describe, they really didn't want to put him in a class by himself. But then came 2001: the all-time US professional home run record, breaking Ruth's 80-year-old slugging percentage mark, the first .500+ OBP in over 4 decades, Bonds hit over .320 for only the second time in his career until then; he even stole more than a dozen bases. No matter how much the writers disliked Barry, they had to give him that MVP: unprecedented or not, they'd have looked like a bunch of idiots to give it to anybody else. The Hall will probably be the same.
The interesting thing will be whether or not his eventual election will be unanimous. If it's not (and I think there's a good chance it won't be; hasn't happened yet, has it?), Bonds will probably throw a hissy fit that will make Hank Aaron's legendary fit after his non-unanimous election look restrained.

by One of Als Pals on Feb 19, 2006 10:30 AM CST up reply actions

Voters' personal crusades

against bonds go a lot further back. he lost out on the 1991 mvp to terry pendleton despite beating pendleton in every significant offensive category except for batting average and winning the gold glove (pendleton did not).

i think there's no chance bonds will be unanimous. there's never been a unanimous inductee. tom seaver was closest at 98.84%.

the reality is that there will always be a couple of writers who ignore their duty to vote objectively. look no further than the 1999 al mvp race when pedro martinez (23 wins, 2.07 era, .923 whip, 313 strikeouts - all league leading) did not get a single vote anywhere on the ballots of george king or lavelle neal.

All will be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Feb 19, 2006 12:59 PM CST up reply actions

I would like to meet...

... any writers who don't vote for Cal Ripken and ask them how in good conscience they could return a ballot without his name on it.

If anyone ought to be unanimous, Ripken should.

by Al Yellon on Feb 19, 2006 1:48 PM CST up reply actions

Amen to that

And I'd like to think Maddux will be unanimous, but we'll have to see.

by Perkins on Feb 19, 2006 2:16 PM CST up reply actions

Oh absolutely!

Maddux has done nothing to warrant anything less than a first ballot, unanimous vote.

Anyone can have a bad century...

by Kinky Reggae on Feb 19, 2006 2:37 PM CST up reply actions

Well, we can hope for it, but...

... it takes only one writer who thinks "Well, Maddux belongs in the Hall, but Clemens was better" to prevent a unanimous election.

by One of Als Pals on Feb 19, 2006 3:06 PM CST up reply actions

That would be a shame.

He deserves it and he is less of a self rightious individual than Clemens IMO.

Anyone can have a bad century...

by Kinky Reggae on Feb 19, 2006 10:39 PM CST up reply actions

If it's any consolation

There's probably some other writer who will hold Clemens's reputation as a headhunter against him -- quite likely a writer or so who covers the Mets. Won't keep him out on the first ballot, but he's probably less likely to be a unanimous pick than Maddux. So far, there've always been writers with axes to grind at vote time for the Hall.

As Al mentioned, Ripken will be the acid test: he was considered an exemplar on and off the field. I can't imagine what any writer could have against him, and none of the guys with votes can be dumb enough to think he actually doesn't belong. But somehow there were 5 voters who didn't think Tom Seaver should be a unanimous pick; maybe they thought he was too perfect or something...

by One of Als Pals on Feb 19, 2006 11:55 PM CST up reply actions

no way ripken is unanimous

given that there writers came up with reasons to vote against every single player currently in the hall, hence no unanimous selections, there are clearly a contingent of writers who look at the first ballot vote as somehow different from a vote in other years. they think putting someone in on the first ballot is a special honor to be reserved for the best of the best. ripken does not, imo, fall into that category.

is ripken a hall of famer? absolutely. is he in a discussion with cobb, ruth, mays, aaron? not even close. ripken was always very good, often great. but he was in the top 10 in ops 3 times in his career, has a .276 career batting average and almost never led the league in any significant offensive category. he was a good defensive player, but the fact that he only won 2 gold gloves reinforces my opinion that he wasn't great (certainly not on par with ozzie smith, omar vizquel or even jack wilson).

no question he revolutionized the position in terms of making shortstop a more well-rounded position - raising the expectation of offensive production from that spot.

he did have the streak, but i'm not sure what that means. in fact, while he played, many observers think the streak hurt his team at times, which will likely cost him a couple votes.

because there are writers who do think of the first ballot as a particularly high honor above and beyond just getting a vote, ripken has way too many holes to be a unanimous choise, no matter how nice of a guy he is off the field.

All will be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Feb 20, 2006 8:54 AM CST up reply actions

You make many valid points...

... especially about Ripken statistically -- yes, he doesn't measure up to guys like Mays, Cobb, Ruth, Wagner, Aaron.

But don't discount the "nice guy" factor. Writers loved him. This may mean more to some than the idea that no one should be unanimous. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if writers make a statement here by saying, "Here is the ONE guy who SHOULD be unanimous."

by Al Yellon on Feb 20, 2006 10:21 AM CST up reply actions

I was thinking the exact same thing...

I still remember thinking when he was playing that it was cool that he was playing in all those consecutive games. But I also remember thinking he didn't help them much at the plate at times. If he didn't have that streak going he may have not lasted as long as he did. No doubt he will be first ballot, but no matter how writer friendly he was, someone will not vote for him.

by LT on Feb 20, 2006 12:36 PM CST up reply actions

Now we're way into the realm of opinion

... and you're entitled to yours. I'll restrict myself to this single post stating why I think the writers are like to hold a different opinion.

You're judging Ripken's offense against outfielders and first basemen. That's too high a standard. Of the members of the 3000 hit club, only Ripken and Wagner spent the bulk of their careers at the second-most demanding defensive position, shortstop -- and there are no catchers in the club, so these two are the premium defensive players in the 3000 hit club. Wagner hit for higher batting averages and stole a lot more bases than Ripken, plus hitting about 200 more triples. But Ripken hit over 300 more homers; those go a certain way toward making up for the areas where Wagner was better. The writers who don't understand that Wagner played in the dead ball era and would probably have hit more homers playing in more recent years will respect Ripken's power edge. Those that do understand Wagner played in a different era should also be able to figure out that in addition to hitting more long balls, Wagner would likely also have stolen fewer bases, hit for lower averages (all of his OBP edge over Ripken is due to his higher average), and had a lot fewer triples, especially if he didn't play his home games in Forbes Field.
On to Ripken's infield contemporaries who hit well enough long enough to make the 3000 hit club. All you've really got are Brett and Boggs, a pair of third basemen; if you stretch a point, Yount, Carew, and Molitor, all of whom played about half of their careers at second, third, or short, qualify. Ripken outhomered and outwalked Brett by over 100 each, and with 1 exception Brett beat the other 4 guys in both categories. The exception was Boggs, who drew couple hundred more walks than Ripken did -- but Ripken hit 300 more homers while playing the more valuable defensive position. Brett and Boggs were first ballot guys, with Brett less than a dozen votes from unanimous; I can't see how the writers are going to view Ripken as significantly less Hall-worthy.

Note: in terms of actual value to their teams, these arguments are much over-simplified. But we aren't discussing how to determine the actual value; we're discussing how the baseball writers who elect players to the Hall of Fame look at things. Few if any of these writers look to sophisticated statistical models when casting their votes; judging by Hall of Fame advocacy articles I've read, most use the kind of simple stat comparisons given above colored by subjective judgements.

by One of Als Pals on Feb 20, 2006 1:26 PM CST up reply actions

of course we are

in the realm of opinion as we're both predicting the future.

as i said originally, ripken did revolutionize the position. and he was often a great player. but that doesn't change the fact that of his 18 full seasons, he batted below .280 12 times. of all the members of the 3000 hit club, his batting average is the lowest.

that said, i think you make a great point that he had his offensive accomplishments at a position traditionally not associated with offensive prowess. and that is something the writers will certainly take into consideration. given the statistics i cited in my last post, i think there's no question even i take it into consideration when considering him a great player.

but it still seems extremely unlikey that every single voter will put aside the holes in ripken's offense, his above average but unspectacular defense and the thought that he, at times, put his streak above his team.

if i had a vote, i'd put him in on the first ballot. but i'm of the camp that believes there's no point in making people wait if they clearly belong. as is shown by the fact that there has never been a unanimous selection, there are plenty of people with votes who disagree with me.

we'll find out next january, but i'd be glad to join the gambling tradition on this website and gladly bet you a donut. in fact, i'll bet you 20 donuts that he isn't unanimous against one donut per vote that he doesn't get.

All will be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Feb 20, 2006 2:11 PM CST up reply actions

I can smell that...

however my opinion is that Maddux is that type of man/player...you know, the Ripken kind.

Anyone can have a bad century...

by Kinky Reggae on Feb 20, 2006 7:58 PM CST up reply actions

Sammy will make it...

and it will probably be first ballot. The time from now until his chance comes is going to be very helpful.

The fact that the poll on ESPN has Illinois as saying no to Sammy in the Hall shows how much he hurt the fans. That's why the time will help a lot.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes.

by sparkles721 on Feb 18, 2006 5:57 PM CST reply actions

Sammy

I agree with the Sammy will make it on the second ballot camp...His numbers go without question for the HOF, but it will be questioned on the validity of how he got those numbers. I enjoyed watching Sammy, but the me first and not team first thinking with him bothered me. Like when he always showed up a few days late to spring training. The corked bat incident really started to change my mind about how much I liked him. Also, when he tried to act like he didn't understand English at the Congessional hearings was problematic for me. I am glad he is no longer with the Cubs, but unless it can be proven that he took roids he should be a first ballot lock. Time will tell.

by LT on Feb 19, 2006 8:09 AM CST reply actions