HoF Ballot

by dmlichte on Nov 26, 2007 2:51 PM CST Comment 34 comments

The MLB Hall of Fame unveiled the 2008 ballot today. It is very possible that this will be a year where some of the overlooked candidates get into Cooperstown. First timers on the ballot this year are Tim Raines, David Justice, Brady Anderson, Rod Beck, Shawon Dunston, Chuck Finley, Travis Fryman, Chuck Knoblauch, Robb Nen, Jose Rijo and Todd Stottlemyre. Beck is eligable following his death which calls for the remainder of the 5-year waiting period to be waived.

Of the first time candidates Raines is the only one who likely will get serious Hall of Fame consideration, though I imagine he won't get in on the first ballot.

Below is the entire Hall of Fame ballot. Of the holdovers Jim Rice, Rich Gossage, Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven have come the closest to getting elected, with Gossage falling 21 votes short last year.

Brady Anderson

Harold Baines

Rod Beck

Bert Blyleven

Dave Concepcion

Andre Dawson

Shawon Dunston

Chuck Finley

Travis Fryman

Rich Gossage

Tommy John

David Justice

Chuck Knoblauch

Don Mattingly

Mark McGwire

Jack Morris

Dale Murphy

Robb Nen

Dave Parker

Tim Raines

Jim Rice

Jose Rijo

Lee Smith

Todd Stottlemyre

Alan Trammell

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.

0 recs | Comment 34 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Gossage should be a sure thing.

In fact, he should have gotten in last year, making it the 'Year of the Stopper'. I expected, at a minimum, that Gossage would get in, and that Sutter could ride his coattails.

But for some reason, they took Sutter and not Gossage, which really just boggles the mind. Obviously, the voters loved the Cy Young award.

If any relief pitcher should be inducted, it's Gossage. He was iconic - 20 years later, he still defines the archetype of the fearsome, intimidating, strange-facial-hair-having, unhittable stopper. He belongs in the HOF, by any standard.

by ClosingTime on Nov 26, 2007 2:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

remember when the Sox had both Terry Forster and Gossage in the early 70's? One righty and one lefty out of the pen and they both blew some serious gas.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Nov 26, 2007 3:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Longer it Takes

for Goose to get in, the less likely it is to happen. I think a lot of the younger generation sees him as a perfect example of a guy holding on way too long at the end of his career. I have no memory of the dominant Gossage some people remember, I only recall the washed up journeyman bouncing around the league. That'll will hurt him in the long run.

by HectorVillanueva on Nov 27, 2007 7:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Considering

there are very few HoF voters under 40, I don't think that's a concern.

The artist formerly known as JoshinLA

by Josh77 on Nov 28, 2007 1:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

All I'm saying is

that he hasn't gotten in yet, and the chances get slimmer every year.

by HectorVillanueva on Nov 28, 2007 7:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

people who should

Lee Smith
Gossage
Dawson
Rice

and I think McGwire will get it..

Live is boring until March 31st strolls by..

by Chanman25 on Nov 26, 2007 3:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Dark Horse

I wouldn't be that suprised in McGwire got in. he was a nice guy and popular with the sports writers, so alot of them will probably go easy on him because of that.

Gossage should also be in. alot of the crusty old-timers might not like it, be he's one of the men who invented the modern idea of what a closer is, and the HoF is for the people who define the game as we know it.

the rest I don't really know. Rice has the numbers, but doesn't really stand out in anyone's mind. granted I'm a young guy, but the rest of them just strike me as really good, but not all-time greats.

oh, and this being a Cubs site I feel I must add "Ron Santo still isn't in?! WTF is wrong with you people?!?!"

by petrie on Nov 26, 2007 3:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah

McGwire.

The thing is, without his run from 1996 to 1999, Mark McGwire's HoF candidacy is awfully weak. He was a slow footed first baseman who drew a lot of walks, hit a good number of home runs and got injured a lot before then.

So you have four years in his mid-thirties when McGwire was the best (or second best after Bonds) hitter in the game. Other than that, you've got Boog Powell.

I guess I'd want to wait for the dust to settle on McGwire before voting him in. I wouldn't blacklist him, but I do want to wait before giving him a lifetime pass to Cooperstown.

The artist formerly known as JoshinLA

by Josh77 on Nov 26, 2007 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd vote

Raines, Gossage, Blyleven and Trammell.

You could talk me out of Trammell if you tried. I see him as pretty much equivalent to Ryne Sandberg. Sandberg was a slightly better hitter and fielder, but Trammell played a more demanding position and won a World Series.

The fact that Raines isn't a shoo-in for the Hall just indicates that the BBWAA shouldn't be in charge of voting anymore. Raines was an insanely good player in his prime, had a long career and even got a couple of World Series rings with the Yankees at the end of his career. The funny thing is, if he would have turned half, or about 650, of his career 1300 walks into 395 hits, he would be a shoo-in because he'd have the magic number of 3000 hits. He'd be a less valuable player, but he'd be a in Cooperstown on the first ballot.

The Gossage and Blyleven arguments have been made better by others.

If you wanted to talk me into Andre Dawson, I could go for it. The Hawk was my second favorite player (after Ryno) and I admit to bowing down to him at Wrigley a few times. But he just falls short for me because of his low OBP and power totals that are mostly good but not great (although he did have a long career, a plus and a surprise with his knees). He only led the league in home runs once and only finished in the top five in the league four times, once in the strike-shortened 1981 season.

(And yes, I know his HR totals were kept down by Stade Olympique. They were helped by Wrigley later on.)

However, if they put Rice in, then I'm all for Dawson's induction. Dawson was a better player than Rice.

The artist formerly known as JoshinLA

by Josh77 on Nov 26, 2007 3:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Dawson, John, Blyleven.

n/t

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 26, 2007 4:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

As my name says every time I post here

Hawk should definitely be in the Hall.
He's the only eligible player with more than 1,000 career extra-base hits not in the Hall of Fame, and the only player ranked in the top 25 in career total bases not in Cooperstown. He also not only had these accolades below but finished 2nd for the MVP multiple times.

1987 NL MVP
8-time All-Star
8 Gold Gloves
438 HR, 314 SB

you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.

by Hawk4Hall on Nov 26, 2007 4:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

There may be a surprise

Dawson
Gossage
John
and the surprise -- Murphy

Unfortunately (IMO) McGwire's a shoe-in

"I'm a Cubs fan. I'm very, very patient." -- from a Shoe cartoon.

by No Southern Belle on Nov 26, 2007 4:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

You really think...

... McGwire will go from the 23% he got a year ago to induction? Especially with the steroid report about to come out?

Doubt it.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 26, 2007 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

agree, not only was he

...the definitive one dimensional player who only reached that dimension with the help of PED's, his timing is really bad. The one thing that isn't his fault in this case.

No chance he gets in this time around.

Let me get back to you, will ya, Charlie? I got a guy on the other line asking about some white walls.

by JB 23 on Nov 26, 2007 8:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why Dawson?

I know this is a Cubs site but I'm just not sold on Dawson. Why the big push for Dawson over Dave Parker? Very similar players. Other than the Chicago angle, it's tough to pick one over another.

I'd like to see Raines, Gossage and Blyleven.

by rlpete on Nov 26, 2007 4:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Because...

... Dawson was a class act and Parker was a jerk. Because Parker did drugs and Dawson didn't. Had Parker not had the drug years (and look at his career record, you'll have no trouble figuring out which years those are).

It's not just all about stats. Being in the HoF should mean you have brought at least some credit to the game. Dawson did. Parker didn't. For me, it's as simple as that.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 26, 2007 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

...and Dawson is STILL a class act.

I just got this, Hawk signed ball.

"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

by Jettero2112 on Nov 26, 2007 5:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Parker

has, from all accounts, been drug-free for 25 years.

Of course, we don't know what's been going on in his life and he isn't being randomly tested, but he's stayed out of trouble and has been a major league hitting coach and first base coach, and I doubt that anyone would have hired him had there been any rumors that he was still using.

Parker was also a user, not a dealer, from the Pittsburgh Drug Trial accounts. So was Tim Raines, who I'm on the record as saying should go into the Hall without a throw. (Raines was NOT suspended by Ueberroth for involvement, however. Parker was.)

Willie Stargell, on the other hand, had three people testify under oath that he regularly passed out greenies (amphetamines) to players in the clubhouse. That one of those people was Dave Parker made him hated in Pittsburgh. (Nevermind that John Milner and the guy in the parrot mascot outfit also testified about Stargell.) Yet Stargell went into the Hall of Fame and died as one of the greatest human beings to ever play the game.

Your argument against Parker is that he was a jerk. I don't disagree with that (and he did plenty of things as a player beyond drugs that indicated that he was a jerk) but I think there are plenty of jerks in Cooperstown already. Heck, you named a jerk the second greatest Cub of all time (and I agreed with you).

Luckily, I don't think Parker's career indicate that he's a Hall of Famer. And if he hadn't had three or four terrible years because he was on drugs, he probably would have. But I don't think his drug use or jerkiness should preclude him from Cooperstown.

The artist formerly known as JoshinLA

by Josh77 on Nov 26, 2007 5:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Career Totals

I argued earlier why I wouldn't vote for Dawson, but Dawson has over 100 more home runs and 150 more steals (with fewer caught stealings!) than Parker.

(A lot of those caught stealings on Parker weren't really his fault though. For Chuck Tanner, the hit and run was almost automatic with a man on first)

Defense too. Dawson was a center fielder with Montreal and a good one. Parker had that rocket arm, but was exclusively a right fielder and just slightly above average there.

Similar players, but the Hawk edges the Cobra all around.

The artist formerly known as JoshinLA

by Josh77 on Nov 26, 2007 5:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that Dawson was better

Parker definitely doesn't belong in the Hall. I'm just not sure about Dawson though either. Looking at 3 players:

Dawson: 9927 AB's - .279/.323/.482 - 438 HR's - 503 2B's - 1591 RBI's - 1373 runs - 314 SB's

Parker: 9328 AB's - .290/.339/.471 - 339 HR's - 526 2B's - 1493 RBI's - 1272 runs - 154 SB's

Rice: 8225 AB's - .298/.352/.502 - 382 HR's - 373 2B's - 1451 RBI's - 1249 runs - 58 SB's

Dawson really only has longevity and defense/speed on Rice. Rice has better percentage numbers. Parker trails both of them. All 3 won an MVP. I wouldn't say Dawson doesn't belong but I'm not sure it's a given that he's a HOF'er either.

by rlpete on Nov 26, 2007 6:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Rice and Dale Murphy...

... I don't vote for, because though they had some tremendous seasons early in their careers, both had their careers fall off a cliff toward the end.

Murphy was essentially done as a superstar at age 31. He had four more mediocre seasons after that, then hung on for a couple of embarrassing tail-end seasons with the Phillies and Rockies. He really only had six HoF quality seasons.

Rice, done with superstardom at age 33 (13 full good years), had three crappy years, and then retired at 36.

Dawson, though he also had some bad tail-end years, waited till age 38+ to have them. He had sixteen consecutive years as a regular, many of those of HoF quality.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 26, 2007 10:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I just weep

for Ronnie! Honestly, the man played in the major leagues with diabetes. It breaks my heart that everyone outside Cub culture will appreciate him after he eventually dies.

If dogs took over the world and chose a king, I hope they don't just go by size, because there are some Chihuahuas with some good ideas.

by deepthoughtsbyjackhandey on Nov 26, 2007 6:21 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Gossage and Rice

are the two notable players who garnered more votes in the 2007 election over their previous year's total. Gossage received 388 vs 336 the year before. Rice 346 vs 337.

Most of the other notable candidates, with the obvious exception of the 11 newcomers (see note below), received less votes last year than the year before.

Assuming another record number of ballots cast, let's say 560, candidates would need 420 votes to be elected. Gossage would need 38 more votes over last year, Rice 74. The number of ballots cast may be lower this year since there are no surefire first-ballot HOFers like Ripken and Gwynn to entice voters to cast their ballots like last year.

I say Goose stands alone from this group.

BTW, the first time nominees are:
Brady Anderson
Rod Beck
Shawon Dunston
Chuck Finley
Travis Fryman
David Justice
Chuck Knoblauch
Robb Nen
Tim Raines
Jose Rijo *
Todd Stottlemyre

NOTE: Jose Rijo is technically not a first-timer, having been on ballot in 2001 (receiving one vote) after having not pitched since 1995. Since he returned to the Majors that year and pitched again in 2002, he is given another opportunity to be on the ballot because of his return in 2001-02.

Candidates must be named on at least 5 percent of ballots to remain eligible for up to 15 years. Using my hypothetical 560 ballots, that would mean 28 votes to stay eligible.

Any guesses as to which of this year's newcomers remain or do NOT make the cut next year?

by flachimesa on Nov 26, 2007 6:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

BTW, my votes would go to

Gossage, Rice, Dawson, Blyleven, and Jack Morris.

by flachimesa on Nov 26, 2007 6:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

for the HOF

not to be removed from eligibility.

by flachimesa on Nov 26, 2007 6:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Shawon Dunston?

Where can I vote?

Put the Shawon-O-Meter in Cooperstown!

¡BLANCO!

by 08Cubs on Nov 26, 2007 8:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

My only concern...........

.........is that Shawon wear the Cubs "C" when he's inducted. Any other lid would be unacceptable.

by tville on Nov 26, 2007 10:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hawk and Burt

Get my only votes.

Dawson for the rare combination of speed and power. (I know coulda beens don't affect voting, but imagine what that guy would have done if he didn't play a decade on cement in Montreal).

Burt becasue he's got the numbers. That he's not in the Hall is the biggest oversight in the game.

by HectorVillanueva on Nov 27, 2007 7:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Blyleven

had 60 shutouts. Think about that. Maddux has 35 (only 1 since 2001), Clemens has 46. Blyleven's 60 is 9th on the all-time list. No one else in the top 20 has been excluded from the Hall.

This is a no-brainer, compared to picking among the Hawk, Parker, and Rice.

Since you get 10 votes, I'd try to use them all, given how hard it is to get elected: Blyleven, Gossage, Smith, Morris, Dawson, Raines, Trammell, Rice, Parker. I guess that's only 9. I think it's useful to vote for guys like Trammell and Parker, who aren't likely to be elected, because it keeps us talking about them once a year. I don't like it that guys like Buckner and Al Oliver got bounced off the list early.

by bleacher on Nov 27, 2007 9:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

Since you get 10 votes, I'd try to use them all, given how hard it is to get elected

I think its a good thing that its very hard to get elected. This is the Hall of Fame, reserved for the truly elite players. Just because someone isn't in the Hall doesn't mean that they weren't an all-star or a truly excellent player. It should be very hard to get elected. And as far as being useful to vote for guys like Trammell and Parker, either they're Hall of Famers or they're not Hall of Famers and if you think they are, vote for them, but don't vote for them to keep them on the ballot.

Personally I'd vote for Blyleven, Dawson and Gossage.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 27, 2007 12:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

Just because you have ten votes doesn't mean you should use them all.

I may put up a HoF poll; unfortunately, it doesn't allow multiple votes (even though it says it does, this is a software bug). If I do put up that poll, keep that in mind; it will at least give an idea of who BCB readers would most like to see in the Hall.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 27, 2007 5:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

These guys /should/ get in...

Rice, Byleven, Morris and the Hawk.

I like Parker and I agree that any drug issues are immaterial, really, but I don' think he's got the numbers.

Rice should have gotten in years ago...

Byleven and Morris are surrounded by HOFers on the Career Wins list

And the Hawk should get in for his numbers and for being the MVP of the NL on a team that finished in last 18.5 games out... Obvioulsly a STUD

"There's not an American in this country free until every one of us is free." --Jackie Robinson

by Mad Town Cubs Fan on Nov 27, 2007 11:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

My votes would go to

Raines - would be a sure thing except he had the misfortune of having his best years in Montreal, where only 6 people noticed, and also having his career overshadowed by Rickey Henderson.

Blyleven - the only eligible pitcher with 3,000 K's not in the HOF (when he retired, I think he was third all-time behind Ryan and Carlton).

Dawson and Rice - two great players with similar arguments to support them (Rice a little better with the bat, Dawson much better with the glove and on the bases); both hurt by finishing their careers before the juiced-up era.

Gossage - should probably have gone in before Sutter, but as someone else mentioned, hurt his case by bouncing around as a mediocre closer/middle reliever for several years at the end of his career. (BTW - anyone who complains about Dempster as a closer must not remember watching Gossage "close" games for the Cubs in 1988).

Trammell - does it bother anyone else that Ozzie Smith, who hit like Cesar Izturis for a good chunk of his career, got in on the first ballot, while Trammell, a legit two-way player, has barely been able to stay on the ballot?

by Tim Blackwell Fan Club on Nov 27, 2007 11:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Raines is deserving

but the voters may not forget that Raines testified (during the Pittsburgh Drug Trials in '85) that he kept a gram of coke in his uniform pocket, snorted during games, and made a point of sliding head-first so as not to break the vial.

by flachimesa on Nov 28, 2007 10:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs