Kalapse Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 04:21 PM) Jeter is in all likelihood going to retire with around (and i'm being conservative here) over 3000 hits, 1000 walks, 250 home runs, 325 to 350 stolen bases, an OPS around .850 as a top of the order hitter and middle infielder, 1800 runs scored, over 2000 games, 500 doubles, 1200 RBI's, a .315 batting average and .385 on base percentage. All of those numbers don't include his postseason work. He also has (although undeserved) 3 gold gloves, 4 world championship rings, a .309/.377/.469 postseason line in 123 games and 495 at bats, 9 all star apperances, a rookie of the year, an all star game and world series MVP, and 3 silver sluggers. Although his regular season work is overrated, he's one of the better postseason players of all time and will retire with many records of the most succesful organization in sports history. He will be a 1st ballot hall of famer, and I have a hard time arguing it despite my dislike for Jeter. He also finished in the top 10 in MVP voting 6 times out of 13 MLB seasons and 8 times in the top 13 of voting. These are the sort of things people look at when filling out their ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Zelig Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 01:36 PM) No one gets 100%, basically. Some folks apparently think that no one in the modern age should be in. Didn't one player get 100% on his first ballot? Maybe Seaver? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 05:14 PM) Didn't one player get 100% on his first ballot? Maybe Seaver? Tom Seaver - 98.84% Nolan Ryan - 98.79% Cal Ripken Jr - 98.53% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Career OPS+ Rice: 128 Konerko: 116 Dawson: 119 Baines: 120 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 05:44 PM) Career OPS+ Rice: 128 Konerko: 116 Dawson: 119 Baines: 120 Maggs: 129 (+ 6 AS games, 3 silver sluggers, 3 top 12 finishes in MVP voting (finished 2nd in '07), a batting title, career .312 AVG and a 106 HOF monitor) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Dawson, Rice and Konerko dont deserve the hall. Seriously WTF. How can someone like Tim Raines who should be a lock get less votes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 04:34 PM) Tom Seaver - 98.84% Nolan Ryan - 98.79% Cal Ripken Jr - 98.53% Seriously, who doesn't think tht Seaver or Ryan should have been in the Hall? I think a few of the ex players must just not vote ANYONE in or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 07:06 PM) Seriously, who doesn't think tht Seaver or Ryan should have been in the Hall? I think a few of the ex players must just not vote ANYONE in or something. The same people that didn't vote for Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams or Willie Mays. I mean serious, those are all no brainers. Why weren't they unanimous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I've been having a little baseball card collecting thing over the last 25 years on and off. I've been trying to buy the rookie card of every modern hall-of-famer before they become one. I have Fisk, Ozzie Smith, Henderson, Ripken, Boggs, Gwynn, Sandberg, Puckett, (Clemens, McGwire ), Maddux, Griffey and Thomas. I considered Bonds for awhile and A-Rod's a bit pricey. If I'm desparate, I may get some older 70s rookies, but they cost too much. Anyone else have older cards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 03:56 PM) Candidate A: .352 OBP, .491 slugging, .843 OPS. .904 home OPS, .786 away OPS 12 seasons, 298 home runs, 603 walks, 895 strikeouts, no gold gloves. Played all home games at a right handed hitters haven. Candidate B: .352 OBP, .502 slugging, .854 OPS. .920 home OPS, .789 away OPS 16 seasons, 382 home runs, 670 walks, 1423 strikeouts, no gold gloves. Played all home games at a right handed hitters haven. Just for the record, candidate B is Jim Rice and Candidate A is Paul Konerko. So I guess assuming Paulie plays out his contract here in Chicago, puts up two average years by his standards, and then either retires or just plays a year or two extra somewhere else, he should be in the hall of fame too? Well yes, according to the precedent set today, he should. The uprising on the east coast for Jim Rice to be in the hall of fame was a joke, and the fact that he is now in is a joke, it's not the "hall of really good". But hey, I'm sure Paul Konerko and his similar numbers will get this same support someday, right? Konerko has never won a MVP award, Rice has. Konerko has never led the league in hits, home runs, RBIs, slugging, triples, but Rice has done all these things. Konerko has been to three All-Star games, Rice went to eight. Konerko has batted over .300 two times, Rice seven (he's very close to a lifetime .300 average which is a big milestone.) These are the kind of important baseball events separating the two players Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (3E8 @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 12:56 AM) Konerko has never won a MVP award, Rice has. Konerko has never led the league in hits, home runs, RBIs, slugging, triples, but Rice has done all these things. Konerko has been to three All-Star games, Rice went to eight. Konerko has batted over .300 two times, Rice seven (he's very close to a lifetime .300 average which is a big milestone.) These are the kind of important baseball events separating the two players Rice finished in the top 5 of MVP voting six times. That's HUGE. Voters always look for dominance in your particular era when mulling over a player's HoF merit and in Rice's case, the writers felt he was one of the 5 most valuable players in the American league in 4 out of his first 5 years in the league. Konerko on the other hand has only received an MVP 3 times in his career and his highest finish was 6th in 2005, that was the only time he finished in the top 15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschmaranz Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 02:13 PM) Dawson? Get the f*** outta here. He was a corner OF'er and wasnt even as good of a hitter as Raines. Get your facts straight buddy. Dawson played center the first 7 years of his career, 3 of which were gold glove seasons. While I agree that the voting for Raines is extremely pathetic, Dawson deserves to get in just as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (bschmaranz @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 02:43 AM) Get your facts straight buddy. Dawson played center the first 7 years of his career, 3 of which were gold glove seasons. While I agree that the voting for Raines is extremely pathetic, Dawson deserves to get in just as much. Actually, he took home a gold glove in 4 out of the 7 seasons he played CF. 1980-1983. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschmaranz Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 03:14 AM) Actually, he took home a gold glove in 4 out of the 7 seasons he played CF. 1980-1983. I stand corrected.... Makes my argument look a little better, hehe. I'm one of those guys who've been in Dawson's corner on this for quite some time. If Jim Rice gets in, why the hell doesn't Dawson? Personally, I think he shoulda gotten in long before Ryno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 03:14 AM) Actually, he took home a gold glove in 4 out of the 7 seasons he played CF. 1980-1983. One thing Dawson had, even in his later playing years, was an absolute cannon of an arm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 12, 2009 -> 03:13 PM) Why, because Paul Konerko's numbers during his peak years (1999-2006 or so) aren't as impressive because a bunch of the "better" numbers around him were achieved in large part due to steroid use? I think comparing their numbers (if we assume both of them were clean, which i'm going to) is logicial. It's not like they played 50 to 100 years apart. Because it gives you no idea how they dominated their own era. By just using naked numbers pretty much every pitcher who pitched regularly from 1900 to 1925 or so should be in the Hall of Fame, because their numbers are hugely better than anyone of the last 30 years or so. There also should be no HOF pitchers from their era because their numbers don't compare. You are missing the most important factor in what makes a Hall of Famer is that they had so much of a significant impact upon their era, that they are considered one of the best of all time. You can't pull numbers from different eras to make that comparison. It isn't a black and white type of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daa84 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 HOF candidacy are always difficult for me to judge. I am younger (mid 20s) so the majority of guys in the hall, I never saw their entire careers, so the only precedent I have to rely on is their numbers. There are a number of questions that I don't have/know the answers to that would help in deciding if a guy should be in the hall. What percentage of players should make the hall? Is it 10? 5? I really have no idea. Should only numbers be considered? Or is there a different element voters need to consider? Should leadoff hitters be considered separately from sluggers, just as 2b are considered separately from OFers, and Closers are now separately considered from Starters? Certianly I believe numbers need to be Era corrected, but just because one guy is in the hall, does that mean a player with comparable numbers (after correcting for Era) should be enshrined? To me, not necessarily. The HOFer could have been an unworthy candidate. Certainly there are members in the Hall who probably didn't deserve it. Should the Hall be Tiered? That is, should there be a pyramid type shape of sub levels in the Hall. Guys like Ruth, Mays, Aaron, etc at the top. Seems like a good idea, but it also seems to de-emphasize players like Rice who would end up in the bottom tier. But at the same time, weren't those guys in a different type level? To what extent does statistical analysis's role play? I know alot of stats say Raines was a HOF, but in any one year was he a top 5 player in the league? MVP voting says no, but is that biased in favor of sluggers? For me at the age of 24, I know a sure fire HOF when I see one. Guys like Maddux, Arod, Pujols. I don't even need to look at their stats, because I know in my head they have stats worthy. But guys who are in that gray area, its really difficult for me to judge. I think as I get older and see more players who go in, I will be able to establish more of a precedent in my head, that would help to determine who is and isn't worthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (bschmaranz @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 01:43 AM) Get your facts straight buddy. Dawson played center the first 7 years of his career, 3 of which were gold glove seasons. While I agree that the voting for Raines is extremely pathetic, Dawson deserves to get in just as much. Ha! No he doesnt. Coming from someone who tells me to get my facts straight and you think Dawson deserves the hall. The guy was a good player, nothing more. Raines outhit him as a leadoff hitter for god sakes. .279 .323 .482 is not HOF numbers. Edited January 13, 2009 by RockRaines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Ricky not getting 100% is a joke. Actually the whole first ballot, second, etc nauseates me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 08:28 AM) Ricky not getting 100% is a joke. Actually the whole first ballot, second, etc nauseates me. Was Ricky that much better than Nolan Ryan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 10:59 AM) Was Ricky that much better than Nolan Ryan? Or Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Ted Williams, etc. etc. The fact that none of these people were 100% is enough to say that no one will ever be 100%. And it's stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 10:59 AM) Was Ricky that much better than Nolan Ryan? Yes. Ricky is the best player to have ever batted leadoff, he changed the game. Nolan was a strikeout pitcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 10:59 AM) Was Ricky that much better than Nolan Ryan? Yeah, Ryan couldn't hit a lick The question then becomes why wasn't Ryan and Henderson unanimous selections? It isn't about who is better than Ruth, Mays, or anyone else. It is about does this person belong in the HoF or not. A dozen or more writers asked themselves that and decided that no, Henderson does not belong in the HoF. Crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daa84 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 01:24 PM) Yeah, Ryan couldn't hit a lick The question then becomes why wasn't Ryan and Henderson unanimous selections? It isn't about who is better than Ruth, Mays, or anyone else. It is about does this person belong in the HoF or not. A dozen or more writers asked themselves that and decided that no, Henderson does not belong in the HoF. Crazy. i heard one writer defend not putting rickey in that somewhat makes sense...but in the end his logic falls apart he said he believed rickey would be a HOFer, and he thought he is a HOFer and normally would have voted for him. However, they only get so many votes (5 maybe?). And he used his 5 votes on guys who he really thought should be in, but either might be borderline, or would be in danger of falling off the ballot. So he felt his vote would be better utilized voting for someone else, when he knew Rickey would get 98ish % anyways. That said, I can understand where he comes from, but what if everyone did that, and Rickey didn't get in? I still clearly think everyone should vote for guys like Henderson, I can at least somewhat understand that reasoning. I don't buy the "Ty Cobb only got 80 %, so theres no way someone should be unanimous" arguement. Thats basically saying people before us made mistakes, so we are going to continue to make the same ones...so dumb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 QUOTE (daa84 @ Jan 13, 2009 -> 11:42 AM) i heard one writer defend not putting rickey in that somewhat makes sense...but in the end his logic falls apart he said he believed rickey would be a HOFer, and he thought he is a HOFer and normally would have voted for him. However, they only get so many votes (5 maybe?). And he used his 5 votes on guys who he really thought should be in, but either might be borderline, or would be in danger of falling off the ballot. So he felt his vote would be better utilized voting for someone else, when he knew Rickey would get 98ish % anyways. That said, I can understand where he comes from, but what if everyone did that, and Rickey didn't get in? I still clearly think everyone should vote for guys like Henderson, I can at least somewhat understand that reasoning. I don't buy the "Ty Cobb only got 80 %, so theres no way someone should be unanimous" arguement. Thats basically saying people before us made mistakes, so we are going to continue to make the same ones...so dumb That is interesting, I didn't realize they had a limited number of votes. That explains a lot about how candidates gain or lose votes each time, etc. I find that to be bogus. You should vote for whomever on the ballot you feel is worthy - none, 1, 5, 8 or however many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.