Cast your Dee Tee baseball HoF vote

[phystech]

Harold Baines

Bert Blyleven

†Rickey Henderson

Jim Rice

[steve]

blyleven, rice, hederson,mo vaughn

Harold Baines
†Jay Bell
Bert Blyleven
†David Cone
Andre Dawson
†Ron Gant
†Mark Grace
†Rickey Henderson
Tommy John
Don Mattingly
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
†Jesse Orosco
Dave Parker
†Dan Plesac
Tim Raines
Jim Rice
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
†Greg Vaughn
†Mo Vaughn
†Matt Williams


If Bert B. does not get in I swear I will fart.
Real soon.
I will fart.

[timmgirvan]

Blyleven
Raines
Henderson
Dawson
Moris

[King Glorious]

Two lists.

Based on how I would set up my own personal hall of fame:
Bert Blyleven
†Rickey Henderson
Don Mattingly
Jim Rice

Based on who's already in there:
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
†Rickey Henderson
Tommy John
Don Mattingly
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
†Jesse Orosco
Dave Parker
Tim Raines
Jim Rice
Lee Smith

[Cannon Shell]

David Cone- at first glance you think that David Cone simply doesnt have the career numbers to make the hall of fame. When you look at his career though he was an outstanding pitcher with some credentials. He won 20 games twice, won a Cy Young, 5 times was in the top 5 in Cy Young voting, pitched a perfect game, was a good playoff pitcher and was generally considered a top pitcher of his time. However like many of his peers like Orel Hershiser and Doc Gooden they just dont measure up to the other starting pitchers in the Hall of Fame. The only close measure is Dazzy Vance who amazingly enough didn't start pitching full time until he was 31 years old. Though he as a very good pitcher Cone simply didn't do enough compared to the standard set by other Hall of Fame pitchers.

Andre Dawson- I am amazed at the amount of people that support Jim Rice yet dont support Dawson. Dawson was clearly not only the better player (by a large margin) he had a better career. Dawson was one of the few players in baseball history to be able to transform his game as he aged from one that depended on speed to one that stressed power as his legs gave way. He won a rookie of the year award, won a MVP award, was 2nd in the voting two other times, won 8 gold gloves, stole over 300 bases, won 4 silver slugger awards, hit 438 HR's, 500 2b's , almost 100 3bs (98), had 2774 hits, 1373 runs, 1591 rbis's, and his numbers match up very nicely with hall of Famers, Billy Williams, Al Kaline, Tony Perez, Dave Winfield and Ernie Banks.
Another penalized by spending his best years in Montreal. In my mind he belongs.

Ron Gant- Not Hall of Fame material

Mark Grace- Nice career, no Hall of fame for him

Rickey Henderson- Not only the greatest leadoff hitter in modern baseball history, there is no one even close. Should be unanimous but some moron will leave him off.

Tommy John- Though John has similar numbers to Blyleven he has a couple of advantages that should be counted against him in that comaprison. Number one he started pitching in the mid 60's where the advantages for pitchers were many. He also played for mostly winning teams which led to a better record than his other stats indicate. He was a really good pitcher in the mid 70' to 1980 but was pretty ordinary the rest of his career. Not for me.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Andre Dawson- I am amazed at the amount of people that support Jim Rice yet dont support Dawson. Dawson was clearly not only the better player (by a large margin) he had a better career. Dawson was one of the few players in baseball history to be able to transform his game as he aged from one that depended on speed to one that stressed power as his legs gave way. He won a rookie of the year award, won a MVP award, was 2nd in the voting two other times, won 8 gold gloves, stole over 300 bases, won 4 silver slugger awards, hit 438 HR's, 500 2b's , almost 100 3bs (98), had 2774 hits, 1373 runs, 1591 rbis's, and his numbers match up very nicely with hall of Famers, Billy Williams, Al Kaline, Tony Perez, Dave Winfield and Ernie Banks.
Another penalized by spending his best years in Montreal. In my mind he belongs.

[.

In his prime Dawson was the better defensive player by a large margin...but offensively he was not close. I don't know how ball park plays into that...but Rice was 20 points higher career average...30 points higher career OBP and 20 points higher career slugging. Dawson was a power hitter from day one. He hit 19 as a rookie which in the mid 70s was a decent number and was hitting 25 by his second year. His game was not speed based ever. He was a power hitter who could run in his Montreal days. I don't think he transferred his game...he simply improved his power naturally as he aged and as his knees fell apart he lost his speed. He had enough power to be a plus offensive power if he had no speed at all...the speed early in his career was just a bonus and yes, Rice never did have that.

If you want to call Dawson a better player I have no problem with that...by a large margin is laughable. I honestly don't know how much a liability Rice was in left field if at all. Rice was a far superior offensive player as the numbers verify however...and I'm not sure how much of that was ballpark influenced. All phases of the game, I'd agree Dawson was better, but I think Rice was better by a pretty large margin with the bat which is why I prefer Rice as a HOFer more than Dawson though I think both are pretty questionable.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

In his prime Dawson was the better defensive player by a large margin...but offensively he was not close. I don't know how ball park plays into that...but Rice was 20 points higher career average...30 points higher career OBP and 20 points higher career slugging. Dawson was a power hitter from day one. He hit 19 as a rookie which in the mid 70s was a decent number and was hitting 25 by his second year. His game was not speed based ever. He was a power hitter who could run in his Montreal days. I don't think he transferred his game...he simply improved his power naturally as he aged and as his knees fell apart he lost his speed. He had enough power to be a plus offensive power if he had no speed at all...the speed early in his career was just a bonus and yes, Rice never did have that.

If you want to call Dawson a better player I have no problem with that...by a large margin is laughable. I honestly don't know how much a liability Rice was in left field if at all. Rice was a far superior offensive player as the numbers verify however...and I'm not sure how much of that was ballpark influenced. All phases of the game, I'd agree Dawson was better, but I think Rice was better by a pretty large margin with the bat which is why I prefer Rice as a HOFer more than Dawson though I think both are pretty questionable.

There are five tools that players are measured by. Fielding, throwing running hitting for average and hitting for power. Dawson was laughably better at fielding, throwing and running while Rice was marginally better as a hitter. Overall Dawson was a better player because he was clearly superior in three catagories while marginally worse in others though if you take into consideration the ballpark factors is probably even. Olympic stadium was never a good hitting enviroment. Not to mention his career numbers which are a major factor in hall of fame voting are better in hits, runs, rbis, 2b, 3bs, hrs, SBs and in negative far fewer GIDP. I just dont see why you think Rice was better by a clear margin as a hitter. Go to baseball-reference.com and neutralize the stats and see what the numbers look like without park bias.

[Cannon Shell]

Don Mattingly- By all accounts a classy guy. No doubt he was great player before his back injury. But 6 top seasons does not make for a hall of fame career. From 1984 to 1989 he was one of the best players in baseball but that simply isnt enough as his peak was not historic by any measure and his career numbers are not even close. Sorry sentiment aside he didnt have a hall of fame career.

Mark McGwire- since we live in America under a presumption of innocence I only took into consideration McGwires career and not the innuendo of steroid usage. He made the all star team in 12 of his thirteen full seasons. He hit 583 HR's. The numbers are there but I think most will hold the era against him.

[Cannon Shell]

Tim Raines- Raines was a better player than Lou Brock but Brock hit one of those magic numbers, 3000 hits. Raines may have had 400 less hits than Brock but had close to 600 more walks and was a much better base stealer as he was successful on 808 while getting caught 146 versus Brock's 938 and 307. He had a long run of top years and while he wasnt the best leadoff/speed player with Henderson in the league he was far superior to the rest. He also matches up favorably with other players of his type that are in the Hall namely Fred Clarke and Max Carey. He should be in.

Jim Rice- Rice was always a good hitter, but was he good enough? He seems like a Hall of famer and his career almost looks good enough but for a pwer hitter he doesnt rank very high on the lifetime power lists. He has less hits, HR's, runs, and rbi's than Dawson. He never hit any of the important milestone numbers and was an extremely one dimensional player as he was a poor fielder and pretty slow. You have to draw a line somewhere and I draw the line at Rice.

Lee Smith- Hard to judge closers

Alan Trammell- Overshadowed by Ripken and Ozzie Smith, he was a solid player who may have been inducted if he had played in the 40's or 50's.

Greg Vaughn- Why?

Mo Vaughn- Maybe the fat dude HoF

Matt Williams- No

[SCUDSBROTHER]

[quote=Cannon Shell]Tim Raines- Raines may have had 400 less hits than Brock..............Raines had 808 stolen bases.... Brock had 938 ....

Seems like the guy mainly just played forever. I don't see it. I doubt others will, and I bet he doesn't get in. Why do you want to give so much credit to somebody with a tiny strike zone (that resulted in getting a lot of walks?) Of course it's gunna be easy for Raines to get walks. It's pretty easy for Furcal, too. If you want a mediocre player to get in, then save your mediocre vote for when Biggio comes up.

[Cannon Shell]

[quote=SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Tim Raines- Raines may have had 400 less hits than Brock..............Raines had 808 stolen bases.... Brock had 938 ....

Seems like the guy mainly just played forever. I don't see it. I doubt others will, and I bet he doesn't get in. Why do you want to give so much credit to somebody with a tiny strike zone (that resulted in getting a lot of walks?) Of course it's gunna be easy for Raines to get walks. It's pretty easy for Furcal, too. If you want a mediocre player to get in, then save your mediocre vote for when Biggio comes up.

actually the majority of his important numbers were accumulated during a 11 year period where he was a premier player. He was a better player than other Hall of famers of his type AND he accumulated a signifigant number of milestones.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

[quote=Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

actually the majority of his important numbers were accumulated during a 11 year period where he was a premier player. He was a better player than other Hall of famers of his type AND he accumulated a signifigant number of milestones.

I don't consider walks to be an important skill stat. It has too much to do with strike-zone size to be that important in voting. For instance, when I see Furcal bunt to the shortstop(or 2nd baseman,) it takes so much more skill than when he simply gets a walk by crouching down to form a tiny strike zone.

[Cannon Shell]

[quote=SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I don't consider walks to be an important skill stat. It has too much to do with strike-zone size to be that important in voting. For instance, when I see Furcal bunt to the shortstop(or 2nd baseman,) it takes so much more skill than when he simply gets a walk by crouching down to form a tiny strike zone.

With a guy who was a basestealing threat like Raines was a walk can be similar to a double not to mention the havoc that guys like him and Henderson caused while on the basebaths. A walk to a guy like Raines was often more valuable than a single from Boggs or Gwynn.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

[quote=Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

With a guy who was a basestealing threat like Raines was a walk can be similar to a double not to mention the havoc that guys like him and Henderson caused while on the basebaths. A walk to a guy like Raines was often more valuable than a single from Boggs or Gwynn.

If he actually used it(the walk) to then attempt to steal, then I would agree. Must not be that true, because the guy still didn't get more steals than Lou Brock(although you say he had so many more walks that could have easily resulted in steal attempts.) See, there is a lot that goes into whether someone(who can steal) actually attempts to steal when they get on 1st base. Has to do with the manager, the quality of the batters behind you(and in front of you.) If he was able to turn more of the walks he had (way more than Brock) into steals, then he would have a lot more steals than Brock(but he doesn't.) Putting base-stealer types in is kind of like respecting a fetish. We have 2 major ones(Henderson n' Brock,) and I think that's enough. It's like fat chicks, or something like that.

[King Glorious]

[quote=Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

With a guy who was a basestealing threat like Raines was a walk can be similar to a double not to mention the havoc that guys like him and Henderson caused while on the basebaths. A walk to a guy like Raines was often more valuable than a single from Boggs or Gwynn.

Very, very true.