You're right, not sure why I said that. :lol: But I was going based on how the voters would do it.

If that's the case then my ballot completely changes. This is how YOU would vote if given a ballot.

Palmeiro

 

OK. I left him off initially due to the steroid issue.

 

If I was an actual voter my GUESS is I would not ban someone from the HOF for using or being suspected so I would include Raffy.

 

I guess I'd be consistent and include Biggio since he got to 3000 but I wouldn't feel strong about it. Really good career. Never elite.

If that's the case then my ballot completely changes. This is how YOU would vote if given a ballot.

 

McGwire

Morris

Bagwell

Sosa

Schilling

Clemens

Piazza

Bonds

Palmeiro

Bonds

McGwire

Palmeiro

Clemens

Sosa

Schilling

Piazza

 

 

Lee Smith

Mattingly

 

 

Smith and Mattingly mainly because they always seemed larger than life to me when I was a kid. I honestly don't know if their stats are Hall worthy.

How is no one including Biggio?

I have yet to vote, but for me Biggio was good for a lot of years. Never great. Not a transformational type talent, never considered the best in baseball for any season (best was 4th in the NL in the MVP race), just a well above average player with good longevity. The case for Biggio is all based on stats from my perspective. There was never one season of his career that a question be asked, "Who is the best 5 players in baseball?" and Biggio would not be on any of those lists. And yes the numbers are impressive, but my general rule is if you have to persuade that someone deserves in to the Hall, they do not belong. To put him in this year means he is worthy of consideration to be on the Mount Rushmore of baseball (i.e. First Ballot). That is not Craig Biggio.

I have yet to vote, but for me Biggio was good for a lot of years. Never great. Not a transformational type talent, never considered the best in baseball for any season (best was 4th in the NL in the MVP race), just a well above average player with good longevity. The case for Biggio is all based on stats from my perspective. There was never one season of his career that a question be asked, "Who is the best 5 players in baseball?" and Biggio would not be on any of those lists. And yes the numbers are impressive, but my general rule is if you have to persuade that someone deserves in to the Hall, they do not belong. To put him in this year means he is worthy of consideration to be on the Mount Rushmore of baseball (i.e. First Ballot). That is not Craig Biggio.

 

So 3,000 hits isn't a clincher to you, I'm guessing.

 

Baffles my mind, but to each his own.

So 3,000 hits isn't a clincher to you, I'm guessing.

 

Baffles my mind, but to each his own.

It is not. Extremely impressive, sure.

 

If Biggio ended his career at 2999 hits instead of hanging out to collect whatever number he did just beyond 3000, I would not look at him any differently.

 

I could not in good conscious vote for a guy to be a First Ballot Hall of Famer who was never even in consideration as one of the best players any season he every played.

So 3,000 hits isn't a clincher to you, I'm guessing.

 

Baffles my mind, but to each his own.

 

Biggio is exhibit A for those that say meeting a certain number should not automatically qualify you for the HOF.

 

Signed, the guy that isn't sold on Biggio but said 3k hits should get you in.

News just in that Biggio got hit by another pitch.

I have yet to vote, but for me Biggio was good for a lot of years. Never great. Not a transformational type talent, never considered the best in baseball for any season (best was 4th in the NL in the MVP race), just a well above average player with good longevity. The case for Biggio is all based on stats from my perspective. There was never one season of his career that a question be asked, "Who is the best 5 players in baseball?" and Biggio would not be on any of those lists. And yes the numbers are impressive, but my general rule is if you have to persuade that someone deserves in to the Hall, they do not belong. To put him in this year means he is worthy of consideration to be on the Mount Rushmore of baseball (i.e. First Ballot). That is not Craig Biggio.

 

Based on your criteria only about 10 guys should be in the HOF all-time. :lol:

 

Baseball is the one sport that stats are the ONLY barometer when it comes to judging a player. If we aren't going off those, what's the purpose of even keeping stats?

Based on your criteria only about 10 guys should be in the HOF all-time. :lol:

 

Baseball is the one sport that stats are the ONLY barometer when it comes to judging a player. If we aren't going off those, what's the purpose of even keeping stats?

 

The problem is that stats can't be compared easily over decades. 80s stats are not equal to 2000 stats which are not equal to 1940 stats. That by itself leaves a lot of subjective decisions to be made.

Biggio was the best 2B of his generation. That means he's a HOF'er in my book.

Based on your criteria only about 10 guys should be in the HOF all-time. :lol:

 

Baseball is the one sport that stats are the ONLY barometer when it comes to judging a player. If we aren't going off those, what's the purpose of even keeping stats?

Not necessarily. I am not throwing out the numbers, but numbers are not everything. We are talking 1st ballot here.

Not necessarily. I am not throwing out the numbers, but numbers are not everything. We are talking 1st ballot here.

 

No we're not. We're talking of guys you'd vote for, that's it.

 

And yes, if we're saying Biggio isn't a HOF'er, we're throwing numbers completely out.

 

Just thought I'd throw in some helpful info on Bonds that just appeared in a blog I was reading. Barry Bonds holds the four best seasons ever for fewest outs generated per plate appearance. In that obscenely good 2004 season, he grounded into just five double plays all season and had an all-time-best .609 on base percentage. Yikes.

 

The graphic is courtesy of FanGraphs via Beyond the Box Score, btw. Credit where credit is due.

Edited April 26, 201214 yr by Getslow