Pedro will easily be a 1st balloter IMO.

 

Thome and Helton are interesting cases, although I'd put Helton in 1st.

I stand corrected on Smoltz, I forgot about him going to St. Louis. Does he get in? I think so.

 

Ichiro has a little over 2000 hits and is 37 years old. 3000 hits certainly isn't automatic and look at the hit totals for Larkin and Alomar. Plus Fred McGriff has 500+ homeruns. Now I think Ichiro has an edge because he is the first Japanesse player to have a chance.

 

Ichiro to me is like Kirby Puckett. Very short career for a hall of famer. FTW, I don't think Puckett has any business in the Hall.

 

McGriff doesn't have 500+. If I recall correctly he ended up with 493.

219 wins, not before Kaat, John, or Blyleven.

 

If you think any of those three were more dominant in their era than Pedro in his, then I've got some some farmland in Letcher Co. I'd like to show you.

 

Again, folks get too hung up on numbers rather than looking at the player in the era he played in. Sure, Jim Kaat won 283 games. But he also lost 237. And while I loved Blyleven, his winning percentage is even worse than Kaat's at 287-250. Tommy John went 288-231, slightly better than the other two. All three pitched in far more pitcher-friendly eras than Pedro.

McGriff doesn't have 500+. If I recall correctly he ended up with 493.

 

:thumb:

If Big Mac, Bonds, Clemens don't get in because of steroids, then why should A-Rod?

If Big Mac, Bonds, Clemens don't get in because of steroids, then why should A-Rod?

Or Manny?

I think many actual voters will discount his numbers.

 

Even in the steroid era? I understand your point, but I find it hard to believe.

Aroldis Chapman.

 

 

:sssh:

Or Manny?

 

Yeah, exactly. I just don't really get the double standard. I personally think the Hall should include the greatest players of all time so all of these players should get in at some point.

I think Pedro will get in. He was absolutely dominant.

 

Although his numbers may fall a little short of the others, he's right up there with Maddux, Glavine, and the Big Unit, IMO.

 

Clemens may make it, but the steroids accusations leave him off of my list.

I think Pedro will get in. He was absolutely dominant.

 

Although his numbers may fall a little short of the others, he's right up there with Maddux, Glavine, and the Big Unit, IMO.

 

Clemens may make it, but the steroids accusations leave him off of my list.

 

Pedro was really good but IMO he was nowhere near Maddux in the 90's.

Pedro was really good but IMO he was nowhere near Maddux in the 90's.

 

Um, yeah, he was. You've gotta look at it neutrally, which I know is hard for you. They are on par with one another; as a hitter I wouldn't want to face either of them.

Um, yeah, he was. You've gotta look at it neutrally, which I know is hard for you. They are on par with one another; as a hitter I wouldn't want to face either of them.

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Pedro and Maddux were two complete opposite pitchers. Pedro was hard throwing and mixed up his pitches whereas Maddux barely threw 90 but had a changeup that no one in baseball could hit.

 

 

I should have worded my statement differently. My previous post made it seem like Pedro wasn't a great pitcher when I said he was nowhere near Maddux, I should have said that they were similar in stats but that I still gave the edge to Maddux. As you said though, as a hitter, I'd hate to face either one.

Pedro and Maddux were two complete opposite pitchers. Pedro was hard throwing and mixed up his pitches whereas Maddux barely threw 90 but had a changeup that no one in baseball could hit.

 

 

I should have worded my statement differently. My previous post made it seem like Pedro wasn't a great pitcher when I said he was nowhere near Maddux, I should have said that they were similar in stats but that I still gave the edge to Maddux. As you said though, as a hitter, I'd hate to face either one.

 

At first Pedro & Maddux are no where close, now they have similar stats? Which one is it?

 

If you want to talk about a changeup that no one could hit, then Pedro's name has to be towards the top of that list...

If you're going to go by that, since when does 165? That's Sandy Koufax's career win total -- and that came in perhaps the most pitcher-friendly era of MLB history.

 

Pedro's one of the dominant SPs of his era, plus the fact that he's been injured so much actually works in his favor a bit, kind of like Griffey. I don't think anybody's ever looked at Pedro's slight stature and said, "Yep, he's a juicer."

 

We get hung up too much on the numbers aspect of it rather than judging the real impact of the player in the era he played in. Pedro easily passes the eyeball test, and has been as good a big-game pitcher as there is.

 

Why was the 60's and 70's considered pitcher friendly? Is it because pitchers routinely through 300 innings a season instead of pitching 6 innings and turning it over to relief specialist. Did into Blyleven's numbers alittle deeper. There were years when nearly half his wins were shutouts.

 

While I agree that the ballparks are smaller and the ball certainly seems more lively. I wouldn't consider an era where pitchers were expected to pitch complete games in a 4 man rotation to be all that friendly.