I think its gonna be just Larkin. Morris is probably the 2nd most likely guy. Hopefully Raines gets in this year because the next few years are going to be loaded.

This recent outpouring of support for Bernie Williams is quite troubling to me. He's the epitome of a Hall of Very Good Guy. He's a way off obviously, but it's still puzzling. I'd love to see more love for Edgar Martinez, but that's a tough, uphill climb. Cosign with Larkin and nobody else.

 

Originally Posted by krs33

Some good LOLs on MLB Network right now.


Really interested to see how it plays out next year

The 2013 ballot figures to be the most controversial, with seven-time MVP Barry Bonds and seven-time Cy Young Award winner Roger Clemens eligible for the first time along with Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling and Sammy Sosa.

I despise the Baseball Hall of Fame with a passion. It's my biggest pet peeve in sports. I hate it that they make a guy wait over and over again and then he finally gets in. Why torture these poor guys? They are either HOF'ers or not. I hate all of this "first ballot HOF'er" shit. They make Ron Santo wait forever then finally let him in after he dies. The whole thing is full of sick old nits that just seem to have alternative motives.

Larkin is borderline, but I have no problem with him getting in. If Bonds doesnt get in unanimously next year, they should just blow up the building and start over because it would all be a sham.

I've ranted and raved enough about the Hall of Above Average, the consistent lowering of requirements and watering down of the quality of the inductees, and the inexplicable "people aren't good enough for seven to ten years of eligibility then suddenly their voting percentages go up every year until they get in cuz voters feel bad for them" garbage that happens every year. If Larkin wasn't good enough last year (and I don't think he should be in), why is he suddenly an 86% guy now? It's simple, if people don't vote for him, they don't get to go to Cooperstown for his induction this year. Total garbage, and not likely that the system gets fixed any time soon...

 

Bill Mueller got just four votes and will be dropped in future years,

oh well

 

Originally Posted by zander

I've ranted and raved enough about the Hall of Above Average, the consistent lowering of requirements and watering down of the quality of the inductees, and the inexplicable "people aren't good enough for seven to ten years of eligibility then suddenly their voting percentages go up every year until they get in cuz voters feel bad for them" garbage that happens every year. If Larkin wasn't good enough last year (and I don't think he should be in), why is he suddenly an 86% guy now? It's simple, if people don't vote for him, they don't get to go to Cooperstown for his induction this year. Total garbage, and not likely that the system gets fixed any time soon...

i've been saying this exact thing for years. I've always wanted to see the years eligible reduce to 5 and min to stay on ballot at 50%, and to reduce the number of people you can vote for from 10 to 7

 

Originally Posted by zander

The problem with this is that if you allow your logic to compound the initial fuckup, now everyone as good as Rizzutto or Aparicio has to get in. Which means everyone gets in.

The problem with that logic in this case is that Larkin's career OPS is .815, that isn't just slightly better than previous shortstops who made the Hall. To some extent I agree with you about Jim Rice, but maybe only because I think Dwight Evans is actually the more deserving Red Sox outfielder from that era. However, Jim Rice was the Frank Thomas of his day, just with a shorter career and playing in a lower scoring environment.

Tim Raines needs to get in ffs.

 

Originally Posted by zander

I've ranted and raved enough about the Hall of Above Average, the consistent lowering of requirements and watering down of the quality of the inductees, and the inexplicable "people aren't good enough for seven to ten years of eligibility then suddenly their voting percentages go up every year until they get in cuz voters feel bad for them" garbage that happens every year. If Larkin wasn't good enough last year (and I don't think he should be in), why is he suddenly an 86% guy now? It's simple, if people don't vote for him, they don't get to go to Cooperstown for his induction this year. Total garbage, and not likely that the system gets fixed any time soon...

How do you figure? Votes per ballot is at an all time low...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/aw...-history.shtml

Sort by vts/blt and see what I'm talking about

 

Originally Posted by that_pope

How do you figure? Votes per ballot is at an all time low...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/aw...-history.shtml

Sort by vts/blt and see what I'm talking about

Which means that one of the following is true:

a) There are less great players today than in years past

b) You know more about the current players than the 1800s players to pass judgement better

c) It just seems like there are less truly great players because the overall average talent level of the game is so much greater than 50 years ago, so it is much harder to be a huge outlier when the whole world is involved instead of the whole US white population

 

Originally Posted by ltquick

How do Ruth, Mays and Aaron not get voted in unanimously on the first ballot?

Politics. My favorite player who was the best of all time didn't get 100%, so neither do these players.

 

Originally Posted by whitealroker

I think Bonds is a giant douche. Hate him.

He deserves to be in the hall of fame.

My steriods standard is "would they have put up HOF numbers without steriods?" Bonds a absoulte yes. Clemens too(another asshole).

Sosa, nope.

How about McGwire?

 

Originally Posted by Milo

Morris deserves the HoF, but he, like Rice (and Bonds) loses a lot of votes because he had an adversarial relationship with the pressers who vote for the Hall. It blows, but it's the truth.

Adversarial relationship? Have you seen some of the articles reporters have written about him?

 

Originally Posted by that_pope

Politics. My favorite player who was the best of all time didn't get 100%, so neither do these players.

Maddux will be an interesting case. There isn't a person on earth who can make a legit case about him getting in on the first ballot.

 

Originally Posted by krs33

Adversarial relationship? Have you seen some of the articles reporters have written about him?

Yes, I have. But I have also read that Morris was a nasty SOB towards those in the press who may have been critical of him at any time, on any topic. He has his sycophants, as do all the greats. But he has a devoted legion of haters, too. And I am betting those haters make up a good chunk of the voters, n'est pas?