1996 HOF Voting

[Carlos]

This is the problem in my opinion. People are spending too much time worrying about what the HOF will look like in 20 years instead of comparing the players to their peers. A lot of the current candidates are founders wing type players which should be taken into consideration going forward. Obviously there will be a lot of players who blow Kellum's career stats away but that doesn't mean they should all get in the HOF because Kellum did.

I don't think this is completely the case, though.

Both Stiver and Chavaraga got in and both had incomplete careers. Enough members felt they both could have been much more impactful if drafted ten years ago rather than 15 years ago.

I think the sure-bet guys get in (Latham and Corrigan have been the only two sure bet, definitely HOF since forever guys) and the real question - and what I think starts this debate, to be honest - is how we view relievers.

Relievers, closers especially, are just a very tough vote. Cabezas got in, I'd suspect, because of his saves numbers. And though Lewis and Cleary struggle to get in (I'd like to note that they do continue to meet the criteria to remain on the ballot), neither had more saves than Cabezas.

So maybe what this is saying is, as a league, we value Saves more than anything else when it comes to a reliever?

Look at Wayne van Slyke. He put up 7 seasons with a 1.14 WHIP or lower. Sprinkle in a couple more at 1.20 or so. He also saved 389 games despite being a middle reliever for four of his best seasons. If he was a closer at that time, he would have over 500 saves. Struck out nearly a batter an inning and walked hardly a soul.

Yet he has one vote. What argument can anyone really have against him but to say: He didn't save enough games.

Is that a fair argument? I don't know. It isn't fair to me, but obviously 20 other owners disagree with me, so that's how it goes.

I think we've done a great job getting the guys in that deserve to be while also recognizing those that had short careers due to having a late start.

The relievers are another matter. And if Cleary and Lewis continue to sit on the bubble, it at least proves we recognize their contributions, we just don't see closers being that important to the league's history.

[Ryan]

Like others have said, the best way to judge guys is to look at the guys they played against. If they stood out against the guys they played with/against, who cares if they stand out in another era? Apples and oranges.

[Lintyfresh85]

Look at Wayne van Slyke. He put up 7 seasons with a 1.14 WHIP or lower. Sprinkle in a couple more at 1.20 or so. He also saved 389 games despite being a middle reliever for four of his best seasons. If he was a closer at that time, he would have over 500 saves. Struck out nearly a batter an inning and walked hardly a soul.

Yet he has one vote. What argument can anyone really have against him but to say: He didn't save enough games.

For one thing, his ERC (sort of an FIP for OOTP, I believe) is 2.79.

Cleary is 2.42 and Lewis is 2.41.

That's a big difference, especially for specialist like RPs.

[Andrew]

, we just don't see closers being that important to the league's history.

And that's what I strongly disagree with. If a player is dominant at his position for a significant period of time, he should be a hall of famer regardless of position.

[Lintyfresh85]

And that's what I strongly disagree with. If a player is dominant at his position for a significant period of time, he should be a hall of famer regardless of position.

Like Edgar Martinez.

[Ryan]

Like Edgar Martinez.

+1.

Get him on the ballot!

[Carlos]

For one thing, his ERC (sort of an FIP for OOTP, I believe) is 2.79.

Cleary is 2.42 and Lewis is 2.41.

That's a big difference, especially for specialist like RPs.

Don't mix logic into the conversation.

And that's what I strongly disagree with. If a player is dominant at his position for a significant period of time, he should be a hall of famer regardless of position.

How long is significant? Just curious on your opinion of it.

I personally don't see Cleary as being dominant for a significant amount of time. I see it as close, but not long enough for me.

By the way, my opinion is 10 great years. I count 8 when I looked at Cleary. I count 10 for Lewis. And 10 for Cabezas. I currently count 7 for Diaz at 32. Simmonds had 10 before he fell apart. Krnichsdiasfdf has maybe 4 (if I remember correctly). I don't remember what I saw for Bayer but it was under 10, more than 5. Olivo has 3.

But I look for different things so I'm not saying I'm the ultimate right answer, I'm just pointing out what I look for and what I see.


edit: Looking at it again and being a harder ass about it and I take a year or two away from Lewis now. So I see them even. Maybe I'm being too hard on closers.

[Clay]

4 More Ballots due by Wednesday AM.

[Clay]

Los Alamos
Morgantown
Wilmington

You have less than 24 hours to vote (or submit a blank ballot)

[Lintyfresh85]

If I'm reading the results correctly, Cleary will be on the ballot for another year regardless of how the last three vote.

Lewis, on the other hand, needs more votes to make it back on for 1997.

[Andrew]

How long is significant? Just curious on your opinion of it.

It's different depending on the individual. 8 dominant years with 4 position awards during a 12 year career that started at the age of 27 is significant to me.

To me the only players that enter into the argument for comparisons sake are Cabezas and Lewis because they were already in their prime when the league started. The other players you listed started their careers at an age where they had the opportunity for a full career van Slyke (24), Diaz (22), Simmonds (20).

[Carlos]

It's different depending on the individual. 8 dominant years with 4 position awards during a 12 year career that started at the age of 27 is significant to me.

To me the only players that enter into the argument for comparisons sake are Cabezas and Lewis because they were already in their prime when the league started. The other players you listed started their careers at an age where they had the opportunity for a full career van Slyke (24), Diaz (22), Simmonds (20).

Thats a good point. I'm already softening up on him.


Sent from my mobile device.

[Clay]

1 vote left (Wilmington)

Harcourt and Hiraki got hosed.

[liquidcrash]

I've never hated the other owners in this league more than I do now that Ponte is going to fall off the ballot.

[Delandis]

1 vote left (Wilmington)

Harcourt and Hiraki got hosed.

I figured if Nathan wasn't making it, neither was Harcourt or Ponte...