2011 Hall of Fame Voting

[Z]

Still, guys who are top ten all-time in hits or second best OBP ever (as a catcher!) or multi-time Stout Sluggers or Pale Ales are being left out in the voting here.

What does it accomplish to leave guys like that out?

Meanwhile, let's elect a couple more relief pitchers because they made lots of All-Star teams — which is really easy to do as a good relief pitcher.

Still no starting pitchers are that close, even though I pointed out right at the beginning that we haven't elected a starting pitcher in forever and we really, really need to loosen our standards and start letting a few of those guys in.

Same with the outfield crop.

It's frustrating. I'm frustrated.

I realize it's a fake game with fake players and it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of life.

But I've — we've — invested years of our own lives in this league and in all the conversations we've had with one another.

I'd like that time to be acknowledged and remembered in some way by electing the best players from that time into our fake person Hall of Fame.

It appears that we have ZERO guys currently making it from the "Veteran" ballot. Come on!

[Delandis]

Unrelated to the last few posts, everyone OPSed over .800 in the 80's.

I can't tell if you are being facetious or not but exactly 64 players from 1978-1990 OPS'd .800 or above. That seems like a pretty small amount of active players over a 12 year period to me.

Take a guy like George for example. He has 2800+ his in career. Only 10 players in history have done that. The other 9 are in the HOF or shoe-ins. This is 30 years of history we are talking about.

[Z]

I can't tell if you are being facetious or not but exactly 64 players from 1978-1990 OPS'd .800 or above. That seems like a pretty small amount of active players over a 12 year period to me.

Take a guy like George for example. He has 2800+ his in career. Only 10 players in history have done that. The other 9 are in the HOF or shoe-ins. This is 30 years of history we are talking about.

Yes!

And he's a middle infielder and we have ZERO middle infielders in the Hall as of now.

[Matt]

Even if 5 get in it will be okay.

If we keep anyone who got over 50% there will still be 15 or so on the vets committee.

[umd]

I voted for 36. Had to take off an MR.

[Matt]

I didn't realize no vets have made the cut currently. At least one needs to make it I should think.

[Delandis]

Same here.

[Ryan]

We really need to hear from those not voting these guys in. I get being thorough in your selection process, but there are guys not getting in, that really deserve it. Numbers don't lie, girl.

[Z]

We really need to hear from those not voting these guys in. I get being thorough in your selection process, but there are guys not getting in, that really deserve it. Numbers don't lie, girl.

Yes. I'd really like to hear from other voices so we can understand what is going on.

[mike]

I voted for players who produced numbers that were worthy of HOF. I don't know who they are vs their competition because I wasn't here but if they produced numbers that I thought were good, they were on my ballot

[Z]

I voted for players who produced numbers that were worthy of HOF. I don't know who they are vs their competition because I wasn't here but if they produced numbers that I thought were good, they were on my ballot

Appreciate the insight.

The problem is two-fold with counting stats:

1. This league doesn't generate the same stats that MLB does.

In 33 seasons we have 3 guys with 500 home runs, 6 guys with 3,000 hits, 0 pitchers with 300 wins, and only 2 pitchers with 250 wins.

Voting based on MLB milestones isn't appropriate. If we use MLB markers we'll have no one in the Hall and that's dumb.

2. Some veteran guys in this league didn't have full careers because of their age when the league started. That needs to be taken into consideration in the voting.

Bottom line is if we want a Hall of Fame that works, we need to look at stats relative to other BLB players, not compared to MLB milestones that aren't relevant to the BLB.

[Ryan]

Appreciate the insight.

The problem is two-fold with counting stats:

1. This league doesn't generate the same stats that MLB does.

In 33 seasons we have 3 guys with 500 home runs, 6 guys with 3,000 hits, 0 pitchers with 300 wins, and only 2 pitchers with 250 wins.

Voting based on MLB milestones isn't appropriate. If we use MLB markers we'll have no one in the Hall and that's dumb.

2. Some veteran guys in this league didn't have full careers because of their age when the league started. That needs to be taken into consideration in the voting.

Bottom line is if we want a Hall of Fame that works, we need to look at stats relative to other BLB players, not compared to MLB milestones that aren't relevant to the BLB.

All of this.

[Z]

I want to expand on that comment a little more.

Let's look at home runs as an example.

We've only had 2 50-home run seasons and they've both come in the last three seasons. For a very long time the BLB home run record was 47 home runs in a year.

The career mark is 572 home runs and only 3 guys have amassed more than 500 homers.

Obviously BLB players hit fewer home runs on average than MLB players.

That should help illustrate that the home run benchmarks for measuring sluggers in this league need to be lower than the MLB standards we're accustomed to.

I'll point out some specific examples.

Joe Rojas' 413 home runs and Jared Kirby's 383 home runs are very impressive in the BLB. Rojas is 8th all-time. The 7 guys ahead of him are in the Hall. Kirby is 13th in career home runs.

For comparison's sake, Reggie Jackson is 13th in MLB history with 563 homers. The standards are different. We need to vote with BLB standards.

Let's try single season numbers.

There have only been 37 occurrences where a player hit 40 or more home runs in a season in the BLB. In the MLB, that's pretty common. But here it's a rare feat.

Carmem Chamissa has 4 40-homer seasons. Put another way, Carmem Chamissa is responsible for more than 10% of the BLB's 40-homer seasons. All by himself. That's fucking impressive.

[mike]

Appreciate the insight.

The problem is two-fold with counting stats:

1. This league doesn't generate the same stats that MLB does.

In 33 seasons we have 3 guys with 500 home runs, 6 guys with 3,000 hits, 0 pitchers with 300 wins, and only 2 pitchers with 250 wins.

Voting based on MLB milestones isn't appropriate. If we use MLB markers we'll have no one in the Hall and that's dumb.

2. Some veteran guys in this league didn't have full careers because of their age when the league started. That needs to be taken into consideration in the voting.

Bottom line is if we want a Hall of Fame that works, we need to look at stats relative to other BLB players, not compared to MLB milestones that aren't relevant to the BLB.

I'm not voting based on MLB milestones but there's no way I'm gonna vote for a non- Middle infielder who has a sub .800 OPS. I understand that there's not a lot of HOF guys but at the end of the day I'd rather not have a lot than have too many of guys who aren't deserving.

[Z]

I'm not voting based on MLB milestones but there's no way I'm gonna vote for a non- Middle infielder who has a sub .800 OPS. I understand that there's not a lot of HOF guys but at the end of the day I'd rather not have a lot than have too many of guys who aren't deserving.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, Mike.

Dane Browning and Curt Dodson are the only non-middle infielders on the ballot who didn't have at least an .800 OPS. And no one's losing sleep over them not getting votes.

Maybe there's a different standard or stat you have in mind?