Announcement

**BradZ** · 01-07-2011, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Clay View Post

I wrote in Me and the entire 1991 Virginia Colonials

Invalid. You haven't met the waiting period yet.

**Sully** · 01-07-2011, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Clay View Post

I wrote in Me and the entire 1991 Virginia Colonials

Meh, if you and the '91 Colonials got in that would just put us through the trouble of placing an asterisk next to them 20 years from now when your indiscretions as a Commish become uncovered.

Fuck On!

**Clay** · 01-07-2011, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by BradZ View Post

Invalid. You haven't met the waiting period yet.

Trust me... no one has had a longer waiting period to win something around here than me.

**Lintyfresh85** · 01-07-2011, 12:33 PM

I passed on Taracena... mainly because he dicked me over when I needed him the most in my '87 Brewmasters run.

He just stopped hitting, period.

**Carlos** · 01-07-2011, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Lintyfresh85 View Post

I passed on Taracena... mainly because he dicked me over when I needed him the most in my '87 Brewmasters run.

He just stopped hitting, period.

My reasons for voting:

Top 10 in walks all-time as of 1991.

Led all retirees in walks and was fourth in OBP behind HOF Kellum and future HOFers (I'm doing that media thing right now) O'Fallon and Stiver.

Through 1987 (the year Taracena retired) he was second in walks all-time behind only Neil Hildebrand who started his career at 23 years-of-age. (Taracena started at 32).

Had he been younger, Hildebrand and Gremades would be chasing him.

I also didn't expect he'd make it in, but I thought he deserved to be in the 50% area for future consideration.

**Jake** · 01-07-2011, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Pat View Post

Latham is one of the best hitters the BLB has ever seen.

He also won multiple fielding awards.

Seven time All-Star.

And is #2 All-Time in stolen bases.

Add to it, he started his career at 31.

If you didn't vote for Latham, you clearly have no idea.

That's great. Perfect for if we had a founder's wing. But I'm not going to put him into the same hall of fame that Keppel or Gremades will eventually end up in. I know he started when he was 31, but although I'm in the minority, I don't take that into consideration as much as most people do. I take some consideration into it, but who's to say he didn't suck from 24-30 in the MLB.

I really thought we had a separate Founders Wing and when we were voting on these guys they would be marked as a founders wing or a legends wing, the legends wing being guys that had whole careers. I may do a search because I don't think I'm crazy, but maybe I'm making that up. Latham's a founders wing guy to me, but we weren't voting on that. Chav (the one I voted for) gets in on his own merit, IMO, although I was close to not voting for him either.

Originally posted by Jistic View Post

I would vote Latham into the Hall of Real Good. All time numbers don't mean shit to me at this point since the league is so young. Especially stolen base numbers from the early days. Everyone stole 60 bases back then.

I also don't like the fact that he only drove in 100 RBI ONCE, and that was playing in the greatest hitters park in league history. Yeah RBI is a "situational" stat, but if you play 10 years and you're supposedly a legend, you manage more than one season of over 100 RBI.

All star appearances don't mean a ton for me, and golden gloves Clay already alluded to. To me his career looks like a guy who did it really good for a real long time. He accumulated a lot of stats, but I try to think that in 50 seasons would we look at him and go, "How the fuck did this guy get in?"

+1, +1, +1.

I have no problem if people see fit to vote for 5 or 6 guys per class. But, to me, this is the Hall of Fame, and IMO that's for the best of the best of the best. And even though it'd be nice to have a large HOF now, do we really want to have 80 guys in there by 2005?

Most importantly, I'm also a guy who believes that being a first ballot HOF means something. For example, I don't think Chav would be a first ballot guy, but with our rules you don't know if a guy will be there the next year. It may well be the case that I give Latham a second look next year and say, sure, this guy is HOF worthy, but he damn sure wasn't first ballot worthy. I'm not suggesting we change the rules, but if we did something like, say, a guy is on the ballot for at least two years, and then if he doesn't get 50% after that, then he drops off... I think that'd allow for there to be a demarcation between first ballot guys and guys that aren't. Anyways, just my two cents.

PS, I think the utility is awesome and thanks to the HOF Committee, aka Brad, for getting everything together and stimulating discussion. Some really good talk in this thread. Thanks to Clay too for whatever he did behind the scenes. Fuck off.

**Carlos** · 01-07-2011, 06:53 PM

Oh, no, no, Jake. Don't you dare think you can even talk HOF without getting a rebuttal from me, sir!

I have nothing, but I now dislike you which is stronger than hate. Trust me.

**Jake** · 01-07-2011, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Carlos View Post

Oh, no, no, Jake. Don't you dare think you can even talk HOF without getting a rebuttal from me, sir!

I have nothing, but I now dislike you which is stronger than hate. Trust me.

You get me, Carlos.

**liquidcrash** · 01-07-2011, 06:54 PM

You think Shit is a HOF? I wouldn't put him in if Keppel is on the same ballot.

**BradZ** · 01-07-2011, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Jake View Post

Chav (the one I voted for) gets in on his own merit, IMO, although I was close to not voting for him either.

I guess I don't quite get this, because there's simply no way his numbers hold up in comparison to future inductees who pitch full careers. He simply didn't pitch enough seasons in the BLB to amass the totals we'll one day see in the HOF. I voted for him and believe he belongs, but I did so with the thought that he was handicapped by the fact that he started pitching when he was 29. Same argument being made for Latham.

**Delandis** · 01-07-2011, 07:03 PM

Then why is someone like Kellum in the HOF?

He was awesome for only 3 years. Or put another way, he was shit for half of his career. I can't see why he's elected in and a guy like Latham isn't.

**Jake** · 01-07-2011, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by BradZ View Post

I guess I don't quite get this, because there's simply no way his numbers hold up in comparison to future inductees who pitch full careers. He simply didn't pitch enough seasons in the BLB to amass the totals we'll one day see in the HOF. I voted for him and believe he belongs, but I did so with the thought that he was handicapped by the fact that he started pitching when he was 29. Same argument being made for Latham.

Two Pale Ales and three straight completely utterly dominant years from 82-84. You could really include 81 in that as well, but those are three absolutely untouchable years.

To me Latham had two truly dominant years, 81 and 84, and they still weren't unbelievable, pitch around me with the bases loaded, stout slugger type seasons, hence, he has no Stout Sluggers.

Anyways, Chav was borderline as well, but those years and two Pale Ales is what makes him worthy IMO.

**Carlos** · 01-07-2011, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Jake View Post

You get me, Carlos.

I actually do. I respect everyone's opinion. I'm still going to be the guy that throws votes at people, though, because I have no problems with a bigger Hall than most.

But, that's me. It's not like everyone is gonna start voting for the Clint Lance's of the world.

**Delandis** · 01-07-2011, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Jake View Post

Two Pale Ales and three straight completely utterly dominant years from 82-84. You could really include 81 in that as well, but those are three absolutely untouchable years.

I guess that's why everyone votes their own way. I think a HOF worthy player spans over time. People who flame out quickly are worthy but not as worthy (to me) as someone is consistently very good for a longer period of time.

**liquidcrash** · 01-07-2011, 07:18 PM

Looking ahead to next year, I think the following players become eligible:

 Casimiro Cabezas
Jon Cleary
Romano Gonzalez
Joe Sierra
Alberto Grandon

I was trying to find more, but it's not looking like much. I am looking forward to seeing at least one Carolina great making it in next year.

Announcement

HOF Voting

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment