Did your HEAD grow to enormous proportions? Did you become a biology specimen when you looked in the mirror? I can't believe you actually said that. It's like you live in Egypt by the river. You know the one. The Nile.

Do we know Bagwell's head got bigger? He put on muscle but that isn't odd.

This is like talking to a shoe.

Posted by rsp777 on 11/28/2013 11:34:00 AM (view original):
One other opinion that I'd like to state...

If Pete Rose isn't in the HOF, there's no way that I'd EVER vote in guys like Clemens, McGwire, etc. who are tainted by the roid accusations. Ty Cobb was a racist ******** of a human bieng. Babe Ruth was a drunk. Not putting Rose in is a joke when you look at the reality of those before him. He deserves to be in and THEN we can talk about those who followed him.

The key word.......CONSISTENCY.......

I agree on the roiders. What PED users, and Pete both did was commit a "sin" against the game. Cobb and Ruth's character/vices didn't not directly taint the game itself, so I don't buy that comparison at all.

Also, this year will be a good test for the voters. If ever there was a player who should get 100% of the vote, it's Maddux. Anyone who doesn't put him on the ballot this year should immediately lose their voting privileges.

I really thought Cal Ripken would be the first player to get 100% & I thought Rickey Henderson would get closer to 100% also. 7 people didn't vote for Ripken. Not sure what criteria they use...

Posted by Got_Worms on 11/28/2013 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/27/2013 8:45:00 PM (view original):
I would vote for:

Frank Thomas
Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Craig Biggio
Greg Maddux
Tim Raines
Mark McGwire

Sosa, Edgar Martinez, and Bagwell are all very close, but I don't think I vote for any of them.  If somebody gave me a vote.

Mike Piazza isn't close or even worthy? Please tell me this was a blatant oversight!

,Sorry, I should have had him on the very close list, maybe even on the ballot.  Certainly ahead of Sosa and Bagwell.

As far as Glavine goes, I think our current understanding of baseball statistics and ability to accurately keep and compute more meaningful stats really should help us to get beyond relying on milestone numbers in our evaluation of HOF candidacy.  Yes, 300 wins still means you had to be a very good pitcher for a very long time.  There's no doubt about that.  And Glavine was remarkably durable throughout his career, and generally consistent, and pretty darn good.  But I just don't see HOF, at least not on the first ballot in a system in which voters seem to believe guys become more worthy after they've been on the ballot for several years.

Glavine's career ERA+ was 118.  The following guys on the ballot have better ERA+ numbers:

Armando Benitez, Roger Clemens, Eric Gagne, Greg Maddux, Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling, Lee Smith, Mike Timlin,

And these guys were worse:

Todd Jones, Jack Morris, Hideo Nomo, Kenny Rogers

Given that I left most of the guys ahead of him, including the starters, off my list, I think it would be pretty damn irresponsible to include Glavine exclusively on durability.

To me, Glavine "feels" like a HOFer. You hear his name and should think that he was one of the great pitchers of his era. 2 Cy Young awards, & a World Series MVP help his cause. Although, I think Trevor Hoffman should've won the 1998 NL Cy Young but that's a debate for another column.

Posted by Got_Worms on 11/29/2013 2:09:00 AM (view original):
I really thought Cal Ripken would be the first player to get 100% & I thought Rickey Henderson would get closer to 100% also. 7 people didn't vote for Ripken. Not sure what criteria they use...

Not sure how much truth there is to it, but I've heard some voters stubbornly refuse to put any player in on his first ballot. Why? I have no idea. Maybe it's just to be contrarian. I'm sure some voters aren't even baseball fans. It's like voters on an internet poll who see "Yes" at 100%, so they vote "No" solely for the purpose of keeping "Yes" from getting every vote. They don't want to see anyone get 100%.

Gwynn and Ripken should have gotten 100%. I understand it's a vote and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I really think the Hall should examine the voting trends of individual voters and looking for anything disturbing. If a voter refuses to vote for even the most deserving of players - among the best to ever play the game - they should be stripped of their voting privileges. I'm tired of guys who use their ballots to make a statement or show that the power lies with them and only THEY will decide who gets in and when.

If a guy is deserving, he's deserving - who gives a damn what year it is.

Posted by Jtpsops on 11/29/2013 12:03:00 AM (view original):
Also, this year will be a good test for the voters. If ever there was a player who should get 100% of the vote, it's Maddux. Anyone who doesn't put him on the ballot this year should immediately lose their voting privileges.

There is zero valid reasons to not vote for Maddux.  I think the entire "I won't vote for first year guys as a matter of principle" is incredibly stupid.

Posted by Got_Worms on 11/29/2013 2:09:00 AM (view original):
I really thought Cal Ripken would be the first player to get 100% & I thought Rickey Henderson would get closer to 100% also. 7 people didn't vote for Ripken. Not sure what criteria they use...

Ripken played games when he probably would have better served the team by sitting a game or two just to keep his consecutive game streak alive.  I thought he showed a bit of selfishness about that, a "me before the team" attitude.

The writers that vote for the Jay Bell, Aaron Sele, & BJ Surhoff's of the world should be publicly stoned in the town square, tarred & feathered, then returned to their editors office to explain themselves!

Posted by tecwrg on 11/29/2013 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Got_Worms on 11/29/2013 2:09:00 AM (view original):
I really thought Cal Ripken would be the first player to get 100% & I thought Rickey Henderson would get closer to 100% also. 7 people didn't vote for Ripken. Not sure what criteria they use...

Ripken played games when he probably would have better served the team by sitting a game or two just to keep his consecutive game streak alive.  I thought he showed a bit of selfishness about that, a "me before the team" attitude.

I wasn't aware Ripken filled out the lineup card each game. I wouldn't want a player on my team who didn't want to be out there every game - it's the manager's job to decide who plays everyday.

The fact is, for years Ripken at 80% was better than any other option the O's had.

Are you going to pretend to be so naive that you don't believe that Ripken and his streak was "bigger" than the games themselves in Baltimore?

Todd Jones accurately assesses his own HOF worthiness: http://deadspin.com/todd-jones-does-not-believe-todd-jones-belongs-in-the-h-1472848858