Team Halls of Fame general discussion thread

[jalbright]

I'll work on updating the lists with jjpm's suggestions tonight.

[dgarza]

NL East

Braves
Tim Hudson
Chipper Jones
Andruw Jones
Brian McCann

add :
Rafael Furcal

Marlins
Miguel Cabrera
Luis Castillo
Hanley Ramirez

contributor
Jim Leyland*

no one else, too soon for Josh Johnson

Mets
Carlos Beltran
R. A. Dickey
Jose Reyes
Johan Santana
David Wright

I see no one else

Nationals
Vladimir Guerrero

contributor
Felipe Alou*

I don't know about adding Ryan Zimmerman. Hmmmm.... too soon?

Phillies
Bobby Abreu
Cole Hamels
Ryan Howard
Scott Rolen
Jimmy Rollins
Chase Utley

add :
Shane Victorino - considering he's already in his 30s, I think I'll throw his name into the hat

[jjpm74]

no one else, too soon for Josh Johnson

Tough call on Josh Johnson, as he is a free agent at the end of this year, but he has 8 years and 23.2 WAR combined with 17.7 WAA.

I don't know about adding Ryan Zimmerman. Hmmmm.... too soon?

He's in his 8th year with the franchise and already has 25.1 WAR. Even with no more games with the Nationals, that's enough to elect him, IMO. Add to this the fact that he is signed through 2019 with a club option in 2020.

When it comes to young stars who have long term contracts and already have 3+ years of success with a given franchise, and are on the bubble when it comes to how much they have already done for the franchise, I'm leaning towards factoring in their contracts and giving a little more leeway than I was with retired players. I am not projecting, as it is too easy for a career to go downhill, but if a player has received a long term deal, that means they are held in high regard in the organization and with fans which are two standards I've factored in for players who statistically are slightly below my typical standard since the beginning of this project.

[jalbright]

Tough call on Josh Johnson, as he is a free agent at the end of this year, but he has 8 years and 23.2 WAR combined with 17.7 WAA.



He's in his 8th year with the franchise and already has 25.1 WAR. Even with no more games with the Nationals, that's enough to elect him, IMO. Add to this the fact that he is signed through 2019 with a club option in 2020.

When it comes to young stars who have long term contracts and already have 3+ years of success with a given franchise, and are on the bubble when it comes to how much they have already done for the franchise, I'm leaning towards factoring in their contracts and giving a little more leeway than I was with retired players. I am not projecting, as it is too easy for a career to go downhill, but if a player has received a long term deal, that means they are held in high regard in the organization and with fans which are two standards I've factored in for players who statistically are slightly below my typical standard since the beginning of this project.

The problem I have with this is, no matter what you say, it amounts to a projection. It may be unlikely an everyday player will have that kind of injury, but it does happen--and pitchers it happens far too frequently. The concept is that there would be elections in the future, and if they perform as expected, they would get in at that time. If people are going to basically disregard the rules, I'm not going to bother. Consider your course carefully.

[dgarza]

NL West

Diamondbacks

I see none

Dodgers

add :
Adrian Beltre

Giants
Jason Schmidt

contributor
Brian Sabean*

add :
Matt Cain

Padres
Adrian Gonzalez
Jake Peavy

add :
Heath Bell

Rockies
Todd Helton
Troy Tulowitzki

add :
Brian Fuentes

[dgarza]

AL Central

Indians
Travis Hafner
Victor Martinez
C. C. Sabathia
Grady Sizemore
Jim Thome
Omar Vizquel

add :
Bartolo Colon

Royals
Carlos Beltran
David DeJesus
Zack Greinke

add :
Joakim Soria

Tigers
Carlos Guillen
Justin Verlander

add :
Curtis Granderson

Twins
Joe Mauer
Justin Morneau
Johan Santana

add :
Torii Hunter
Joe Nathan

White Sox
Mark Buehrle
Magglio Ordonez

add :
Paul Konerko
Matt Thornton

[dgarza]

I'm real hesitant on players who are still with their clubs and only in their 20s. These players better have done a lot, like have a WAR in the upper-20s. There's just too much that can change. They could get injured, traded (no matter the contact length), or just have such poor seasons that they start accumulating negative value.

With players in their 30s and still with the club, I'm a little more open to taking their time with the club at more of a face value.

With active players no longer with the club, it's pretty easy for me to choose.

[jjpm74]

I'm real hesitant on players who are still with their clubs and only in their 20s. These players better have done a lot, like have a WAR in the upper-20s. There's just too much that can change. They could get injured, traded (no matter the contact length), or just have such poor seasons that they start accumulating negative value.

With players in their 30s and still with the club, I'm a little more open to taking their time with the club at more of a face value.

With active players no longer with the club, it's pretty easy for me to choose.

Why is a WAR of 15-18 acceptable to you (based on the 100+ players you have voted yes on in this project that next to no one outside of you voted yes on), but a player in their 20s must be in their upper 20s in WAR? That doesn't make any sense. A player either did enough or they didn't. How old they are shouldn't matter. That's like saying Albert Pujols is not a HOFer if he retired tomorrow because he isn't 34 or older.

[dgarza]

Why is a WAR of 15-18 acceptable to you (based on the 100+ players you have voted yes on in this project that next to no one outside of you voted yes on), but a player in their 20s must be in their upper 20s in WAR? That doesn't make any sense. A player either did enough or they didn't. How old they are shouldn't matter. That's like saying Albert Pujols is not a HOFer if he retired tomorrow because he isn't 34 or older.

Because, hypothetically, current players should get their due anyhow once they retire. So there's no rush for me to vote for them now. Once they retire, I'll vote for them.

To be honest, I did not foresee this round for active players. I'm not so supportive of voting on active players, but I'll play along anyhow.

[jjpm74]

Because, hypothetically, current players should get their due anyhow once they retire. So there's no rush for me to vote for them now. Once they retire, I'll vote for them.

To be honest, I did not foresee this round for active players. I'm not so supportive of voting on active players, but I'll play along anyhow.

This round is meant for active and recently retired players. Their age shouldn't make any difference if they have done enough already.

[jalbright]

Updated lists in posts 312 to 317 with jjpm and dgarza's suggestions. While this election won't be strictly limited to the listed names, I expect it will be hard to elect someone not on the list. To limit the possibility of absurd ballots, I will restrict voters to 15 players and 8 contributors.

[jjpm74]

Updated lists in posts 312 to 317 with jjpm and dgarza's suggestions. While this election won't be strictly limited to the listed names, I expect it will be hard to elect someone not on the list. To limit the possibility of absurd ballots, I will restrict voters to 15 players and 8 contributors.

Total or per organization? If it is per organization, I think you are being very generous.

[jalbright]

Total or per organization? If it is per organization, I think you are being very generous.

Per organization. I intended it to be generous. If there's a real sense that 10 and 5 should do for everyone, I could go for that--but if somebody has a dozen players for one organization and someone else has six contributors for another organization, I'm reluctant to restrict that. I don't see that allowing 16 or more players for one organization or 9 or more contributors makes sense, though--and there's got to be some cutoff to avoid a truly absurd ballot, IMHO.

[jalbright]

Total or per organization? If it is per organization, I think you are being very generous.

Per organization. I intended it to be generous. If there's a real sense that 10 and 5 should do for everyone, I could go for that--but if somebody has a dozen players for one organization and someone else has six contributors for another organization, I'm reluctant to restrict that. I don't see that allowing 16 or more players for one organization or 9 or more contributors makes sense, though--and there's got to be some cutoff to avoid a truly absurd ballot, IMHO.

[jjpm74]

I agree with you and I think your proposed cutoffs will eliminate the potential for an outlier ballot that lists every active player in baseball that has played for a given fan's team.

[jalbright]

The pairings for the recent actives elections are loosely based on a combination of the number of candidates on the suggested possibilities listed by myself, jjpm and dgarza plus the length of time since the second chance election.
xAngels and Phillies
Marlins and Indians
Royals and Twins
Rays and Cubs
Rockies and A’s
Mariners and Orioles
Padres and Red Sox
Mets and Cards
Rangers and Yankees
Nationals and Giants
Blue Jays and White Sox
Astros and Braves
Brewers and Tigers
Diamondbacks (?) and Reds
Pirates and Dodgers

The reason for the question mark is that no one has suggested any Diamondbacks who have been active in 2010 or later who are worthy of receiving a vote. I don’t want to hold an election where no one receives any votes, so I am asking if anyone intends to vote for any Diamondbacks. If I don’t get a positive answer, I’ll ask again closer to the time we need to decide whether we’ll hold such an election. If there is a Diamondback election, things will go as listed. If there isn’t, I will probably combine the Reds, Pirates and Dodgers for the final election.

I will provide lists of the candidates suggested by myself, dgarza, and jjpm for each franchise. These are not binding, but if anyone wants to vote for candidates not on the list, they probably should campaign for those candidates, or the fact those three likely voters have indicated it isn’t likely they’ll vote for unlisted candidates would likely doom those candidacies. The only restrictions on voting are first that candidates must have been active in 2010 or later, and that no voter may vote for more than 15 players or 8 contributors for any one franchise.

[jjpm74]

The only Arizona player I can think of that someone might vote for is Justin Upton. I personally don't think he's done enough, but someone else may think differently. There is no currently active manager I can think of. For active executives, Joe Garagiola Jr. was the general manager who put together some of the most successful teams for the Diamondbacks. He may get consideration from someone.

[jalbright]

The Phillies got six votes and the Angels only five. The Indians are stuck at five and the Marlins at four. If we can't do better than this, I'm going to stop this project. Unless at least the Indians or Marlins make six by the deadline for their elections, I'm done with this. I won't post any new franchises until/unless that condition is met.

[jjpm74]

The Phillies got six votes and the Angels only five. The Indians are stuck at five and the Marlins at four. If we can't do better than this, I'm going to stop this project. Unless at least the Indians or Marlins make six by the deadline for their elections, I'm done with this. I won't post any new franchises until/unless that condition is met.

Then in all fairness, the Phillies election also should not count since the only reason they kicked this off is that they happen to be your favorite team. There are a few teams worth pushing forward that have a good turn out here. It should be pretty easy to figure out who those are based on past participation. Those should be the teams to focus on. If not, end the project now and do not count the Phillies elections. Don't post threats and drag it on another week. That accomplishes nothing.

[jalbright]

Actually, the Phillies were not chosen for the reason you suggest. They had a nice set of players available for consideration and had been finished some time ago, and those two factors pushed them to first place among the original sixteen. That's the method I used to order all the teams in this round, pairing an original sixteen team with an expansion team. The NY teams were considered fairly recently, which is why they're further down the list. If the project can't make it to them or some other favorite team of yours, so be it.

If we get participation, I'll continue the project. If not, I won't. It's that simple. If we ended without considering at least a few more teams, I won't count Bobby Abreu's induction to the Phillies.

[jalbright]

This project is concluded for now. I may resurrect it a few years from now to bring in newly retired players.