Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will Clark Got Shafted!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I can not make up my mind what shocks me more...

    Will Clark not getting the 5% needed to remain on the ballot.

    Or

    Gregg Jefferies received 2 (Two) votes!!!

    WHAT?


    This leads me to believe these writers do not know what they are doing...
    BELIEVE

    Comment


    • #17
      --I'm surprised Clark got bounced on the first ballot. I really expected he would get more support. However, I am far from outraged by the situation. I wouldn't have voted for him, so why should I be angry that 5% of the voters didn't either. Its a yes or no vote. if you are 49% of a Hallof Famer and everybody sees that acurately then you should get zero votes.
      -- Doesn't happen that way, of course, since everybody evaluates a little difference, but basically either you are or are not a Hall of Famer. If every voter made an honest evalution each time around there would only be first ballot hall of famers and not hall of famers. Nobody has their qualifications change once they are on the ballot.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by leecemark
        --I'm surprised Clark got bounced on the first ballot. I really expected he would get more support. However, I am far from outraged by the situation. I wouldn't have voted for him, so why should I be angry that 5% of the voters didn't either. Its a yes or no vote. if you are 49% of a Hallof Famer and everybody sees that acurately then you should get zero votes.
        This is a valid point, and I respect this point of view.

        On the other hand, if you believe that Clark was a qualified HOFer and the equal of virtually any position player on the ballot, his peremptory dismissal is quite deflating.

        Originally posted by leecemark
        -- Doesn't happen that way, of course, since everybody evaluates a little difference, but basically either you are or are not a Hall of Famer. If every voter made an honest evalution each time around there would only be first ballot hall of famers and not hall of famers. Nobody has their qualifications change once they are on the ballot.
        Almost true -- the problem is the 10 player limit on the ballot. If you think there are more HOFers on the ballot than 10 (as I do), you're forced to make some rather arbitrary value judgements and/or vote strategically.

        Comment


        • #19
          I think Clark was a borderline HOFer and I may have voted for him if I got the chance. He was certainly the best 1B on the ballot, ahead easily of Mattingly and Garvey. He was probably the best hitter in the game in the late 1980s and was a fabulous fielder from first base. Probably should have won the MVP in 1989 at the expense of his teammate, Kevin Mitchell.

          I do think it is unfair that Clark is now off the ballot and probably will never have another good shot at the Hall. The more I think about it, the more I'm against the 5% rule. It almost encourages writers to vote for players who they don't neccessarily think are quite HOF matierial just because they think they deserve to stay on the ballot. That's not how it should be.

          Comment


          • #20
            http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clarkwi02.shtml
            Code:
             Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP 
            +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
             1986 22 SFG NL 111  408   66  117  27  2  11   41   4  7  34  76  .287  .343  .444  181   9   4  10   3   3
             1987 23 SFG NL 150  529   89  163  29  5  35   91   5 17  49  98  .308  .371  .580  307   3   2  11   5   2
             1988 24 SFG NL 162  575  102  162  31  6  29  109   9  1 100 129  .282  .386  .508  292   0  10  27   4   9
             1989 25 SFG NL 159  588  104  196  38  9  23  111   8  3  74 103  .333  .407  .546  321   0   8  14   5   6
             1990 26 SFG NL 154  600   91  177  25  5  19   95   8  2  62  97  .295  .357  .448  269   0  13   9   3   7
             1991 27 SFG NL 148  565   84  170  32  7  29  116   4  2  51  91  .301  .359  .536  303   0   4  12   2   5
             1992 28 SFG NL 144  513   69  154  40  1  16   73  12  7  73  82  .300  .384  .476  244   0  11  23   4   5
             1993 29 SFG NL 132  491   82  139  27  2  14   73   2  2  63  68  .283  .367  .432  212   1   6   6   6  10
             1994 30 TEX AL 110  389   73  128  24  2  13   80   5  1  71  59  .329  .431  .501  195   0   6  11   3   5
             1995 31 TEX AL 123  454   85  137  27  3  16   92   0  1  68  50  .302  .389  .480  218   0  11   6   4   7
             1996 32 TEX AL 117  436   69  124  25  1  13   72   2  1  64  67  .284  .377  .436  190   0   7   5   5  10
             1997 33 TEX AL 110  393   56  128  29  1  12   51   0  0  49  62  .326  .400  .496  195   0   5  11   3   4
             1998 34 TEX AL 149  554   98  169  41  1  23  102   1  0  72  97  .305  .384  .507  281   0   7   5   3  15
             1999 35 BAL AL  77  251   40   76  15  0  10   29   2  2  38  42  .303  .395  .482  121   0   3   2   2   5
             2000 36 TOT    130  427   78  136  30  2  21   70   5  2  69  69  .319  .418  .546  233   0   4   3   7   7
                     BAL AL  79  256   49   77  15  1   9   28   4  2  47  45  .301  .413  .473  121   0   3   3   4   4
                     STL NL  51  171   29   59  15  1  12   42   1  0  22  24  .345  .426  .655  112   0   1   0   3   3
            +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
             15 Seasons         7173      2176     47     1205     48    1190  .303  .384  .497       13 101 155  59 100
                           1976      1186      440    284       67    937                       3562
            +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
             162 Game Avg        588   97  178  36  4  23   99   5  4  77  98  .303  .384  .497  292   1   8  13   5   8
             Career High    162  600  104  196  41  9  35  116  12 17 100 129  .333  .431  .580  321   9  13  27   7  15
            +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
             Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP
            Please read Baseball Fever Policy and Forum FAQ before posting. 2007-11 CBA
            Rest very peacefully, John “Buck” O'Neil (1911-2006) & Philip Francis “Scooter” Rizzuto (1917-2007)
            THE BROOKLYN DODGERS - 1890 thru 1957
            Montreal Expos 1969 - 2004

            Comment


            • #21
              I think it's a very valid point that you're either a Hall of Famer or you're not, so if you're clearly not, what difference is it if you're bounced on the first ballot?

              To that I contend that even just sticking on the ballot is a a symbol of status and respect. It's for players that were not quite good enough to make Cooperstown, but deserve some recognition of being almost there. And in that way, Clark deserved more respect, instead of the one and done.

              Comment


              • #22
                The HOF voting is so bogus its not even funny... I think there were 12 ballots returned blank and lets be serious here, Gregg Jefferies, Doug Jones, Walt Weiss, getting ANY votes is a total joke! Those were wasted votes!
                "There are three things in my life which I really love: God, my family, and baseball. The only problem - once baseball season starts, I change the order around a bit.
                ~~Al Gallagher


                God Bless America!

                Click here to see my baseball tribute site!

                Click here to see the best pitcher NOT in the HOF!

                sigpic

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Baseball Guru
                  The HOF voting is so bogus its not even funny... I think there were 12 ballots returned blank and lets be serious here, Gregg Jefferies, Doug Jones, Walt Weiss, getting ANY votes is a total joke! Those were wasted votes!
                  I actually don't mind the blank ballots so much because it shows that at least those writers have consistent principles. Let's face it, if we really got down to it, how many really bonafide Hall of Famers were in this election? Zero. There is not one player that stands out as clearly a Hall of Famer, everyone needs some argument in their favor. So I can't really blame those 12 writers for believing there was not one Hall of Fame worthy player this year.

                  It's when the writers start showing inconsistency in their voting. For example, every writer that had Bruce Sutter on their ballot, should have had Goose Gossage on as well, but that wasn't the case. In another example, Ozzie Smith gets in on his first try, while his superior peer Alan Trammell struggles to get above 15%? I don't get!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DoubleX
                    I actually don't mind the blank ballots so much because it shows that at least those writers have consistent principles. Let's face it, if we really got down to it, how many really bonafide Hall of Famers were in this election? Zero. There is not one player that stands out as clearly a Hall of Famer, everyone needs some argument in their favor. So I can't really blame those 12 writers for believing there was not one Hall of Fame worthy player this year.
                    I can certainly see that. Everyone has knocks on them. I know a lot of people who think nobody on the ballot.

                    It's when the writers start showing inconsistency in their voting. For example, every writer that had Bruce Sutter on their ballot, should have had Goose Gossage on as well, but that wasn't the case. In another example, Ozzie Smith gets in on his first try, while his superior peer Alan Trammell struggles to get above 15%? I don't get![/QUOTE]
                    Sutter over Gossage: "inventor"
                    Smith over Trammell: "backflips" "wizard of oz"
                    Johnson and now Goligoski gone.
                    I hope that's all.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Mattingly
                      http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clarkwi02.shtml
                      Code:
                       Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP 
                      +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
                       1986 22 SFG NL 111  408   66  117  27  2  11   41   4  7  34  76  .287  .343  .444  181   9   4  10   3   3
                       1987 23 SFG NL 150  529   89  163  29  5  35   91   5 17  49  98  .308  .371  .580  307   3   2  11   5   2
                       1988 24 SFG NL 162  575  102  162  31  6  29  109   9  1 100 129  .282  .386  .508  292   0  10  27   4   9
                       1989 25 SFG NL 159  588  104  196  38  9  23  111   8  3  74 103  .333  .407  .546  321   0   8  14   5   6
                       1990 26 SFG NL 154  600   91  177  25  5  19   95   8  2  62  97  .295  .357  .448  269   0  13   9   3   7
                       1991 27 SFG NL 148  565   84  170  32  7  29  116   4  2  51  91  .301  .359  .536  303   0   4  12   2   5
                       1992 28 SFG NL 144  513   69  154  40  1  16   73  12  7  73  82  .300  .384  .476  244   0  11  23   4   5
                       1993 29 SFG NL 132  491   82  139  27  2  14   73   2  2  63  68  .283  .367  .432  212   1   6   6   6  10
                       1994 30 TEX AL 110  389   73  128  24  2  13   80   5  1  71  59  .329  .431  .501  195   0   6  11   3   5
                       1995 31 TEX AL 123  454   85  137  27  3  16   92   0  1  68  50  .302  .389  .480  218   0  11   6   4   7
                       1996 32 TEX AL 117  436   69  124  25  1  13   72   2  1  64  67  .284  .377  .436  190   0   7   5   5  10
                       1997 33 TEX AL 110  393   56  128  29  1  12   51   0  0  49  62  .326  .400  .496  195   0   5  11   3   4
                       1998 34 TEX AL 149  554   98  169  41  1  23  102   1  0  72  97  .305  .384  .507  281   0   7   5   3  15
                       1999 35 BAL AL  77  251   40   76  15  0  10   29   2  2  38  42  .303  .395  .482  121   0   3   2   2   5
                       2000 36 TOT    130  427   78  136  30  2  21   70   5  2  69  69  .319  .418  .546  233   0   4   3   7   7
                               BAL AL  79  256   49   77  15  1   9   28   4  2  47  45  .301  .413  .473  121   0   3   3   4   4
                               STL NL  51  171   29   59  15  1  12   42   1  0  22  24  .345  .426  .655  112   0   1   0   3   3
                      +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
                       15 Seasons         7173      2176     47     1205     48    1190  .303  .384  .497       13 101 155  59 100
                                     1976      1186      440    284       67    937                       3562
                      +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
                       162 Game Avg        588   97  178  36  4  23   99   5  4  77  98  .303  .384  .497  292   1   8  13   5   8
                       Career High    162  600  104  196  41  9  35  116  12 17 100 129  .333  .431  .580  321   9  13  27   7  15
                      +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
                       Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP
                      THose numbers look a lot like Harold Baines without the longevity. Certainly a nice career but...I mean you have to base his hall worthiness strickly on win shares, which most hall votes don't give a crap about, you are inventing his hall worthiness. There's a discussion on the history board of fever that shows how rediculous the win shares system is in evaluating the career of Will Clark. Basically according to James' Objective Win Shares Clark was better in the 1989 season than Ted Williams was in the last year he batted .400.
                      So ignoring win shares and Will Clark is not better than Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, or even Steve Garvey.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by DoubleX
                        I actually don't mind the blank ballots so much because it shows that at least those writers have consistent principles. Let's face it, if we really got down to it, how many really bonafide Hall of Famers were in this election? Zero. There is not one player that stands out as clearly a Hall of Famer, everyone needs some argument in their favor. So I can't really blame those 12 writers for believing there was not one Hall of Fame worthy player this year.
                        I don't mind the blank ballots either. What bothers me more is the vote changing. Voters didn't deem any of these players worthy last year, and what have the players done in the past year to change the voters mind? I buy the argument that voters do more research, get more info, etc., but shouldn't they do all the research before the first ballot?

                        I don't understand the whole idea of players trending from up from year to year. I don't think a voter should be rigid - they shuold reservew the right to change their minds. But it happens too much for my comfort.

                        The one thing that would cause totals to go up is if voters have a full ballot, then once someone is elected they can vote for someone else. I don't think there are many voters out there with full ballots. But full ballots bother me more than empty ballots. There is no way there are 10+ HOfers on this ballot, I think there are closer to 0 then 10, so I respect the empty ballot more than the full one.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          It is difficult to defend the BBWAA for bouncing Clark while retaining Garvey, but it is impossible to defend them for giving Garvey more votes than Clark and Mattingly combined.
                          Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Pine Tar
                            THose numbers look a lot like Harold Baines without the longevity. Certainly a nice career but...I mean you have to base his hall worthiness strickly on win shares, which most hall votes don't give a crap about, you are inventing his hall worthiness. There's a discussion on the history board of fever that shows how rediculous the win shares system is in evaluating the career of Will Clark. Basically according to James' Objective Win Shares Clark was better in the 1989 season than Ted Williams was in the last year he batted .400.
                            So ignoring win shares and Will Clark is not better than Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, or even Steve Garvey.
                            Yes, he is. Win Shares is over-rated, but i think it's clear to me Clark kills all of them.

                            Code:
                            Player	Seas	G	PA	BA	OBP	Slug	OPS+	R	RBI	RC	RC/27	Bases	Outs	Bases/Out
                            Clark	15	1976	8283	0.303	0.384	0.497	138	1186	1205	1369	7.03	4625	5259	0.879
                            Garvey	19	2332	9466	0.294	0.329	0.446	116	1143	1308	1307	5.29	4532	6627	0.684
                            Keith	17	2088	8553	0.296	0.384	0.436	129	1124	1071	1245	6.12	4414	5493	0.804
                            Donnie	14	1785	7721	0.307	0.358	0.471	127	1007	1099	1202	6.29	3924	5159	0.761
                            Where does either of those three beat out Clark?
                            Last edited by Chisox; 01-11-2006, 12:14 PM.
                            Johnson and now Goligoski gone.
                            I hope that's all.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Chisox
                              Yes, he is. Win Shares is over-rated, but i think it's clear to me Clark kills all of them.

                              Code:
                              Player	Seas	G	PA	BA	OBP	Slug	OPS+	R	RBI	RC	RC/27	Bases	Outs	Bases/Out
                              Clark	15	1976	8283	0.303	0.384	0.497	138	1186	1205	1369	7.03	4625	5259	0.879
                              Garvey	19	2332	9466	0.294	0.329	0.446	116	1143	1308	1307	5.29	4532	6627	0.684
                              Keith	17	2088	8553	0.296	0.384	0.436	129	1124	1071	1245	6.12	4414	5493	0.804
                              Donnie	14	1785	7721	0.307	0.358	0.471	127	1007	1099	1202	6.29	3924	5159	0.761
                              Where does either of those three beat out Clark?
                              That's *ahem* pretty damning evidence in favor of Clark.
                              Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
                              Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
                              Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
                              Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
                              Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Brooklyn
                                I don't mind the blank ballots either. What bothers me more is the vote changing. Voters didn't deem any of these players worthy last year, and what have the players done in the past year to change the voters mind? I buy the argument that voters do more research, get more info, etc., but shouldn't they do all the research before the first ballot?

                                I don't understand the whole idea of players trending from up from year to year. I don't think a voter should be rigid - they shuold reservew the right to change their minds. But it happens too much for my comfort.

                                The one thing that would cause totals to go up is if voters have a full ballot, then once someone is elected they can vote for someone else. I don't think there are many voters out there with full ballots. But full ballots bother me more than empty ballots. There is no way there are 10+ HOfers on this ballot, I think there are closer to 0 then 10, so I respect the empty ballot more than the full one.
                                I agree with that, except you can't fault people for changing their mind with some re-education. For example, Jayson Stark recently wrote a nice article at ESPN.com about why he changed his mind this year and voted for Bert Blyleven for the first time. The writers are fallible, and it's nice that some can acknowledge that, and that's why these players are permitted to stick on the ballot for 15 year. The biggest problem in this respect is when players that deserve serious consideration are wiped out all too soon by the 5% rule, thus preventing re-evaluation down the line (Lou Whitaker, Keith Hernandez, Ted Simmons, Bobby Grich, and now Will Clark).

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X