Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will Clark Got Shafted!

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

  • #31
    I have no problem with a blank ballot if that is what a writer believes based on the evidence and an understanding of the HoF membership. What I don't want to see is blank ballots based on "only the giants of the game" should be in.
    Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by DoubleX
      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).
      I don't fault people for changing their minds. But wouldn't you think it would go both ways? Other than at the very bottom of the votes, were players taht get 5-10% one year fall off the next, you never see vote totals going down. For marginal candidates, for every writer than changes his opinion in the postive, wouldn't you expect one to change in the negative, too? I just don't understand how players "gain momentum". Is it the campaigning people do to change other people's minds? Is that a good thing, or too political?

      I like the 5% rule. There were 520 voters this year. If you can't get 26 votes, then you are clearly not thought of as a HOFer. And the purpose of the ballot is to elect people into the Hall, not see who gets close. Yes, some people below the 5% might have eventually wound up higher than people above the 5%, and some people below the 5% are better than people above, but if neither get in, does it matter?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose
        That's *ahem* pretty damning evidence in favor of Clark.
        Take away Keith Hernandez's last two years (so he played just as long as Clark) and his OPS+ is pretty close to Clark's AND Hernandez has an MVP AND is generally regarded as the best fielding 1b in the modern era and you are tell ing me WIll Clark is convincingly better than him? I mean there is certainly an argument to be made there but to say Clark is easily better than Hernandez????

        As for being clearly better than Mattingly, well career stats just don't fairly evaluate the career of Mattingly do they. I mean for 84-87 a lot of people viewed him as the BEST player in baseball, somthing that Will Clark could never have said about himself. It totally depends on what you look for in hall worthiness. Many would rather have the best player in baseball for a time period in the hall than a player who was very good for a long time. Again, Clark being clearly better than Mattingly????

        Comment


        • #34
          Hernandez was one and out too, and I think all around, he's the best HOF choice of the four.
          THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

          In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by digglahhh
            Hernandez was one and out too, and I think all around, he's the best HOF choice of the four.
            Um...Keith Hernandez was on the ballot 9 years before he was dropped. He was not "one and out." In those 9 elections, Hernandez never received as much as 11 percent of the vote.
            "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
            "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
            "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
            "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Brooklyn
              I don't fault people for changing their minds. But wouldn't you think it would go both ways? Other than at the very bottom of the votes, were players taht get 5-10% one year fall off the next, you never see vote totals going down. For marginal candidates, for every writer than changes his opinion in the postive, wouldn't you expect one to change in the negative, too? I just don't understand how players "gain momentum". Is it the campaigning people do to change other people's minds? Is that a good thing, or too political?
              I pretty much agree with everything you say (though some players do go down, McGee was dropped this year, guys like Hernandez and Guidry fell off the ballot after a number of years, and Mattingly and Murphy are lower than they once were).

              As for the 15 year rule, I think it's great. Judging Hall of Fame talent is not an easy thing. It's not just for the giants of the game, and for those potential second and third tier Hall of Famers, additional scrutiny over time might be needed to determine what side of the fence they are one. Of course, that's probably not going to make much of a difference for players that never receive much support anyway, but you never know. I think if Quisenberry had come on the ballot now, he would receive some noticeable support and stick on the ballot due to the growing respect being afforded to top closers.

              The thing I don't get the most is this whole, "we can't elect more than two or three people at a time thing." So what if Gwynn, Ripken, and McGwire will all be on the ballot next year? Why should that stop the holdovers from going up and possibly getting in? Why shouldn't Gossage go in next year? He's earned it, he's waited long enough, and at this point, there is no reason why he shouldn't go in. I don't get why a good freshman class should preclude the holdovers from entering, especially since voters have more than enough votes to vote for the top freshman as well as the top holdovers.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by DoubleX
                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.
                While whether you are or are-not a Hall of Famer is a very clear-cut difference, Baseball is a game of statistic. Hardcore fans keep track of HOF voting statistics, too. Most people know that Tom Seaver got the highest % of votes to be in the Hall. We separate first-ballot HOFers from the rest as a truly elite class of players. Maury Wills and Walt Weiss are both non-HOFers, but there's clearly a difference in which one is closer to being a HOFer by the number of votes they got while they were on the ballot. Weiss received one vote and was off while Wills generally got 20%-40% each time he was on the ballot.
                sigpic
                Trusted Traders: MadHatter, card-closure-man, duckydps, Rockhound, huberfan, AutographCollector, bravesautographs, CardinalMike

                My Wantlist/Tradelist

                Check out my eBay auctions, username hudsonharden

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by hudsonharden
                  While whether you are or are-not a Hall of Famer is a very clear-cut difference, Baseball is a game of statistic. Hardcore fans keep track of HOF voting statistics, too. Most people know that Tom Seaver got the highest % of votes to be in the Hall. We separate first-ballot HOFers from the rest as a truly elite class of players. Maury Wills and Walt Weiss are both non-HOFers, but there's clearly a difference in which one is closer to being a HOFer by the number of votes they got while they were on the ballot. Weiss received one vote and was off while Wills generally got 20%-40% each time he was on the ballot.
                  I think that's my point.

                  Take for example Lou Whitaker. He received the one and done treatment, but he was a good enough player to at least merit some serious debate about his Hall of Fame candidacy, and as such deserved some recognition in the form of his voting percentage.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Will deserves another shot. Because although he would never come close next year (going against Gwynn & Ripken), he would have a better shot in 2008 (where the stiffest competition would be Goose, Dawson & Lee Smith)...again in 2009 (when Rickey Henderson is the lone shoe-in)...and 2010 (Edgar Martinez has a shot).

                    But by 2011, Cal, Gwynn, McGwire, Edgar, Rickey, Lee Smith, Goose & The Hawk should all be in by then...and Will would have a better chance of making it. He just missed it by a few votes too.

                    Really sucks that Steve Garvey got so many votes & Will got almost none.
                    "Candlestick made me a man" -Will Clark

                    "Real Giants fans loved them BEFORE and AFTER Barry Bonds came along"

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Do I feel sorry for Will Clark? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      (sorry, that's my anti-Giant statement of the day)

                      In all seriousness, Clark deserved a lot more than a one-and-done. Jeremy Schaap on ESPNRadio said that if voters seriously thought that Gregg Jeffries (a guy who clearly doesn't deserve to be in Cooperstown) was HOF-worthy, then they don't deserve to vote.
                      Last edited by mojorisin71; 01-11-2006, 06:59 PM.
                      SOUVENEZ-VOUS LES EXPOS!!!
                      "The future's uncertain and the end is always near" - Jim Morrison

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I think every voter uses their vote in a different way. I can almost guarentee that Cal Ripken, Jr. will not get 100% of the vote next year. I'd be very impressed if someone could make a decent arguement for Ripken not being in the Hall of Fame. However, some people may think that since he's an automatic shoe-in, they would rather use their vote on a border-line type guy just in the hopes of keeping him on the ballot for another year, even if they don't think he's a HOFer. That's the only logical explanation for Gregg Jefferies and Walt Weiss getting votes.
                        sigpic
                        Trusted Traders: MadHatter, card-closure-man, duckydps, Rockhound, huberfan, AutographCollector, bravesautographs, CardinalMike

                        My Wantlist/Tradelist

                        Check out my eBay auctions, username hudsonharden

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by hudsonharden
                          I think every voter uses their vote in a different way. I can almost guarentee that Cal Ripken, Jr. will not get 100% of the vote next year. I'd be very impressed if someone could make a decent arguement for Ripken not being in the Hall of Fame. However, some people may think that since he's an automatic shoe-in, they would rather use their vote on a border-line type guy just in the hopes of keeping him on the ballot for another year, even if they don't think he's a HOFer. That's the only logical explanation for Gregg Jefferies and Walt Weiss getting votes.
                          Sometimes I think those random players that don't deserve any votes (such as Gregg Jefferies) must have friends that are part of the BBWAA or something.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I have a theory that at least one or two of the five votes that went to Hal Morris were meant for Jack Morris.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cougar
                              I have a theory that at least one or two of the five votes that went to Hal Morris were meant for Jack Morris.
                              You're probably right. There is no reason whatsoever that Hal Morris should have received any votes.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Brooklyn
                                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.
                                Very well said.. I guess I'm just sitting here wondering today is that how Bruce Sutter's stats have gotten so much better over the last 12 years for him to get in this year as opposed to the 1st 12 he was eligible?
                                "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

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X