2010 Baseball HOF Options

[natsfreak14]

Just curious to see who would be on everyone's ballot this year.


Here's my ballot for this year


SS Barry Larkin: .295/1329/198/960/379 (2340 hits) (CIN)

He was a Silver Slugger NINE times and won the 1995 MVP. Combine that with a few gold gloves and a solid 19 year career, I say that he should be in the Hall. Imagine his numbers if he wasn't on the DL an astounding 14 times! He played every game in his career with Cincinnati, which I value heavily.


OF Andre Dawson: .279/1373/438/1591/314 (2774 hits) (MON)

The Hawk's call to the Hall is long overdue. He was the 1977 NL Rookie of the Year and won the 1987 NL MVP on a last place team! He won six straight Gold Gloves and also finished second in the MVP voting twice.


RP Lee Smith: 71-92, 478 SV, 3.03 ERA, 1.26 WHIP (STL)

He's third all-time in saves behind Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera. He finished in the Top 5 of the Cy Young voting 3 times, which is very rare for a reliever. Keep in mind that he played in an era where saves were more than one inning more often than not. I don't think he'll get in this year, but he should eventually


2B Roberto Alomar: .300/1508/210/1134/474 (2724 hits) (TOR)

The Puerto Rican born middle infielder won two World Series rings and made it to 12 consecutive All-Star games. He also won 10 Gold Gloves and 4 Silver Slugger awards. However, he might not get in because he spit in the face of an umpire in the mid-90s while with the Orioles.

[TheFantasyGuru1]

If Dawson doesn't get in this year, he probably won't ever get in. I still don't understand how a guy like Jim Rice got in, but not a guy like Dawson.

I just don't see Larkin getting in. He was just injured too much.

[cardinal1975]

I completely agree with you on Alomar and Larkin getting in this year. I would add Bert Blyleven (287 wins, 3701 k's, 242 career complete games, 60 career shutouts, 3.31 era, 1.20 whip) as his numbers compare very favorably to any of his peers (Ryan, Carlton, Seaver, Sutton, Niekro) since inducted into the hall of fame. Blyleven pitched for some very bad teams throughout his career and never got the due he deserved.

I don't see a strong arguement in favor of Lee Smith other than his career total of saves and having watched him pitch just never said to myself hall of famer .

Dawson has a stronger arguement (more so than Jim Rice last season) but I just can't get around the career .323 on base percentage despite the good all around numbers.

[TheFantasyGuru1]

Dawson was on some bad teams as well. I mean he only made the playoffs twice in his career. His OBP was a bit low, but for the kind of power hitter that he was, he didn't strikeout a ton like power hitters of today do.

Let me also add that he won eight gold gloves.

[dbacksfan414]

I completely agree with you on Alomar and Larkin getting in this year. I would add Bert Blyleven (287 wins, 3701 k's, 242 career complete games, 60 career shutouts, 3.31 era, 1.20 whip) as his numbers compare very favorably to any of his peers (Ryan, Carlton, Seaver, Sutton, Niekro) since inducted into the hall of fame. Blyleven pitched for some very bad teams throughout his career and never got the due he deserved.

I don't see a strong arguement in favor of Lee Smith other than his career total of saves and having watched him pitch just never said to myself hall of famer .

Dawson has a stronger arguement (more so than Jim Rice last season) but I just can't get around the career .323 on base percentage despite the good all around numbers.

I agree that Alomar should get in this year. He was one of the best middle infielders of his era.

I agree with you on Blyleven. He pitched for some really bad teams, yet still had good numbers. Wins are overvalued in my opinion when it comes to the Hall of Fame and the end of season awards in general. He's 5th all time in strikeouts too. I'd vote him in.

Lee Smith's stats aren't eye popping, but I'd vote for him. He is 3rd all time in saves, after all.

I'd also vote for Dawson. Even though he had a low OBP, OBP wasn't valued as much back then as it is now.

Tim Raines is also a Hall of Famer in my opinion. 2500+ hits, 1500+ runs and 800+ steals with a .300+ average? I'll take that any day.

This is really unusual for me since I think the Hall of Fame is only for the best of the best. But it's hard to argue that these 6 guys don't belong.

EDIT: I don't think Barry Larkin is a Hall of Famer.

This post has been edited by dbacksfan414: Jan 3 2010, 09:21 PM

[TheFantasyGuru1]

Since when was 198 home runs, 960 RBI, and a .295 average with three gold gloves hall of fame worthy?

[dbacksfan414]

Since when was 198 home runs, 960 RBI, and a .295 average with three gold gloves hall of fame worthy?

Home runs aren't everything. I like players who can get on base, make contact and steal bases more than others. Here's a link to his stats page.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...amp;position=OF

A .294 average, 2605 hits, 1571 runs, 808 steals and a .385 OBP are Hall of Fame numbers in my eyes.

[TheFantasyGuru1]

I agree with you on Raines, I don't agree with you on Larkin. He had a very good career, but he's not hall worthy.

[cardinal1975]

I agree that Alomar and Larkin should get in this year. They were two of the best middle infielders of their era.

I agree with you on Blyleven. He pitched for some really bad teams, yet still had good numbers. Wins are overvalued in my opinion when it comes to the Hall of Fame and the end of season awards in general. He's 5th all time in strikeouts too. I'd vote him in.

Lee Smith's stats aren't eye popping, but I'd vote for him. He is 3rd all time in saves, after all.

I'd also vote for Dawson. Even though he had a low OBP, OBP wasn't valued as much back then as it is now.

Tim Raines is also a Hall of Famer in my opinion. 2500+ hits, 1500+ runs and 800+ steals with a .300+ average? I'll take that any day.

This is really unusual for me since I think the Hall of Fame is only for the best of the best. But it's hard to argue that these 6 guys don't belong.

The problem with us saying a guy is 3rd on the all time saves list is that closers really did not exist for the most part until the mid to late 1970's. Look at the all time saves list and see how many of the top 10 even pitched in the 80's let alne the 70's or further back. I mean do we elect John Franco because he was 4th on the all time list of saves? Goose Gossage is 18th on the all time list but arguably one of the top 3. Quisenberry is 30th and falling but completely dominant in his prime and could have held upwith anyone now a days. I just think using all time saves is simply a very flawed way to pick a worthy candidate in this category and for relievers in general.

As far as Dawson I do understand the arguments and his career homeruns, steals, defensive value all speak for themselves but do we really think OBP was valued by is a good excuse? Players were supposed to get to 1st base any way possible whether that meant taking a walk, getting hit by a pitch, getting a hit or whatever but the object of the game is to get on base and this seems a weak excuse that was used last year to give Rice the nod for his issues. Again Dawson is much more worthy than Rice but OBP was important back then and is still today. Babe Ruth realized that. Ted Williams did. Mantle did. Mays did.

Raines has a better arguement but he had a very quick prime and I just don't think hall of fame because he "compiled" solid overall numbers as a role player from 1989 though 2002. Good overall numbers but I view the hall of fame as special and not as inclusive as many see it. There are very good players that were just not good enough or great enough and having seen Raines, Dawson, and L.Smith play in their primes and beyond I just don't (and didn't) see enough greatness but I do sympathize with those who push for Dawson and Raines but I can't condone it from my point of view.

[dbacksfan414]

I agree with you on Raines, I don't agree with you on Larkin. He had a very good career, but he's not hall worthy.

Whoops, I was looking at the wrong guy's stats. I was wondering where you got those from.

Yeah, after looking at Larkin's stats, I don't think he's a Hall of Famer. They were not nearly as good as I thought. I'll edit my first post.

[natsfreak14]

I hear what you're saying about Lee Smith, but I think he should be a HOFer, not because he has the 3rd highest save total ever, but because he was one of the first true closers.


In other words, he's sorta like a pioneer for the position today.


For Barry Larkin, he has nine Silver Slugger awards and an MVP. Not many shortstops (that were clean) can say that. And please don't say I'm biased, 'cause he went to Michigan.

[TheFantasyGuru1]

Look at his average numbers a season, .295 average, 15 home runs, 71 RBI, and 28 SB. Very good, but not great numbers.

[Surge]

Look at his average numbers a season, .295 average, 15 home runs, 71 RBI, and 28 SB. Very good, but not great numbers.

Was there a better NL shortstop between 1990 and 2000?

And over 162 thru age 35 (Jeter's age) and minus Jeter's and Cal's rookie seasons (15 and 23 G):
Larkin: .299 / 101 RS / 16 HR / 76 RBI / 33 SB / 73 BB / 121 OPS+
Jeter: .318 / 120 RS / 18 HR / 81 RBI / 24 SB / 63 BB / 121 OPS+
Ripken: .277 / 95 RS / 25 HR / 95 RBI / 3 SB / 67 BB / 117 OPS+

This post has been edited by Surge: Jan 3 2010, 11:39 PM

[natsfreak14]

Here's a good article written by SI's Jon Heyman


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ....html?eref=sihp

[dbacksfan414]

Look at his average numbers a season, .295 average, 15 home runs, 71 RBI, and 28 SB. Very good, but not great numbers.

I think the argument for Larkin is that during his era, there really weren't that many great hitting shortstops. He was probably the second best hitting shortstop of his era (Ripken beats him).

Like I said before, after looking at Larkin's numbers again, I think he shouldn't make it. Will he? I think he will eventually, but I don't think he should.