The Official 2021 Baseball Hall of Fame thread with poll (no one elected)

[Terry Yake]

No love for Rollie Fingers?

forgot about him. yeah he's there with rivera and eck

 

[EpochLink]

forgot about him. yeah he's there with rivera and eck

even though I grew up with Eck as the A’s closer and he was one of the best, I consider Fingers the better A’s closer just for the body of work he did.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Even though he had the best stats from both the teams in that series.

12/32 including 3 doubles, 1hr and 6rbi And 5 runs. His fielding percentage was also a 1.000. Yes he took the money,he admitted to that. But did he really throw the series?

He took the money so you could say that he would have done something to throw a game if it was needed to insure they lost, such as his first error at a key moment. They lost without him, probably, throwing but he could have been saving it so he wouldnt look bad

 

[Cas]

even though I grew up with Eck as the A’s closer and he was one of the best, I consider Fingers the better A’s closer just for the body of work he did.

I'm not sure about that. Fingers did pitch more innings as a reliever for the A's (of course he pitched in a different era, where relievers were expected to go multiple innings), but Eckersley was much more effective per inning. If you look just at their six best years with the A's, Eckersley put out more value (15.5 WAR to 11.5). Fingers did have more postseason success.

Eckersley was the better pitcher, though - Eckersley was a good, sometimes great starter. Fingers was a failure (37 starts, 195.2 innings, 4.32 ERA in an environment where that would have been close to replacement level).

I don't know that I'd have Fingers in my Hall of Fame - I'd rather have Gossage and Wilhelm. Fingers was a little more durable than Gossage but was less effective at his peak. Wilhelm was both more durable and more effective on a career and peak level. There are cases for pitchers like Sutter, Quisenberry, Tekulve, Lyle, McDaniel, Lee Smith, and yes, Billy Wagner and Trevor Hoffman as being betetr than, or at least very close to, Fingers, and I wouldn't vote for any of them.

I think he looked better in 1992 when only three other pitchers had reached 300 career saves with two rings between them, and the writers were still obsessed with giving awards to relief pitchers (like MVPs to Fingers, Eckersley, and Willie Hernandez and Cy Youngs to Fingers, Eckersley, Hernandez, Mark Davis, Steve Bedrosian, Sutter, Lyle, and Mike Marshall).

 

[Terry Yake]

I'm not sure about that. Fingers did pitch more innings as a reliever for the A's (of course he pitched in a different era, where relievers were expected to go multiple innings), but Eckersley was much more effective per inning. If you look just at their six best years with the A's, Eckersley put out more value (15.5 WAR to 11.5). Fingers did have more postseason success.

Eckersley was the better pitcher, though - Eckersley was a good, sometimes great starter. Fingers was a failure (37 starts, 195.2 innings, 4.32 ERA in an environment where that would have been close to replacement level).

I don't know that I'd have Fingers in my Hall of Fame - I'd rather have Gossage and Wilhelm. Fingers was a little more durable than Gossage but was less effective at his peak. Wilhelm was both more durable and more effective on a career and peak level. There are cases for pitchers like Sutter, Quisenberry, Tekulve, Lyle, McDaniel, Lee Smith, and yes, Billy Wagner and Trevor Hoffman as being betetr than, or at least very close to, Fingers, and I wouldn't vote for any of them.

I think he looked better in 1992 when only three other pitchers had reached 300 career saves with two rings between them, and the writers were still obsessed with giving awards to relief pitchers (like MVPs to Fingers, Eckersley, and Willie Hernandez and Cy Youngs to Fingers, Eckersley, Hernandez, Mark Davis, Steve Bedrosian, Sutter, Lyle, and Mike Marshall).

eck was basically unhittable from 88-92. only rivera had a more dominant stretch as a closer

plus, eck had several solid seasons as a starter at the beginning of his career. so i'd say eck had the better career. fingers had a longer stretch of consistency and he wasn't a typical closer given the era he played in. i think he deserves to be in the HOF because of his consistency

 

[Perennial]

eck was basically unhittable from 88-92. only rivera had a more dominant stretch as a closer

plus, eck had several solid seasons as a starter at the beginning of his career. so i'd say eck had the better career. fingers had a longer stretch of consistency and he wasn't a typical closer given the era he played in. i think he deserves to be in the HOF because of his consistency

Not entirely unhittable...

 

[Terry Yake]

Not entirely unhittable...

yeah those were the only exceptions

two franchise defining home runs

 

[EpochLink]

yeah those were the only exceptions

two franchise defining home runs

I love Eck’s fist pump celebration though, guy was a great competitor.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

yeah those were the only exceptions

two franchise defining home runs

Yeah, as if Mariano doesnt have a couple of the biggest blown saves in MLB history either

 

[Voight]

With an extremely weak group of first timers, this should be the year Bonds, Schilling and Clemens finally get in. No excuses this time around.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

Manny, Sheffield and Vizquel.

 

[jcs0218]

I predict only Schilling and Vizquel will be inducted.

Schilling should already be in. He was a 3-time World Series champion, and was the definition of "big game pitcher" during his career. Among his peers, I think his overall career was slightly better than Mussina's (who is already in the HOF).

Vizquel wasn't much of a power hitter and his WAR is underwhelming. But I think his combination of over 2800 career hits and 11 Gold Gloves will be too hard for voters to forever ignore. He will eventually get in, and this year makes the most sense due to it being a weak year for candidates.

Bonds and Clemens? I think those two will be forced to continue to wait. They might not even get in during their 10 years on the ballot, and may have their fates determined by the Veterans Committee sometime in the future.

 

[Unholy Diver]

Bonds
Clemens
Manny
Rolen
Wagner
Sheffield

 

[jcs0218]

I am iffy on closers going in HOF. There are few so far worthy of honor and they are in already

This is why I am surprised that Rivera so far is the only unanimous HOF inductee in baseball history.

Closers have always had "they only pitch 1 inning at a time and only 60-70 innings per season" as the reason to diminish their MVP and Cy Young credentials.

So it is baffling that a closer is the only player voters have ever 100% agreed on being a HOF player.

For example, what was going through the minds of the voters when Greg Maddux's time came to be inducted? He didn't get 100%. He got 555 out of 571 votes for 97.2%. 16 voters didn't vote for him, even though he had almost as perfect of a career as anyone could have.

He had the peak dominance (4 Cy Youngs), the longevity and consistency (17 consecutive seasons with 15+ wins), and the career statistics (355 wins). He won 18 Gold Gloves as a defensive player. He also didn't have any steroid suspicions.

Was it only winning 1 World Series, when the Braves could have won 3-4 during the 1990s? Or what was it that caused any voter to say no to him?

Maddux is just one example of a player who probably should have been unanimous more than Rivera.

 

[Cas]

I think Rivera benefited from the culling of the voting ranks, which kicked out a bunch of the "no one should ever be unanimous" types.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Voters dont vote for guys like Maddux or Griffey because either they dont like the player personally or they know that they can use one of their votes on someone else, since a Maddux will be getting in first ballot regardless

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

The 100% vote for Mo and not others is just ridiculous and makes no sense. Like obviously he is an easy HOFer so I really have no problem with him getting 100%. Like he deserves it but so do all these other players that have been mentioned.

Trying to figure out the why on something like this just drives me to want to drink myself into 2021.

I’ve come to expect the bare minimum of intelligence when it comes to sports media and writers. That way while you will still constantly be disappointed by their idiocy, it is much less than if you expected them to be even at a basic level of competence

 

[Terry Yake]

HOF voters like this need to be barred from voting in the future

also, the fact that omar vizquel is probably going to get in is an absolute travesty

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

The 100% vote for Mo and not others is just ridiculous and makes no sense. Like obviously he is an easy HOFer so I really have no problem with him getting 100%. Like he deserves it but so do all these other players that have been mentioned.

Trying to figure out the why on something like this just drives me to want to drink myself into 2021.

I’ve come to expect the bare minimum of intelligence when it comes to sports media and writers. That way while you will still constantly be disappointed by their idiocy, it is much less than if you expected them to be even at a basic level of competence

Because there's a contingent of older writers who are of the belief that "if Ruth wasn't unanimous then no one should be" and intentionally omit no doubt guys to ensure no one is ever unanimous

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Because there's a contingent of older writers who are of the belief that "if Ruth wasn't unanimous then no one should be" and intentionally omit no doubt guys to ensure no one is ever unanimous

I highly doubt they think that

 

[Big Poppa Puck]

HOF voters like this need to be barred from voting in the future

also, the fact that omar vizquel is probably going to get in is an absolute travesty

That ballot makes the least sense of any I've ever seen. Abreu, Vizquel, Hunter and ARAMIS RAMIREZ are bad enough, but then you vote for KNOWN users Pettitte and Manny but not "suspected" users in Bonds and Clemens? And also no Schilling?

What that ballot tells me is he'll vote for you as long as you're not a dick. Or it's just one huge troll.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Because there's a contingent of older writers who are of the belief that "if Ruth wasn't unanimous then no one should be" and intentionally omit no doubt guys to ensure no one is ever unanimous

Well, I mean, Mo was inducted at 100% so I don't really buy that entirely but I'm sure there are some writers who think along those lines. Like I said, trying to figure out the motivations and a rational, logical thought process for these voters is a meaningless pursuit. They're a bunch or hacks and morons.

 

[DoyleG]

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Dont understand how Sosa is getting votes let alone 21.6% of votes

Unlike Clemens and Bonds who were HOF talents before PED's ,, He was an average OF before PED's

His entire career was built off of PED's

 

[Cas]

Dont understand how Sosa is getting votes let alone 21.6% of votes

Unlike Clemens and Bonds who were HOF talents before PED's ,, He was an average OF before PED's

His entire career was built off of PED's

Sosa was not an average player once he turned 24 (in 1993) - he was a high quality outfielder, providing good defense, speed, and power for four years, had one down year in 1997, and then exploded in 1998. His total value didn't really change then, either, exchanging speed and defense for more hitting until 2001, and then rapidly declining.

So, it depends on how you feel about PEDs (I frankly don't care), when you think he started taking PEDs, and how much you value a lengthy career or high peak versus a good prime (he was a 5.5 WAR player from 1993 to 2002, but provided little value outside those years and didn't have a sustained peak in terms of overall value, though he clearly had a sustained offensive peak). It also depends on how you value his defense as a young player, but the preponderance of evidence suggests he was very, very good until he bulked up and was then about average until he hit his mid-30's.

I consider him a marginal HOF player who might or might not earn my hypothetical vote, but if you did have a strong anti-PED opinion then it's fair to rule him out. I don't, and that's a personal value judgment that you're not going to convince me to abandon (and I'm not going to try and convince someone who disagrees, either).