2019 Baseball Hall of Fame Vote is Revealed 1/22

mrincredible said:

oots said:
does Jeter also go unanimous?
he should

 I hate both Jeter and the Yankees.
He should be a unanimous first ballot choice.  He was the linchpin of all those championship teams.

I feel like unanimous should be reserved for the best of the best.  Rivera is clearly the greatest relief pitcher of all-time.  While Jeter is high on the list, he's not the greatest shortstop of all-time.

I subscribe to the theory of who is the most dominant player of their era, rather than of all time. I think it's a more fair comparison. 

I think if you look at all those successful Yankee teams of the 90s and 00s there's one factor that ties them all together. 

And if there was one player who most frequently found a way to ruin other teams days it was Jeter.

Also, I can't believe I am making any kind of argument on behalf of Derek Jeter. What the hell is happening? In actuality I hope that they discover that he was a robot invented by an evil scientist for the purpose of helping the Yankees win.

if I was voting, I would not adhere to that "nobody on the first ballot except the legends" policy.  If the person is a no-brainer HOFer to me, I'd vote him on the first ballot.  Jeter is a no-brainer.

I think if you are going to vote for a person, then vote for him.  first year or not. So yes to Jeter.

I think Schilling should be in, but really hate the thought of him giving an acceptance speech.  

McGriff should be in.  Walker should get in.  

And so should Bonds and Clemens.  

No to Giambi ---  

I agree with Mike Scott, except how does one say "yes" to Walker but "no" to Giambi?  For that mater, I would say no to both.  But McGriff I would let in.  Sheffield also.

mfpark said:
I agree with Mike Scott, except how does one say "yes" to Walker but "no" to Giambi?  For that mater, I would say no to both.  But McGriff I would let in.  Sheffield also.

 Giambi is a tough call.  He was out of this world for 8 seasons.  He was very good for a couple more.  And pretty mediocre for the other 10 seasons.  Walker is not a HOF to me.  Like Giambi, he was amazing for a period of 6 or 7 years, but kind of mediocre for the rest of his career.  Most years he played fewer than 140 games, and a lot of years fewer than 100.  And to me the big reason he wouldn't have my vote is that he really piled up the stats at home in Colorado.  He was all-everything there, and just very good everywhere else.

ml1 said:

Most years he played fewer than 140 games, and a lot of years fewer than 100.  

 Other demerits aside, if you exclude his call-up year and strike-shortened 1994, Walker played in fewer than 125 games in four of 15 seasons.

mfpark said:
I agree with Mike Scott, except how does one say "yes" to Walker but "no" to Giambi?  For that mater, I would say no to both.  But McGriff I would let in.  Sheffield also.

 I felt that Giambi was a liability in the field.  Never felt that way about Walker or McGriff, but then again I did not see them play more than a few times a year.  

I was nearly killed by a Sheffield Foul ball once.  He must have hit a dozen line drives foul (one of them did hit a lady in the head but somehow was ok).  We were ready to kill the pitcher  --- telling him to just walk him for our safety.  haha...  Sheffield finished with a line drive double.

If a guy met all the other criteria, I wouldn't exclude him from a HOF ballot for not playing every day.  But someone who plays 125 games is missing a lot of games.  I'm pretty generous with who I think should get in the HOF, but Walker wouldn't make my cut and neither would Giambi.

But Canadian Baseball HOF?  First ballot, no question.

I say no both Walker and Giambi.  They both have really good stats but not HOF stats.  Walker's best years came in Colorado which is a playground for batters.  Giambi is a steroids guy and his batting average was mediocre.  He was horrible his last 5-6 years.

Depending on whom you believe anywhere from 20 - 75% of all players used steroids during the steroid era.  So I try to look in comparison to other players --- clearly Bonds and Clemens were among the best.   So I discount steroid use as being a reason not to be in the HOF  

There were a lot of ******** in the HOF long before social media made it easier for everyone to know how much of  an *******.  So as much as I dislike Schilling, he probably deserves to be in the HOF, but if I had a vote I would  wait till the last year just because he is such an *******.  

The ******* rule applies to Kent, if'n y'ask me.