Not so sure about that, I'm an NL guy and don't watch the Sox. Hunter was the best glove in CF for almost a decade .. Better hitter than Jones as well.

_________________

His career OBP is below .300, no amount of defensive prowess can hide that. Bucky Dent hit a famous homer too, he and Maz should both being buying tickets to get into the HOF.

But you have to look at the numbers in context, i.e. era, position, etc. Nellie Fox is a Hall of Famer. Nobody ever says he doesn't belong. His career OPS+ is just ten points higher in a much weaker league. And there's no comparison between the two defensively. Maz was absolutely elite at an important position. The homer just adds to his legacy and something to push him in if you think he's on the bubble.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

There about 10 guys I’d vote for on this ballot.

I’d assume we’re headed for a full class

_________________

Voters are allowed up to 10 votes. Be pretty wild if 5 or 6 got in.

chances are only 1 or zero will get in.

No

Have you watched a lot if Mays? What are you basing that on? Statistically Jones is better defensively

Jones was better than Hunter

Hunter was not a better glove than Jones by any.measure eye test or statitsticaly and in their peak Jones was the far superior offensive player

Jones crushes him in UZR and DRS and won more gold gloves

Jones OPS on the Braves: .839
Hunter OPS on the Twins: .783

David Haugh says Buehrle isn't good enough and then votes for Billy Wagner. Come on.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

You know, I thought they weren't even close from a stat standpoint, but looking at the WAR numbers, they're very similar:


Career PeakJAWS
Billy Wagner 27.7 19.8 23.7
Avg HOF RP 39.1 26.0 32.6

Career Peak JAWS
Mark Buehrle 59.1 35.8 47.4
Avg. HOF SP 73.3 50.0 61.6

They both have about 72-76% of the JAWS of an average hall of famer.

Bonds
Schilling
still on the fence re Rolen

That's it for this year for me. I haven't supported Bonds until now because there was a huge backlog of guys like Edgar Martinez who I wanted to see get in.

Right now I think the 60s-70s era veterans committee has work to do. Allen and Parker to start.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal

Curious why Bonds and not Clemens?

_________________

Schilling, Hudson, Vizquel

_________________

Bonds wasn't washed up before he "rejuvenated".

Wouldn’t pre-roids Clemens still make it in?

I’d put them all in, but I view those two as kind of the vanguard for the steroid era guys.

_________________

I'd vote for Clemens. Some would say his reasoning was more forgivable than Bonds' reasoning. Clemens was hurt and old. Bonds was on the back side of his prime and a 1.000 OPS guy.

I despise Clemens for him quitting in Boston and later publicly crapping on his teammates to get out of Toronto after his magical rejuvenation, but I'd begrudgingly put him in.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

This.

Bonds was first ballot before he started. Like if Mike Trout gets to 10.0 years of service time and just walks away. If Bonds had just quit in disgust of Sosa, McGwire, etc., he was absolutely first ballot. And what he did on the juice was just ridiculously superhuman.

I wasn't going to support him going in over peers who didn't cheat, but if we're down to Scott Rolen I think it's time to move on.

Clemens to me is not in that ballpark. I think he used much earlier than he admits, and without the juice I don't know if he's better than some guys who got kicked to the veterans committee.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal

Someone convince me one way or the other on Scott Rolen, please.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal

Third-best position player on the 04-05-06 Cardinals; if Edmonds can't get in, why should Rolen?

_________________

Clemens was HoF worthy based on Boston alone (3 CY, 5 top 3 CY, first 2 20k games ever, etc).

_________________

Multiple GGs and better offensively than Santo. It all depends if you are a position guy. He's a #7, 8, or 9 top 3rd baseman of all time. That's good enough for me. It's going to take awhile though, I imagine.

This pair of quotes pretty much summarizes why I am on the fence. I'm not sure he's really better than Santo offensively if you adjust for pitching era and pre-69 expansion. But he is clearly at best the #4 of 5 HOF players the 60s Cubs had (Santo vs Brock is a toss up given that Brock was shitty defensively and sucked just enough as a Cub to get himself traded).

I tend to be a small Hall, 10 year peak, positions and teammates both matter kind of voter. So Rolen is right on the edge for me, just as Santo was.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal

He was a juicer.

_________________

Yeah, that's one of the things that sucks -- we "know" the prime juicers because they started shattering records...yet there was also a group that may have been juicing just as much but had lesser skills, so their results were merely "very good.:

_________________

I skimmed, but is schilling really the only guy on track to get in?

_________________

i called it back in Nov that either 1 will get in or Zero.

I'm still saying NOBODY will get in this year.

Baseball HOF voting is pretty archaic and does not really do a good job of marketing old players.

My original post from November :

I believe Clemens started juicing in when he was 20.

_________________