Baseball HOF Ballot...Anybody Getting In This Year???

I think this is the year of the reliever. Sutter and Gossage and Negro Leaguers. Blyleven could get the bump too.

The thing about guys like trammell, Rice and Dawson is the seperation between 'all-star' and 'Hall of famer'. I think all three were great players but not transcendant ones, all three were amongst the best at their positions, but never the best (excepting Dawson in '87, Trammell in '87 and Rice in '78). I actually think Rice even making it to this discussion is a little rediculous, but I'm not from New England. If Jim Rice has his career anywhere else, no one's talking about him for HoF.

I've always felt that if the Hall is going to accept guys like this, putting them on an even footing with the Ruths of the game devalues the contributions of the true greats. I'd love to hijack this thread or start a new one with a 'who are the 50 best players of all time' kind of conversation that can separate those guys from their mortal Hall-mates, but I dont want any *'s under my nick.

Gary

[TheNoodleMan]

I think that the relievers are long overdue, and with a weak crop of hitters, they have a better shot this year. Gossage, Smith and Sutter all should get some serious consideration.
As for the OP's suggestion that Tommy John should be recognized, I think you are slightly off track. I don't think John deserves induction but I think that Dr. Frank Jobe should be inducted as a contributor to the game, an old dormant category that has previously been used primarily to recognize some of baseballs founding fathers.

[rwperu34]

I really go back and forth on the closers. Right now I am back, and don't think Sutter and Gossage should be HOFers. I would lean more towards Gossage if I had to choose.

With regards to Tramell, he is another that I go back and forth. I view Tramell, Larkin, Sandberg, and Whitaker as all very similar. I think Sandberg is just in, and Whitaker is just out. And yes, I think it was a joke that Whitaker didn't even get 5% of the votes while Sandeberg made it. I can never decide on Tramell and Tramell will ultimately decide the fate of Larkin (although in comparing the two, I'd give a slight edge to Larkin). I guess I'll just put it off for another year.

On the pitchers, I think it is a travis-sham-mockery that Blyleven is not in.

I'm against Rice. Of all the outfielders, I think Dawson has the best case and I would vote for Murphy over Rice. But I'm not going to throw a fit if any of those guys don't make it. Harold Baines will also be a very interesting player to watch over the next decade.

So I guess I would only vote for one player in 2006, and that's Bert Blyleven.

[irishpint]

blyleven needs to be in. he needed to be in years ago.

[SossMan]

Walt Weiss? WTF?

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
Walt Weiss? WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

He qualifies to be on the ballot due to the length of his career. He'll get 0 votes this year and will be dropped from next year's ballot.

[Pudge714]

The most interesting name in this ballot IMO is Doc Gooden. Clearly he doesn't have the longevity, but does he get a Sandy Koufax type exception, where he was so great that his longevity is irrelevant.

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
The most interesting name in this ballot IMO is Doc Gooden. Clearly he doesn't have the longevity, but does he get a Sandy Koufax type exception, where he was so great that his longevity is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just compnare Gooden to Koufax?

[Jack of Arcades]

brett,

the comparison isn't as absurd as you make it out to be. Dwight's '85 was better than anything Koufax did.

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
brett,

the comparison isn't as absurd as you make it out to be. Dwight's '85 was better than anything Koufax did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, my reaction was mainly a response to Gooden's "extra curricular" activites, rather than his career. Re; 1985, has anyone had a better year?

I dont' really know enough about either player to say either way, I was just surprised is all.