Guys like Tony Peña & Bob Boone get some love to a point, but a Catcher still has to hit to get in the Hall. Maybe the best modern example of a defensive SS would be Ozzie Smith. It definitely wasn't his .262 lifetime avg and career .666 OPS that made him a shoo in.
Just a couple of points from my perspective. The baseball hall of fame process is a big ass joke imo. It's dominated by writers who grew up being primarily fans of large market teams. A lot of these writers are also near and dear friends with owners, agents, and GMs of these teams. They wield way too much power in the process, and the egos of the writers are complete bullshit. I listen to a lot of MLB radio and it's beyond the pale with how these writers continue to move the goal post to fit whatever agenda that they want. For an example, this year these guys completely tried to sell everyone and themselves about Beltran and the cheating scandal. Several of them said he will get in, but Beltran just needed a slap on the hand for scandal... A slap on the hand?! Beltran and Alex Cora created the damn system. It's well documented about how the scandal happened and guys like Cora come off like the best thing since slice bread. If Cora went to another organization not named Boston Red Sox, he would be treated much differently than the way he is treated today. One of media members went as far as to say it didn't benefit Beltran because his career was already done when he played in Houston. The only reason why I am up in arms around Beltran and the scandal is because of the fallout that will come once Altuve eventually retires. Altuve's perception in the media has started to soften after Houston won the World Series in 2022. What he did in game 5 of the ALCS in 2023 is a memory that a lot of the writers are going to remember, but what he has done in the postseason is up there some of the all-time greats. It's terrible that asses like jimboy ruined Altuve's game 6 walk off in 2019. IMO, it's a must for Altuve to get the 3,000-hit mark in order for him to make the hall. There is no reason why Wagner isn't is the hall just like Kurt Schilling. I get Schilling said A LOT, but the hall should be about the player's accomplishments. I am sure we can go through a lot of other players that fit this bill, but Wagner shouldn't have to go through this process for 10 years and there's no guarantee he will get in. As for Berkman, he was talked about a lot because of Melton getting on MLB radio. I will be the first to say that I am not a fan of Lance Berkman. He did not give it his all during his tenure with the Astros, and the Astros gave him pretty much everything he wanted. He grew up with guys like Bagwell and Biggio who gave it their all. Bagwell was robbed because of a shoulder, but he did everything he could to play. Berkman admitted after leaving Houston that he did not give it his all while he was here, and he went into detail about what Tony La Russa expected from him when he joined the Cardinals where he played great. The guy was out of shape, and had he gave a **** like he did when he went to play for La Russa, he would be in the hall of fame today. His numbers are borderline right now. The guy had the tools to do even more, and that is on him.
Probably overshadowed by his teammates... some voters won't vote for someone unless they were the best player on a given team unless it is super team.
ESPN completely transforming from a news network to a network that is reliant on the funding of those they cover is problematic. Just like the regional networks such as TNT with the Braves, WGN with the Cubs, etc., ESPN has turned into a mouthpiece for Boston, New York, and Los Angeles. The likes of Buster Olney has an outsized voice in denouncing the Astros and claims it is simply reporting when he tweets out innuendo while ignoring any allegations against his beloved Dodgers. As for Wagner, looking at his numbers... I am kind of shocked that in terms of pure dominance he was better outside of Houston than in with lower ERAs at every stop after he left. His post-season ERA is 10.03 but it is such a small sample size with only one inning pitched in each of the 1997, 1998, and 1999 playoffs (thanks, Bagwell). Only other thing I can think of is that the New York Post writers took offense that he used Enter the Sandman when he went to the Mets although his use of it predated Rivera's. Next year, he shouldn't be affected by the new entrants on the ballot. There may be a last year push. Plus, maybe some of the old guard retires and some new folks come up in BWAAA.
https://nypost.com/2024/01/23/sports/glad-my-vote-didnt-keep-billy-wagner-out-of-hall-of-fame/ Wagner obviously is a baseball great, one of the top 10 relievers ever. The question is whether he ranks in the top 1.18 percent of players who ever played (that’s the percentage of MLB players who make it to Cooperstown). In my view the answer is no. **** Jon Heyman. New York Post's ballot: 11 voters, 5 no votes for Wagner. Completely asinine.
Well, Beltran is likely the next to go in, if you include him as part of this era. If not, Verlander is next. Altuve still has some work to do.
Curious... For the past four seasons, you've had this pitcher on your staff: 73-26; 2.46; 0 SV; 924.1 IP; 146 ERA+; 2.43 FIP; 1.074 WHIP; 8.9 K/9. And the Astros offer you Billy Wagner for this pitcher (equivalent four years: 17-14; 2.35; 101 SV; 252.2 IP; 177 ERA+; 2.52 FIP; 1.053 WHIP; 14.0 K/9) Do you make the deal? ======================== For me, the answer is no. Never. And it's not close. Look at the innings pitched - the impact of the starter over Wagner is seismic. Said pitcher, BTW, is Dwight Gooden's first four seasons - would anyone consider him a Hall of Famer? And that's why I don't think Wagner - great as he was - should make the Hall of Fame. I don't think Hoffman should be in there, either - and I sure as heckfire don't think Rollie freaking Fingers or Bruce freaking Sutter should be in there. Mariano Rivera, in. Hoyt Wilhelm, in. I could be talked into Dennis Eckersley. And that would be it for relievers for me. I'm not dismissing the importance of closers, as much as highlighting how much more important starters are.
True but I meant more in the terms of who will go in with an Astros hat. Beltran won’t (plus you could argue he did more harm than good with his scheme) I’m pretty sure Verlander will be in a Tiger hat…but certainly a large part of the success of this era.
I'm not so sure. Smaller sample size - but his numbers with the Astros are significantly better & he has more CYAs here (2-1; granted, 1 less MVP); certainly more team success (2 rings). If he gets to 1000 IP with the Astros and can win his 300th (big IF)... I think the Astros will be firmly in play.
At 200 IPs per year (which is beyond delusional to expect) Verlander would need to pitch another 5 years with the Astros, which is 3 years past his current contract. Verlander needs 43 wins to get to 300 total. 3 x 15 win season would get that done. Much of this will depend on Verlander staying healthy and productive the next 3-5 years. It will interesting to see how much Jim Crane wants to see Verlander get his 300th win as an Astro. I am guessing that Crane does want Verlander to retire as an Astro. Verlander now has pitched 12.75 years with Detroit and 5.75 years with Houston. Another 5 years in Houston might be enough to sway the man to wear an Astros hat in the HoF. Also, another ring and or 300 career win as an Astro might be enough.
You misunderstood - if he gets to 1000 IP *total* - he's at 720 right now. Barring unforeseen issues, he should sail by that next year. That's why I mentioned the 1000 innings; I think that's going to start to feel like he's accumulated a significant number of starts if he can get there (which he should).
That's a terrible comparison First of all, the 4 seasons you chose from Gooden are HOF worthy. The fact that he didn't have the longevity to make the HOF is a completely unrelated issue. And you can't compare closers to starters. It's like comparing a catcher to a centerfielder and saying the catcher isn't worthy because be doesn't play enough. (only 1 HOF catcher has 10K PA with the average just over 7300 while 6 HOF CFers have 10K+ and the average is about 8600) Once closers started getting put in, that argument went away. Closers need to be compared to closers not starters. Now, if you say that only 0.5% or 0.4% of closers deserve to get in because 1.5% or 1.2% of starters get in and they get 1/3 of the innings, that is reasonable to me. 47 SP have been inducted into the HOF since SAVES became an official stat in 1969. If you give closers 15 years + the 5 yr waiting period, then 28 SP have been inducted since 1989. 6 true closers have been inducted since then (I don't count Eckersley who started 361 games or Wilhelm who pitched prior to SAVES becoming an official stat) but 1/3 would be 9 and even 1/4 would be 7. So the question is, does Billy make the grade as 1 of the top 6, 7, or 9 closers ever? By every measure the answer is yes.
I think HOF voting should be on a much larger scale. Along with writers, anyone associated w/ MLB should be represented. 10 years should be the starting benchmark - nobody can vote unless in a qualifying position 10+ years. Writers can vote as long as a player from a season they covered remains on the ballot. They fall off then. All HOFers get lifetime voting rights. After all its their club. Other players who hit 10+ years of service time can vote for 15 years (peers =5 yr waiting +10 yrs on ballot) from the time they retire. Players can't vote if on the ballot. Anyone who hits 10 yrs as an onfield/in dugout coach/manager or is a front office officer will be able to vote for 10 seasons starting upon retirement. This should give a better and more rounded selection process.
Thanks! In those four seasons, Gooden totaled the same number of innings pitched as Wagner did for his entire career. So why is one docked for longevity and the other isn't? Cs ultimately total fewer games/ plate appearances, etc., because it's a grueling position. But when they play, catchers play ~9 innings and hit four times/game. This argument would make sense only if they played 1 inning/game. But closers don't play a different game. Think of this way: closers have absolutely zero impact on nearly 90% of any game. They don't score runs or prevent runs to set up the final inning of a viable save. Given this, how do we put them among those players that were far more impactful? I don't disagree he's among the best closers ever. I might even argue he'd be the second-best closer in the HoF; certainly top 3 (he was better than Trevor Hoffman, IMO). ... I just don't think closers should be in the Hall of Fame. (With the exception of Rivera; it would be impossible to tell the story of MLB in the late 90s/2000s without him playing a significant role. But Mariano really is more the "Fame" part of the Hall of Fame.)
I don't think having a different opinion makes one a moron. I don't think players that impact ~10% of the game are worthy of inclusion among baseball's best. I mean, how many Hall of Fame position players or starters, in their prime, do you think I could name before you'd trade one for Billy Wagner? I would guess the number would be virtually all of them.
