My Hall of Fame Ballot

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not really saying "hey, it's always been broken, so let's continue to vote undeserving players in". What I am saying, though, is that if you reduce the "voting" to a purely objective mathematical equation (say, a composite of VORP+ and OPS+, for the sake of discussion), then you no longer have an election anymore. What you have is something akin to the BCS.

[/ QUOTE ]

2/3 of the BCS is based on people voting subjectively, so I don't think your example is a good one.

I'm not asking anyone to be completely objective (how can you be?) but at least try to think about your subjective opinions and how they might be biased. Why were you more in awe of Rice than Raines? Was it a valid opinion? If not, should it be used?

[smbruin22]

hey, if it was the hockey hall of fame, they'd all be getting in...

a few questions and comments:

was jack morris not great for long enough? or never great?

is alan tramell really better than some of those big lists people made?

alot of love for bert blyleven? not sure i agree, but haven't seen his stats so could be way off.

i think some of the discussion should be on greatness as it relates to marketing the game: give mcguire and mattingly huge marks for that. a few others too.

so hard but i'd go mcguire for sure and then maybe mattingly or jack morris... heart is with andre dawson, but too many injury problems i think (that damn olympic stadium)

[MikeyPatriot]

FWIW, this is the post you were referencing when you said people were trolling you:

[ QUOTE ]
If the BBWAA gave you a ballot, and you voted for players based on who you thought the other voters would be voting for, you'd be a goddamn moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, no one ever even called you a moron directly, and you were being unreasonably defensive.

I've continued to call your arguments moronic because, in my opinion, they are. No one's asking you to be 100% objective. But you apparently don't mind being 100% subjective, pushing aside all data put in front of you because of you were "more in awe" of Rice in his career than you were of Raines.

When someone says to you, "Hey buddy, if you're going to vote Jim Rice in you have to vote Tim Raines in because these stats that compare players to other players in their era and then to all other players in other eras," and you simply push that aside without rhyme or reason, you're arguing very stupidly.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not really saying "hey, it's always been broken, so let's continue to vote undeserving players in". What I am saying, though, is that if you reduce the "voting" to a purely objective mathematical equation (say, a composite of VORP+ and OPS+, for the sake of discussion), then you no longer have an election anymore. What you have is something akin to the BCS.

[/ QUOTE ]

2/3 of the BCS is based on people voting subjectively, so I don't think your example is a good one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realized that while I was typing it, but it still seemed reasonably illustrative. My point being that, if you remove all subjective consideration, then there is no point in a ballot at all, but I think you understand that.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking anyone to be completely objective (how can you be?) but at least try to think about your subjective opinions and how they might be biased. Why were you more in awe of Rice than Raines? Was it a valid opinion? If not, should it be used?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the first question is easier to answer. Rice seemed a threat to change the game every time he stepped into the batter's box. I suspect KneelB4Zod was at least 1/2-leveling in his post about Rice being most feared (and certainly, that's no objective HOF credential), but really, there's truth to that perception. In a less offensive era, seeing Rice step into the batter's box with a runner or two on was somewhat similar at that time to seeing someone like Jim Thome or Carlos Delgado do now.

With Raines, it was more a matter of "damn, don't let this guy on base, because he'll wreak havoc if he does". To me, that's not quite the same thing. And even then, during Raines' best years, he always seemed to come up short of Rickey Henderson. I am not at all suggesting that falling short of Rickey makes you not HOF-worthy -- all I'm trying to illustrate is those non-objective criteria that can influence one's vote. I don't see how those are invalid opinions, when at least a part of the criteria for the HOF is a comparison of a player to his peers.

Obviously, reasonable minds can differ, and different people can place different weight on different criteria, but that doesn't make someone's opinion invalid, even if the objective data ultimately disagrees.

[MikeyPatriot]

Mondo,

Do you really not understand why your specific subjective opinions on Rice/Raines are taken with a grain of salt here? If you said that you think Rice had qualities like leadership or the ability to make others around him better or clutch hitting, those are at least things that would reasonably make Rice a better player in your eyes (no matter how little they actually matter to others here).

Unfortunately, you aren't. A significant part of your argument so far is that Rice made you feel more anxious when he was at the plate. I don't even know what to say. It's like arguing Jose Reyes is a better player than Alex Rodriguez because you think he hustles more.

[Pudge714]

Mondo,
There is a lot of subjectivity in the HOF based on what makes someone a HOFer. You can argue Rice should be a HOFer very easily, but assuming you don't punish McGwire for steroids (which you can do) it is very difficult to argue that Rice> Raines or Mac.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, this is the post you were referencing when you said people were trolling you:

[ QUOTE ]
If the BBWAA gave you a ballot, and you voted for players based on who you thought the other voters would be voting for, you'd be a goddamn moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, no one ever even called you a moron directly, and you were being unreasonably defensive.

I've continued to call your arguments moronic because, in my opinion, they are. No one's asking you to be 100% objective. But you apparently don't mind being 100% subjective, pushing aside all data put in front of you because of you were "more in awe" of Rice in his career than you were of Raines.

When someone says to you, "Hey buddy, if you're going to vote Jim Rice in you have to vote Tim Raines in because these stats that compare players to other players in their era and then to all other players in other eras," and you simply push that aside without rhyme or reason, you're arguing very stupidly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not merely pushing Raines' stats aside. If you go back to my second post in the thread, I suggested he comes up just short of inclusion. I looked at things such as, even as a leadoff hitter in an offensive era, he had not even one 200 hit season. Yes, he walked a lot, but never as many as 100 times a season. As a leadoff hitter, he's supposed to walk a lot and take a lot of pitches, and the fact his walk total should be way beyond Rice's. He had six 100 run seasons, and I expected to find more.

Those are all still fine accomplishments, but aside from his stolen bases, the rest of his raw numbers struck me more as the cumulation of a long career more than a career that was truly HOF-worthy.

Obviously, you can (and do) disagree with my interpretation of his stats, but to say my opinion completely disregards objective stats is rather disingenuous.

As for moronic comments, you were clearly, yet indirectly, slapping me with the moron label, even if you didn't say "mondo, you're a moron".

[Pudge714]

Mondo,
If Raines batted ninth would that help or hurt his candidacy?
If Raines has an allstar team behind him had a dozen 100 run seasons would that help or hurt his candidacy?
If Raines played in Coors Field and had a dozen 100 run seasons would that help or hurt his candidacy?

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, I don't think playing at league average enhances one's candidacy, if that comes in your, say, early-to-mid 30s. So no, I don't think that makes one a better candidate than the other. Maybe, just maybe, slightly so. More so if those league-average years are at ages 36-39.

[/ QUOTE ]
HOF candidacy should be based on your accomplishments throughout your career. One more league average season isn't a big deal, but it make his whole career more impressive albeit slightly.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
Mondo,
There is a lot of subjectivity in the HOF based on what makes someone a HOFer. You can argue Rice should be a HOFer very easily, but assuming you don't punish McGwire for steroids (which you can do) it is very difficult to argue that Rice> Raines or Mac.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I do punish Mac for steroids. Sorta. (Not trying to turn this into a steroids thread, and obv, he never tested positive for steroids.) I do think you have to take a negative inference from his complete lack of forthrightness in his Senate testimony. I also put a bit less weight on HRs during the post strike era generally, but only to the extent of comparing those players to players of '68-'94.

I accept that arguing Rice > Raines is very difficult when trying to make that argument to someone who can't appreciate Rice's impact on the game during his time because they weren't around to see it. I'm not trying to patronize here; just saying that when it comes to the more subjective considerations, it's awfully hard to appreciate those considerations if you didn't observe that era first hand.

I'm not really even trying to say Rice > than Raines, as much as I'm trying to say that Rice > his peers when combined with subjective factors more than Raines > his peers when combined with subjective factors.

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not merely pushing Raines' stats aside. If you go back to my second post in the thread, I suggested he comes up just short of inclusion. I looked at things such as, even as a leadoff hitter in an offensive era, he had not even one 200 hit season. Yes, he walked a lot, but never as many as 100 times a season. As a leadoff hitter, he's supposed to walk a lot and take a lot of pitches, and the fact his walk total should be way beyond Rice's. He had six 100 run seasons, and I expected to find more.

Those are all still fine accomplishments, but aside from his stolen bases, the rest of his raw numbers struck me more as the cumulation of a long career more than a career that was truly HOF-worthy.

Obviously, you can (and do) disagree with my interpretation of his stats, but to say my opinion completely disregards objective stats is rather disingenuous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Reading comprehension FTL. I didn't say you pushed aside all the "stats." I said you pushed aside all the evidence given to you in this thread. Like the Rice/Raines EQA graph.

FWIW, the stats and your analysis of them above is very poor.

[ QUOTE ]
As for moronic comments, you were clearly, yet indirectly, slapping me with the moron label, even if you didn't say "mondo, you're a moron".

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's try this again. Here's the quote again:

[ QUOTE ]
If the BBWAA gave you a ballot, and you voted for players based on who you thought the other voters would be voting for, you'd be a goddamn moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's extrapolate that. I said, "If the BBWAA gave you a ballot, and you voted for players you thought the other voters would be voting for AND NOT PLAYERS THAT YOU PERSONALLY THOUGHT SHOULD BE IN THE HALL OF FAME, you would be a moron."

I stand by that statement. If you aren't creating your ballot based solely on your own opinion, you are a moron.