great player, great fielder,..former mVP, as and multiple gold glove winner...i'm not saying he's not deserving...but if he gets in you have to put other comparative non 1st ballot players in.

the veterans committe really lower the standards of the hall. if larkin gets in, why not trammell? raines? mcgriff? bagwell?.

also just look at some of the middle infielders stats in the HOF. the veteran committee have put in some players that you've never heard of, and their stats are pretty much a joke..(joke in what should be HOF standards)....under these numbers former tigers 2nd baseman lou whitaker should be in,

mcgwire, palemiro not in the HOF.....lol.....can't wait for next year w/ bonds, clemens, piazza..

american sports..lol

the HOF is too big now. it should be reserved for great players not very good players..

lol @ some of the players and the process /rules....why did it take jim rice 15 some odd years to get in. did he do something more the 15th year on the ballot?

joke...

i will post some HOF players and their stats that will make u lol

Next year should be an interesting vote

Tim Raines deserves to be in the hall, his advanced stats are so much better than other players from that era who are in, like dawson.

you want to see a joke.



2nd baseman bill mazerowski

lol..voted in by the veteran commitee

hr= 138
rbi= 853
avg= 260
sb = 27
hits= 2016

joke city....big fucking deal he was an AS and gold glove winner

fucking joke

like i said..i am going to give you some MI and their numbers.

i will give you 2nd baseman lou whitakers career numbers here.

he was an AS, GG and WS winner..+ ROY



hr = 244

rbi = 1084

avg = 276

sb = 143

hits = 2369



keep these numbers in mind as i post people that are in the HOF.



lou whitaker isn't even on the ballot anymore

lol at OP not knowing difference between ballet and ballot.

great contribution..i will fix my spelling if that makes you happy..wat a faggot u are

What is the argument? Barry Larkin was a better shortstop than Lou was a second baseman. So, not only did he play a more important position, he was better at face value.

The Mazeroski comparison is irrelevant, as he was elected by the Veteran's Committee. Perhaps Whitaker will be elected that way, also. You'll have to wait and see. Certainly, he's not as good as Lou Whitaker, but the Veteran's Committee is fucking retarded.

If you want to make the argument that Lou Whitaker did not get a fair shake and that he should have gotten more votes, I'd agree. Barry Larkin is a clear HOFer, Lou is not.

my bad..i wasn't very clear....the thread is not about larkin vs whitaker.

the thread is really about the discrepancy of numbers of those who are in and who isn't.

mazerowski in the hall is shameful

Ray Schalk

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... ra01.shtml



look at this

i will take into account that he was a catcher..but, c'mon..jason kendall prolly has better numbers then these.

hr= 11
rbi= 594
avg= 253
sb= 177
hits= 1345

joke city

here's a good comp.

alan trammell vs tony "i'm already in the HOF" lazzeri..both shortstops

trammell is still getting votes be he's behind quite a few players for the necessary amount needed.

alan trammell

as, gg, ws winner, rnr up MVP

hr= 185
rbi= 1003
avg= 285
sb= 236
hits= 2365

and now tony lazzeri



hr= 178
rbi= 1191
avg= 292
sb= 148
hits=1840

trying to compare offensive numbers from guys who played 100 years ago with guys that played much more recently is dropping your credibility fast

bbwoa is a joke though, if jack morris is a hall of famer then so are about 10 pitchers who are going to be up in the last 5 years, bagwell should have been in last year too

hr= 11
rbi= 594
avg= 253
sb= 177
hits= 1345

in any era isn't HOF

and yes..i can compare trammel vs lazzeri. in some cases hitting hr's was easier in the late 20's and 30's as opposed to the 70's and 80's

when yankee stadium opened in 1923 the fences were set at 285 ft down the left field line and 295 ft down the right field line.

gtfo....

little league is 200 or 225..

The early days of baseball up to the 70's had a totally different type of player. Players played for the team not for the stats. How many players nowadays bunt to help the team? How many play for the fences on every swing? That is the difference. When you were an old timer in the league you played for the game not to make a fortune and get traded to make more money.

This post has all kinds of fail. Most sabrmatricians would tell you that you should almost never bunt. That giving away an out is almost always the wrong thing to do. People have stopped doing in largely because it's a bad practice, not because they are selfish.

As mcgee pointed out, teams bunt less now because its been proven through advanced stats that bunting is almost never the correct thing to do, these stats did not exist years ago obviously. If a manager tells a player to bunt the player is going to bunt regardless of his personal stats

Tony Lazzerri was elected 65 years after he last played a game by the Veteran's Committee, so you're comparing apples and oranges again. Trammell will be getting in like this, too.

And you can compare stats over time and ballpark, it's called OPS+ and Lazzeri was 10 points better at 120 v 110.

The guys getting robbed right now are Bagwell and Raines.