2002 Hall of Fame Ballot

[jcrmoon42]

Well...if Omaha does vote, then Cali's vote won't be the decider. One of four different players will get in. All depends on the last two ballots.

[jcrmoon42]

I would like the last two teams voting to please take a look at

THIS LINK

so that they can view the awesomeness before casting their deciding ballots. I mean, really...if the Hall of Fame is about the best players ever, can there really be an argument?

[blake]

If Rockefeller is a Hall of Famer than any player with a few great years is a Hall of Famer. Jose Bautista, Aaron Rogers, Johan Santana, Tim Lincecum. The list goes on. By this standard Joey Votto is a Hall of Famer in a couple more years.

By voting Rockefeller you are setting the standard that any player with 6 or 7 brilliant years is a Hall of Famer. The standard for the Hall of Fame should be set high, not low. It should be very restrictive. Restrictive to the point where it's nearly impossible to get in.

[Al-Hoot]

Yes there can be an argument. It is easy. The guy had 7 maybe 8 good seasons. He didn;t do anything amazing (as far as I can tell) in those seasons.

I find the constant canvassing for votes annoying. Especially when it is done by the guy in charge of collecting HOF ballots.

[jcrmoon42]

On a more fictional baseball-related note, he certainly did do plenty of spectacular things.
2nd all time in WHIP
3rd all time in ERA
5th all time in winning percentage

Counting stats as a starter only limited by the fact that he was the best closer in the league for a few seasons.
Five pitcher of the year or reliever of the year awards in 11 full seasons
Nine seasons in which he was not just really good. He was great by anybody's definition.

If your definition of a Hall of Famer is an above average player with a long career, then he doesn't belong. If your definition is the best players ever with careers of reasonable length, then he absolutely fits.

[jcrmoon42]

If Rockefeller is a Hall of Famer than any player with a few great years is a Hall of Famer. Jose Bautista, Aaron Rogers, Johan Santana, Tim Lincecum. The list goes on. By this standard Joey Votto is a Hall of Famer in a couple more years.

By voting Rockefeller you are setting the standard that any player with 6 or 7 brilliant years is a Hall of Famer. The standard for the Hall of Fame should be set high, not low. It should be very restrictive. Restrictive to the point where it's nearly impossible to get in.

You are understating Rockefeller's greatness and the length of time he was great by listing these comps. His career was not really that short.

I'm not suggesting at all that the Hall of Fame standard should be set low. I'm suggesting that greatness over a relatively short period, say 10 years, still qualifies as greatness. Any length requirement you place on election is totally arbitrary anyway. Where is the line? 15 years? 20 years? Is winning 300 games, or another arbitrary, round number, the standard regardless of comparative greatness on a percentage basis?

My point is that there is no set definition of what qualifies someone as a Hall of Famer. It is for each of us to decide, and, in my opinion, the comparative greatness of Heath Rockefeller, albeit over a relatively short career, makes him a Hall of Famer. Those who disagree are welcome to vote otherwise.

Hopefully everyone understands that this is intended to be a good-natured baseball discussion rather than something argumentative or antagonistic. I'd like to think that a good baseball debate is welcome.

[blake]

It's a flash in the pan type of career. Oasis put out what some consider brilliant albums over the period of a few years. Does that make them The Beatles? Radiohead put out a few brilliant albums. Does that make them Pink Floyd? It's sustained brilliance that defines a Hall of Famer. Or it's a long career that puts up prodigious amounts of numbers. It's prolific amounts of numbers that separate a Hall of Famer from the rest. Thats what makes a player a great player with Hall of Fame potential. His output is greater.

His career is certainly impressive but it didnt show a Hall of Fame level of potential.

[jcrmoon42]

It's a flash in the pan type of career. Oasis put out what some consider brilliant albums over the period of a few years. Does that make them The Beatles? Radiohead put out a few brilliant albums. Does that make them Pink Floyd? It's sustained brilliance that defines a Hall of Famer. Or it's a long career that puts up prodigious amounts of numbers. It's prolific amounts of numbers that separate a Hall of Famer from the rest. Thats what makes a player a great player with Hall of Fame potential. His output is greater.

His career is certainly impressive but it didnt show a Hall of Fame level of potential.

I don't disagree with you on your definition. At the same time, the RL Hall of Fame has several players in it whose career was defined by a short period of greatness. That greatness was determined to be of a high enough level to justify their election. That's what I'm suggesting with Rockefeller. Five years out of the eleven he played he was voted the #1 player by these very owners. The other six years, he played at a similar level of greatness but was edged by someone else.

However, saying "flash in the pan" is subjective. I don't see 11 years as a flash in the pan. Five? Six? Seven? Sure. In my judgment, eleven years is sufficient. You only need ten to be on the RL ballot.

Would you argue that Sandy Koufax is one of the greatest pitchers of all time? I certainly would? But look at his career numbers. He was only one of the best pitchers in baseball for five years. But in those five years, he won 3 Cy Youngs and an MVP. Prior to breaking out at age 26, he was 54-53 on his career. How about Dizzy Dean? He was great for six seasons before injuries cut him down. Still, many consider him the greatest of all time.

[TimB]

Or to use your Beatles analogy, in rock terms the Beatles star burned very brightly for a relatively short period of time in the scheme of things. Look at the career of the Rolling Stones, Springsteen, several others, longevity is a factor but not the sole one. Are the Beatles HOF material? Doubt you'll hear many argue otherwise.
I actually like these discussions, stir up some well considered debate

[jcrmoon42]

Thanks, Tim. I like them too. It isn't just a discussion of Heath Rockefeller. It is a discussion of the nature of the Hall of Fame, both here and in RL. Do guys like Koufax, Dean and Ralph Kiner belong in the Hall? Most would think so. Those who rely too much on counting stats run the risk of electing people like Don Sutton who accumulate numbers but who actually only had 3 or so seasons that could be considered "great." That is similar to saying that Michael Young is a better hitter than Evan Longoria just because Young gets 200 hits and hits .300.

[blake]

Yeah I realize the Koufax comparison but even though he had a short career he still put up 2396 K's which was 7th all-time at his retirement and he also had 2324.1 IP. You need some career total that ranks with other Hall of Famers.

Rockefeller isnt even cracking the top 100 in IP and hes 98th in K's. This is a guy who retired at 34 and 4 of the years was as a reliever. Thats really a low amount of potential. There isn't any career total that you can use to justify it. The ERA and WHIP are excellent but the innings are lower so it detracts from it.

Hayden Finch had a WHIP only .08 lower than Finch but over 1245 more innings. If Rockefeller gets in and not Finch it would be strange. There is no prolific output by Rockefeller to warrant it.

[blake]

Don Sutton put up 324 wins and a 3.26 ERA over 5282.1 innings. Thats the definition of a prolific Hall of Fame career. Not a Tim Lincecum who has 7 great seasons and then fizzles out.

[blake]

Id definitely rather have Don Sutton or Hayden Finch over 20+ years than Tim Lincecum or Rockefeller for 10. Because Im getting more overall production. And Finch had a few great seasons where his ERA was sub 3 and his WHIP was under .90. But all that gets lost among the other years. So it would be strange to punish Finch for pitching more and rewarding Rockefeller for less production.

[Al-Hoot]

I would like the last two teams voting to please take a look at

THIS LINK

so that they can view the awesomeness before casting their deciding ballots. I mean, really...if the Hall of Fame is about the best players ever, can there really be an argument?

Again:

I find the constant canvassing for votes annoying. Especially when it is done by the guy in charge of collecting HOF ballots.

I will restate on the forum that in my newbie opinion, to constantly promote a specific player for the HOF seems like a conflict of interests to me. Especially when there are 1 or 2 votes outstanding, especially when these 1-2 voters are besieged by a huge link to ONE PLAYER.

In stating this, I am not questioning the integrity of the HOF ballot collector, HOF vote process, or HOF vote result.

What I am doing is stating my preference as to what the HOF vote process should not include.

[cheekimonk]

It's a flash in the pan type of career. Oasis put out what some consider brilliant albums over the period of a few years. Does that make them The Beatles? Radiohead put out a few brilliant albums. Does that make them Pink Floyd? It's sustained brilliance that defines a Hall of Famer. Or it's a long career that puts up prodigious amounts of numbers. It's prolific amounts of numbers that separate a Hall of Famer from the rest. Thats what makes a player a great player with Hall of Fame potential. His output is greater.

His career is certainly impressive but it didnt show a Hall of Fame level of potential.

Um, I'm reaching 40 - so this is not some "clueless college kid" speech - but everything Radiohead has ever released has been brilliant. Some albums are more accessible than others, sure, but they have not missed a step since day 1. They are not Pink Floyd...they are better. They belong among the greatest bands of all time and, like all of the others, most people won't realize it until 10 years after they hang it up. There are some bands included among the best who didn't break new ground, they just took something already out there and did it better than anyone ever had (Led Zeppelin falls here, IMO...nobody was doing exactly what they did, but it's still 4/4 rock & blues only with THE greatest drummer, THE greatest producer, and one of the greatest frontmen and guitarists of all time). But the super elite are those going in new directions and dragging everyone else behind them: Radiohead, The Beatles, The Doors, The Police & Sting, The Beach Boys, everything Prince was involved in, etc.

[mrbornac]

To compare a baseball "Hall of Fame" to the "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" is like apples and oranges imho. The later is a joke in my opinion....

[cheekimonk]

Or to use your Beatles analogy, in rock terms the Beatles star burned very brightly for a relatively short period of time in the scheme of things. Look at the career of the Rolling Stones, Springsteen, several others, longevity is a factor but not the sole one. Are the Beatles HOF material? Doubt you'll hear many argue otherwise.
I actually like these discussions, stir up some well considered debate

The Stones did not have a long career...they had a short burst of fame (granted it was after a decade of deserving much more attention than they got) and have followed with 30+ years of upper-mediocrity artificially boosted into greatness by a fawning media. Just like with Aerosmith, new wave & punk turning the rock press on its head in the late 70s/early 80s meant there was no one in the middle to step back and say, "You know, these guys aren't really that special..."

[TimB]

Errr what... the Stones short burst of fame? 1964 first album goes Gold in UK and US, they then make consistently brilliant albums, Their Satanic Majesties 1967 (Gold) Let It Bleed 1969 (Platinum) Exile on Main St 1972 (Platinum) Some Girls 1978 (Platinum) to name but a few. Even discounting the patchy Tattoo You and Undercover (1981 and 1983) and the descent into shite that was the 90's thats hardly a short burst of fame. The Beatles 1963-70 is a far shorter if equally brilliant career. Anyway thread hijack over

[recte44]

As far as "canvassing" goes, it's part of the process. It's up to you, the voter, who you vote for or not. To suggest anyone we should squash anyone's opinion or that Jason is somehow circumventing the process is both false and uncalled for. While he does handle the ballot and compiling the results, he's also a GM, and a voter, so his opinions are not only acceptable, they're welcome.

In the end, each GM has to decide what their Hall of Fame requirements are. That's the beauty of the thing. Because there are so many different opinions on "what makes a Hall of Famer", only the players that are able to truly gain a consensus among the voters gain election. That, to me, is a great system.

The debate is just that, debate. And it's fun to hear other opinions. So let's remember to respect each other's opinions, though we may disagree, and keep the debates to the ideas.

[aaronweiner]

I'd say there's a great deal of subjectivity involved in choosing Radiohead over Pink Floyd. I can't say I agree with you; Floyd has some absolutely iconic songs and cross over into nearly any genre, while Radiohead is still legitimately eclectic, OK Computer or no OK Computer.