• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Jen Griffey, Jr. 99.3%

Algona

Well-Known Member
I watched (and listened) to Ken Griffey, Jr. play since he came up. I'm not a big fan of baseball, but I always stopped and watched (or listened) whenever Junior came to bat. Sweetest swing ever. Amazing catches. A Golden Glove for every finger and thumb. Back to back home runs with his father. My, Oh, my! And the smile...

He just received the highest percentage vote of any player ever got for the Baseball Hall of Fame. 437 out of 440 votes.

I sure wish I could have heard Dave Niehaus make that call.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
I mean this as no disrespect to Ken Griffey, Jr. Before his injuries, he was well on his way to maybe 800 home runs. I've never even heard a suggestion that he used PEDs, nor cheated in any other way. If a father wanted to point to someone in baseball- heck, any sport- and tell his son he could do much worse than strive to be like Griffey, Jr, that's a good dad.

But I'm not sure at all if he deserved to have the highest vote total ever. Well, that's not exactly what I mean to say....let me try, I'm not sure there are others who should have had higher vote totals. Walter Johnson. Lou Gehrig. Roberto Clemente. Mickey Mantle (though I suspect I know why). Willie Mays. Nolan Ryan. Cal Ripken, Jr. (not for stats but maybe for saving baseball). Babe Ruth. And the list could go on. Voters found some reason to deny players of that calibre their vote. Beyond me as to why.
 

DeletedUser13838

As a met fan I don't mind jr beating seaver's record. By all accounts he's a good guy.

I just want to know which 3 people didn't vote for him. Oh and who are the 2 people who voted for david eckstein?

Oh and I don't think the old guard were originally voted in but were selected by mlb. Not sure. And I also wonder if Jeter will break Jr's record. I don't think he should but it'll e a big media thing I'm sure.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
Mustapha, if I had to guess it's three reasons.

1) The old guard bastards who don't believe in unanimous voting are dying off.

2) Every voting writer has lived with the huge increase in game availability and the ESPN effect. Everyone got to see Junior on ESPN every night for a couple decades. It's one thing to read about a great catch or a towering home run, another thing to see it.

3) I think it's fair to say that The Kid is possibly the best ball player over the last three decades.

One oddity. Griffey is the first first pick of the draft to make the Hall. Piazza is the lowest draft pick to make the Hall. Nice.
 

DeletedUser17558

Living in Cincinnati, Jr was great to watch. His swing is the most natural swing have ever seen. I think that there are and always will be a few people who think that either no one should get in on the first ballot or at least not unanimously. I wish he could have played for a few more winning teams, but that is life. He deserves to be a first ballot HOFer for sure. He is also one of a handful of players that could deserve to have that honor unanimously.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
Algona- I should have done some research before I posted (not the first time I've said that).

I didn't realize that the Hall voters list had been purged of those who had not written about baseball in the last ten years. That would seem to me to be an obvious disqualification from voting, and I'm shocked that it hasn't been done before (assuming it hasn't).

And it would appear that you're right: the old bastards who just plain would never vote for a candidate in their first year of eligibility would seem to have been disinvited from voting. Good riddance, says I. Just because Mantle wasn't unanimous and you're still po'ed about that doesn't necessarily mean you should continue that tradition.

But the article (on ESPN.com if you're interested) raised an interesting point. The new crop of voters seem less inclined to hold allegations of PED use against, if not all those accused, at least certain ones. Piazza had allegations against him, though he was never accused or was investigated, at least not so far as I know. Bonds and Clemens had their vote total increase somewhat, though McGwire didn't receive enough votes to stay on the ballot. My guess is that these new voters might just think that so many players were juiced that all the team benefited from breaking the rules, so let 'em all (or most) in. I guess we'll see if this is a trend next year.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
Random analyst had an interesting view re the steroid players. Their inflated stats make some legit players of that era pale in comparison. Fred McGriff was the player he cited. Stats worthy of consideration, but may never get into the Hall.

The Piazza thing was bull. Reporters noted he had acne on his back and jumped the conclusion he was on steroids...
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
And the voters were basically of one of two mindsets regarding that issue:

1) since we don't know who did and who didn't juice, don't let anyone in with even the slightest taint of corruption

2) since the problem was so widespread and it seems to have both hitters and pitchers taking advantage of PEDs, then all you can do is judge the players, juiced or not, by the stats they put up against their peers, juiced or not.

What is really sad is that many of these players who- almost certainly- juiced were headed to HOF careers even before they went to The Dark Side. Bonds would have been a 500hr, 500 steal, .300BA player even without- allegedly- juicing. McGwire was heading towards 500hr as well. Clemens would have won 300 games anyway. those numbers, at one time at least, guaranteed you a call to the Hall.

And like you said, players like McGriff and Jeff Bagwell, among others, are given the old Stink-Eye because of the era in which they played. The use of PEDs renders accomplishments like hitting 'only' 450 or so homers run-of-the-mill. That's even sadder.
 

DeletedUser13838

Bagwell just missed. My guess is he'll get in next year.

Dave Kingman hit 442 homers. Don't agree that there should be some magic number that gets you in.
 

DeletedUser

Ok ok I just have to ask, can't help myself...who's Jen Griffey Jr. and what is their relationship to Ken?o_O
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
:D I'm the worst typist ever. I can go back and edit a post, but I have not figured out how to edit a thread title.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
Bagwell just missed. My guess is he'll get in next year.

Dave Kingman hit 442 homers. Don't agree that there should be some magic number that gets you in.

I'm not a fan of his politics, but Keith Olbermann is just about the most informed baseball historian I've ever read. He and Dan Patrick co-wrote a book a good while back called "The Big Show" and one of the chapters was on one hundred players (think it was that many) Olbermann thought deserved to be in the HOF, with a paragraph or three arguing each player's case for inclusion.

If I remember right, Kingman didn't make the list due to comparatively low batting average, lack of what Olbermann called "Bold Type" (usually the fot on a baseball card indicating that the player had led the league in a particular category) and maybe a couple other factors. Even though it is at least somewhat outdated, similar arguments can be made for players who are only now becoming eligible (or perhaps are appearing on the Veteran's Committee ballots).

Anyway, it used to be that 500 homers, 3000 hits and/or 300 wins would pretty much guarantee you a spot in the Hall. We will probably see many more 500 home run hitters than we'll see 3000 hits or, especially, given the greatly reduced number of starts a pitcher gets these days, 300 game winners. When was the last time we had a 20 game winner in a single season? You'd have to do that for fifteen years in order to win 300 games. I can see hitting 33 homers a year for 15 years, less so getting 200 hits a year for 15 years, but I really can't see any more 300 game winners under current conditions of only 30 or so starts a year or 5 man rotations.
 

DeletedUser13838

Anyway, it used to be that 500 homers, 3000 hits and/or 300 wins would pretty much guarantee you a spot in the Hall. We will probably see many more 500 home run hitters than we'll see 3000 hits or, especially, given the greatly reduced number of starts a pitcher gets these days, 300 game winners. When was the last time we had a 20 game winner in a single season? You'd have to do that for fifteen years in order to win 300 games. I can see hitting 33 homers a year for 15 years, less so getting 200 hits a year for 15 years, but I really can't see any more 300 game winners under current conditions of only 30 or so starts a year or 5 man rotations.

IIRC at one point Kingman was the only 400 HR player not in the HoF. The steroid era changed all that. There was a 20 game winner this season.
 

DeletedUser

All the talk about players that juiced but what about talk of the corked bats, doctored balls etc.

Just the changes in equipment led to some players getting inflated stats during certain periods.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
One thing I always wondered about steroids was if they actually helped you to hit a baseball. Hit a baseball further, yes....but you have to have the hand-eye coordination necessary to hit the ball in the first place. So maybe it turned some warning track fly balls into homers by adding 15 feet to the flight of the ball, but I have to wonder how much, if any, it helps in making contact.
For pitching, it seems to me a more straight-forward proposition: steroids make you stronger, therefore you can throw harder and recover faster from your last outing. If that's true- >IF<- then I could see why a Clemens might juice, whereas a Maddux would not benefit.
 

DeletedUser13838

Every major leaguer can hit the ball. Bonds went from being a 300 hitter with power to being a 300 hitter with phenomenal power. After 2000 his slugging percentage went from 600s to 800s.

I think we overestimate the distance to the fence - 15 feet is a fairly large fraction. Most golfers can clear the fence with a pitching wedge and that's with a ball at rest. I don't know how much distance steroids would add but if it added 5% (15-20 feet) the impact to your power stats would be enormous.
 

DeletedUser13452

I'm not going to name names, but I have personally known 3 professional athletes in my lifetime. One of them has a Super Bowl Ring. All 3 have informed me at one time or another that every pro athlete supplements in some way. You simply cannot compete at the first string level if you don't. It is a matter of choice that comes when you decide to go pro or not. A real life decision.
 
Top