bobq: I bet this will excite you, the Mets and Blue jays are the two teams most interested in Vladimir Guerrero Jr. People are saying that he's much better than his father was at this game and say he could match up with harper.

zanderlex :

The comparison is ridiculous.

He's like 15 years old, and no one can tell how good you are at that age.

The hype is absolutely absurd. Temper expectations.

bobq : zanderlex failed summon you. 

tornadocam : I forgot that the M's got Happ. Didn't we give up an infielder or something for Happ? 

As for the Mariners giving up their pitching? I do not see it happening. 

thing1 :

For Happ?

You gave up outfielder Michael Saunders, who was one of the most underrated players on your team last year.

He hit .273/.341/.450 (with an OPS+ of 128, which means he was 28% better than a league average player on a team that s starving for offense.)

It was kind of a stupid trade for the Mariners, if I'm being honest.

legacyme3 : Random question, but tomorrow, do you think Randy Johnson has a shot at becoming one of the closest players to a Unaminous HoF ballot?

zanderlex :

No, I don't, really.

The thing is, a unanimous vote cannot happen in today's age, with how jam packed ballots are, and how voters are limited to 10 votes each.

A lot of voters do strategic voting. Basically, it's clear someone (like Randy Johnson) is going to make the Hall, so some people are going to vote for say Tim Raines or Jeff Bagwell over Randy Johnson, knowing their vote will help someone else without really hurting the player guaranteed to get in.

Honestly, if I had a real vote (in another thread in this forum, I posted my ballot, which, although I think are the 10 best to choose from, wouldn't be the 10 I'd actually vote for given the opportunity) I would abstain from voting for either of Randy Johnson or Pedro Martinez, since I know they are locks to get in. I would use those votes on players that I'm worried will miss the 5% cut off, and want to give them a fair chance or players that would be close that I might not otherwise vote for (like Raines, who is like the 15th best player on the ballot this year).

I don't think any player will ever get close to unanimous, and no one will ever challenge the record for closest to unanimous. For that to happen, the Hall of Fame voting rules NEED to change.

legacyme3 : I knew it was a big name. I was pissed when I heard about that trade. A lot of fans were happy because they say he is injury prone, but I am not happy with the trade. I think that Saunders was a big part of the infield defense. 

thing1 :

Saunders is an outfielder. Not an infielder.

Do you even know your own team?

Saunders has never played infield professionally. Even in the minors he was an outfielder.

legacyme3 : I must have been thinking of Seager. 

I still think trading Saunders for Happ was a bad deal for the Mariners, though. 

Braves have no team now I must say. They got rid of J upton but they weren't able to get rid of BJ Upton. It's sad to see what that team is now. Luckily they'll have a ton of money to get good players.

Also, they do have the worst minor league system in the MLB.

Also, Cleveland Indanas, they haven't done much, nothing to really be disappointed in other then their current team.

tornadocam : Darn, I really wanted Piazza to get in, and I would debate you on Bonds.

Barathemos :

Actually, that's incorrect. The Braves have a bad farm system, but there are worse. And the Braves added to it with these trades (that I honestly wouldn't have done, outside of Heyward for Miller. What a steal!)

Examples of worse farm systems - Angels, Brewers, Tigers, and Athletics.

The Braves are bottom 10, but not the worst.

-----

tornadocam :

I'm confused. You say you are glad that cheaters didn't get in, but then you say you hope that Piazza gets in. Piazza has admitted to PED use. linky linky

Even if they are cheats (in Piazza's case) or suspected cheats (in Bonds' case), I think those guys both deserve to get into the Hall of Fame.

It's not a Hall of Sainthood. It's a hall of baseball history, and we can't pretend players like Piazza and Bonds never played the game. To do so is insane, and it's a major fallacy among baseball writers today.

The reason Piazza didn't get in, by the way, are stupid voting rules. Each writer is only allowed to vote for 10 people, which is an arbitrary number that shouldn't exist. If they are a Hall of Famer, they are a Hall of Famer. The rule only exists to keep people from getting in right away. It's dumb, and has no part in our world.

-----

Next year's ballot adds Ken Griffey Jr and Trevor Hoffman. My early 2016 ballot looks like this:
1. Ken Griffey Jr.
2. Trevor Hoffman
3. Mike Piazza
4. Jeff Bagwell
5. Barry Bonds
6. Roger Clemens
7. Curt Schilling
8. Edgar Martinez
9. Jeff Kent
10. Alan Trammell

This isn't in any specific order. But those guys all belong in the Hall of Fame for one reason or another. (There are tons of other players I'd like to vote for, but can't, like Lee Smith, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Gary Sheffield (who I voted for this year, but misjudged his vote market), Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Nomar Garciaparra, and Billy Wagner.

Wait... so the Hall happened? Can somebody tell me who got in please? Please tell me Randy and Edgar got in at least. 

thing1 :

Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Craig Biggio got in.

Mike Piazza was close, but fell like 40 votes shy.

Edgar Martinez got 27% on the ballot in his 6th year (you need 75% to get in, and 5% to just stay on the ballot, up to your 10th year. If you don't get in on your 10th year, you don't get in unless the Veteran's Committee votes you in at a later date).

At this point, I'm led to believe there's no way Edgar Martinez is going to jump 48% in the ballot over the next 4 years. The only way he is getting in I think is if the Veterans Committee votes him in, but they tend to emphasize WAR, which Edgar didn't have a lot of, since he was primarily a DH.

I honestly doubt he gets in at this point in time. He's behind Piazza, Bagwell, Raines, Schilling, Clemens, Bonds, and Lee Smith in the voting this year, and next year adds in both Trevor Hoffman and Ken Griffey Jr.

I don't think he has a chance next year, at the very least.

You can see full voting results at BBWAA's website.

-----

The only question with the Hall of Fame is which hat Randy Johnson wears into the Hall on his plaque. The three choices are Diamondbacks, Mariners, and no team (like Maddux last year).

If it were up to me, he'd go in as a Diamondback. He had his best years in Arizona and actually won when he was in Arizona. Which'll be huge, since he'd be their first Hall of Famer. Seattle doesn't have one either, but Griffey will probably go in as a Mariner next year, so it's no big deal.

legacyme3 : What in the world is WARS? Is that some weird system like the QBR for football? 

thing1 :

It's a system created with the express purpose of telling you who the better players were. Players with higher WAR were usually the better players.

This is really something you should Google. It's an easy concept, and it's the most basic of all sabremetrics. It's not all knowing, but it's a good indicator of how good a player is.

It basically takes your performance compared to that of other players at your position, with the replacement level (bench player who starts) being the basis of talent evaluation. This also factors in things like defense and base running. That's why gold glove defenders ate more valuable than players who hit a little bit have meh defense.

Edgar Martinez had 8 seasons above 5 WAR which is great for a DH. But he only had 1 season of 7+ which is generally where MVP type players are. It's mostly because whenever he did play the field, he played it badly, and that hurt his value more than if he just stayed at DH.

I wish I was a sports writer I'm trying to befriend some of the sports writers so maybe I can get my feet of the door. 

Here would be my 2016 HOF Ballot (In No Order)

1. Jeff Bagwell 
2. Ken Griffey JR
3. Trevor Hoffman
4. Mike Piazza 
5. Curt Schilling 
6. Edgar Martinez 
7. Tim Raines 
8. Allan Trammel 
9. Larry Walker 
10. Nomar Garcipiara 
    
    If they did away with the you can only chose 10 rule I would add Jeff Kent to my ballot too that guy could hit 

My ballot would be something along the lines of

Ken Griffey Jr
Mike Piazza
Curt Schilling
Gary Sheffield
Trevor Hoffman
Lee Smith
Fred Mcgrif
Larry Walker
Jeff Bagwell
Barry Bonds

The first 4 are the ones that I really think all deserve to get in next year.

tornadocam :

If your goal is to get into being a sportswriter (I've briefly dabbled in it on various sites, that pay per view -it's not a good system), then there are a lot of things you need to do besides become friends with other sportswriters (doesn't honestly help all that much).

Chiefly among them, is to show competence in the field of writing. I don't say this to be mean, but unless your writing is better than your posting (much better), you'll need to upgrade that considerably. They aren't Ivy League Scholars by any means, but even with editors, you need to have a basic grasp of syntax and grammar, or you will struggle to find any meaningful work in the field (there's no job worse than being the editor for a sports writer, because there's nothing more boring than re-reading work that you more or less know already).

Second, you need to likely start with a website that is just getting off the ground. I forget what site it was I wrote for. I did a few pieces, and I enjoyed it enough (didn't get paid or anything), but I also lucked out, by finding a site looking for writers as it was trying to get off the ground.

Once employed, you really need to put your all into those pieces (again, going back to the grammar and syntax thing, on small starting out sites, you WON'T often have an editor, so you NEED to have the grasp yourself) and hope that you get noticed by someone who likes your work enough to hire you onto a big syndicated platform. I quit sportswriting before I got that far, but have a few acquaintances in the field, so I know how difficult it is to get to where you need to be.

Thirdly (or fourthly, really), you need to have a decent understanding of ALL types of stats. I'm not talking about just Batting Average, home runs, or RBIs... I'm talking about WAR, OPS+, xFIP and other more advanced stats than the ones that show up on a baseball card. You don't need to use them yourself, mind you, but you need to have the ability to carry a conversation on advanced statistics, especially if you plan to quote statistics in your articles. Otherwise, you will be eaten alive by what is becoming a progressively sabremetric sport (I'm assuming you want to be a sportswriter in baseball, because of your posting in this specific thread).

In all, it's a long road. I'm not saying give up or anything. Just trying to give you an idea of what you are in store for if you decide to pursue that path. No self-respecting sportswriter was just given a handout. They had to work tirelessly the old fashioned way to make something of themselves.

-----

On the discussion of Hall of Fame voting, I find it more shocking that so many people don't vote for guys like Bonds and Clemens. I'm not speaking in just this thread, but it seems incredibly petty that anyone wouldn't consider those guys hall of famers.

The Baseball Hall of Fame is a place of history, meant to explain our nation's greatest past time, for better or worse. It isn't just a shrine to the beloved, but also to the damned, history's villains who became villainized either during or after their careers, for whatever reason.

Fifty years from now, when your grandchildren go to the Hall of Fame, to learn about the sport their parents, their grand parents, and their grand parents' parents watched, how are we going to explain to them that a player who broke the home run record isn't a Hall of Famer? How are we going to explain the Steroid Era if the Hall of Fame refuses to acknowledge it happened? How are we going to explain that we know of a history that the bastion of history itself doesn't claim exists?

It'll just show that as a people, we were incredibly petty, and unable to get past the simple fact that in the 90's and 2000's, over half the league was on steroids, and doing something that is against the rules?

An example of a great piece on the subject... As much as I dislike Grant Brisbee, he has a good commentary here.

"It's hard to comprehend here because in 2015, McGwire and Sosa are about to fall off the ballot for the Hall of Fame."

"Wait ... do they run into each other on the bases this year and die? I'm not prepared for that. Wait, no, I guess Sosa might be more of a Roger Maris type. He probably stops hitting."

Skip skip

"It's the steroids. I don't want to be the one to tell you this ... they all go down. They're all on steroids."

"Steroids?"

"All of them."

Skip skip

"Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa. Steroids? Of course they're on steroids. They're all on steroids."

There were clean players in the 2000s, of course, players like Biggio, and Pedro, and Randy Johnson. But the gross majority of players were on the juice. And we have to acknowledge this. At the time, we knew guys like Bonds were juicing. We didn't really care though. Because they were still hall of famers without it.