HOF expert predicts only Maddux makes it this year

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by Brian26

Belle was only here for two of Frank's 15 years with the Sox, so that's not ag relevant statement in comparing the two. With that said, Frank played on generally very good Sox offensive teams. In the early part of his career, he had Raines, Cora, Robin and #9 hitter Guillen on base in front of him, and sometimes Robin, Franco, Belle and Tartabull hitting behind him.

Eh, Ozzie's career OBP with the Sox was .287, which makes Gordon Beckham look like a young Kevin Youkilis, Ozzie batted #9 for a reason, which was because he was only here for his glove.

[TaylorStSox]

Originally Posted by SephClone89

Those aren't actual stats.

In the context of a HOF discussion, they're probably more relevant than stats.

[rdivaldi]

Originally Posted by TDog

Thomas had Belle protecting him for two seasons, one of which was his worst offensive season of the 20th century. The first wasn't one of his MVP years.

True, but Frank also struggled with a foot problem for most of that season which greatly affected his production.

[spawn]

Originally Posted by rdivaldi

True, but Frank also struggled with a foot problem for most of that season which greatly affected his production.

I think his point is Albert Belle as protection for Frank in the lineup really wasn't much of a factor as far as his career went.

[SephClone89]

Originally Posted by TaylorStSox

In the context of a HOF discussion, they're probably more relevant than stats.

I disagree. We shouldn't be bound to contemporary perceptions of a player when trying to decide where he fits in the bigger picture. All-Star and Cy Young voting are not the most accurate barometers of performance.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by SephClone89

I disagree. We shouldn't be bound to contemporary perceptions of a player when trying to decide where he fits in the bigger picture. All-Star and Cy Young voting are not the most accurate barometers of performance.

They're accurate barometers of popularity and that's about it.

[SI1020]

Originally Posted by SephClone89

I disagree. We shouldn't be bound to contemporary perceptions of a player when trying to decide where he fits in the bigger picture. All-Star and Cy Young voting are not the most accurate barometers of performance.

Originally Posted by DSpivack

They're accurate barometers of popularity and that's about it.

Here we go again. I do agree with SephClone89 that making the All Stars or getting the Cy Young are not stats, but awards. They do call it the Cy Young award. However taking the holistic approach to things I would not ignore either, just make them part of the mix. Now, if you're into saber, with it WAR and JAWS, you may be surprised to know that going strictly by the numbers Bagwell beats Frank Thomas, and for SP Schilling beats both Mussina and Glavine in JAWS although the numbers are very close for all 3 when you look at that plus WAR and average WAR per year. Tim Raines and Alan Trammel have WAR and JAWS above the average HOFer for their positions, and so does Mike Piazza who I am giving the benefit of the doubt in the matter of PEDs.

[russ99]

Originally Posted by mzh

Statistically speaking, Bagwell is about as close to Paul Konerko as he is to the Big Hurt, especially when you consider that he played in the offensive boom of the 90s. I think it speaks volumes that Bagwell was only an All Star twice. Hall of Very Very Good, if you ask me.

Yeah, right - Bagwell really benefitted by the offensive boom of the 90's playing half his games in the Astrodome - the worst hitter's park in the Majors - until Minute Maid opened in 2000.

I'm not saying Bagwell should have been first ballot, but he should get in.

[chicagowhitesox1]

Bagwell is probably getting docked for steroid allegations. I don't think there's any proof on him but for a writer to keep him out because they feel his stats arent worthy is nuts. I have Bagwell as the 7th or 8th best first basemen of alltime. I've seen him go as high as 5th best too.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by russ99

Yeah, right - Bagwell really benefitted by the offensive boom of the 90's playing half his games in the Astrodome - the worst hitter's park in the Majors - until Minute Maid opened in 2000.

I'm not saying Bagwell should have been first ballot, but he should get in.

I was thinking he had a lot of help in the lineup, with the Killer B's and Hidalgo and whomever else, but looking it up during most of his prime he was the only threat in the lineup besides the table-setter Biggio.

[chisoxjtrain]

http://deadspin.com/according-to-exi...e-t-1493372772

[Brian26]

As favorable as that is for Big Frank, I cannot imagine Glavine going in with 97% on his first try. That has to come down, right?

[sox1970]

Originally Posted by Brian26

As favorable as that is for Big Frank, I cannot imagine Glavine going in with 97% on his first try. That has to come down, right?

Probably a little. I always thought he would be over 90%. With 300 wins and 2 Cy's, plus being tied to Maddux, he really is an easy Yes.

[chicagowhitesox1]

I can't imagine how Glavine gets 97 percent. Sure he's a hall of famer but only 7 players in the history of baseball have gotten 97 percent. Granted some of the players who received 97 percent probably didn't deserve such a high percentage but they probably were helped out due to a weak Hall of Fame class. Glavine is in a very tough Hall of Fame class to even garner 75 percent. There is no way he's getting 97 percent.

[whitesoxfan1986]

I honestly don't see how the BBWAA could keep the Big Hurt out of the HOF this year. He is one of 4 players in MLB history with a .300 career BA, 500 HR, 1600 RBI and 1600 BB. The others? Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Mel Ott