AggieEP said:

---

Didn't Vizquel have some weird pervy rumors come out against him?

---

I think it was domestic violence. I may be wrong.

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

Didn't Vizquel have some weird pervy rumors come out against him?

---

I think it was domestic violence. I may be wrong.

---

I had to look it up.....looks like it might have been some lockerroom stuff that crosssed the line

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31982342/omar-vizquel-sued-former-birmingham-barons-bat-boy-alleged-sexual-harassment

AggieEP said:

---

Didn't Vizquel have some weird pervy rumors come out against him?

---

Several sexual assault complaints including a clubhouse employee with down syndrome. That is why his voting percentage fell from over 50% to the teens.

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Chase Utley has this guy's vote.

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Vizquel is only getting elected for his defense. He played more games at SS that anyone in MLB history and had the highest fielding percentage.

His BA, which no one pays attention to anymore, is basically the same as Utley. Utley has a lot more HRs and a much higher WAR (which is subjective) than Vizquel in a much shorter span of time.

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Vizquel is only getting elected for his defense. He played more games at SS that anyone in MLB history and had the highest fielding percentage.

His BA, which no one pays attention to anymore, is basically the same as Utley. Utley has a lot more HRs and a much higher WAR (which is subjective) than Vizquel in a much shorter span of time.

---

How is WAR subjective?

edit: I think WAR is flawed in many ways, but it's not a bad stat to judge a career or season as long as you understand what it's saying.

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Vizquel is only getting elected for his defense. He played more games at SS that anyone in MLB history and had the highest fielding percentage.

His BA, which no one pays attention to anymore, is basically the same as Utley. Utley has a lot more HRs and a much higher WAR (which is subjective) than Vizquel in a much shorter span of time.

---

This was my logic

The guy is on the short list for best defenders of all time, at the most important defensive position on the field. His offensive numbers are on par with or better than some of the other "all glove" HOFers.

The only reason he and Utley were mentioned together is because they were on the same row on the graphic (which was done alphabetically)

Farmer1906 said:

---

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Vizquel is only getting elected for his defense. He played more games at SS that anyone in MLB history and had the highest fielding percentage.

His BA, which no one pays attention to anymore, is basically the same as Utley. Utley has a lot more HRs and a much higher WAR (which is subjective) than Vizquel in a much shorter span of time.

---

War is subjective, to me, at least, because 5 different publications can derive 10 different WAR numbers. That is hyperbole, but how can WAR be definitive? I will agree that it is a good place to start, but it should not be the end all, be all of a decision, especially in the Vizquel vs Utley debate.
How is WAR subjective?

edit: I think WAR is flawed in many ways, but it's not a bad stat to judge a career or season as long as you understand what it's saying.

---

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Vizquel is only getting elected for his defense. He played more games at SS that anyone in MLB history and had the highest fielding percentage.

His BA, which no one pays attention to anymore, is basically the same as Utley. Utley has a lot more HRs and a much higher WAR (which is subjective) than Vizquel in a much shorter span of time.

---

How is WAR subjective?

edit: I think WAR is flawed in many ways, but it's not a bad stat to judge a career or season as long as you understand what it's saying.


---



War is subjective, to me, at least, because 5 different publications can derive 10 different WAR numbers. That is hyperbole, but how can WAR be definitive? I will agree that it is a good place to start, but it should not be the end all, be all of a decision, especially in the Vizquel vs Utley debate.

---

---

I guess that is fair. fWAR wouldn't be subjective because there is no opinion. Its Fangraphs stat. But since bWAR likes to grade the pitching portion of the equation with RA9 vs fWAR's FIP, WAR as a whole is subjective.

I will say, there is no better single # stat out there.

Farmer1906 said:

---

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

Fuzzy Dunlop said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

On what planet is Vizquel more deserving then Utley? It would be like putting someone like Dubon in the HOF because he played 24 years.

---

Vizquel is only getting elected for his defense. He played more games at SS that anyone in MLB history and had the highest fielding percentage.

His BA, which no one pays attention to anymore, is basically the same as Utley. Utley has a lot more HRs and a much higher WAR (which is subjective) than Vizquel in a much shorter span of time.

---

How is WAR subjective?

edit: I think WAR is flawed in many ways, but it's not a bad stat to judge a career or season as long as you understand what it's saying.


---



War is subjective, to me, at least, because 5 different publications can derive 10 different WAR numbers. That is hyperbole, but how can WAR be definitive? I will agree that it is a good place to start, but it should not be the end all, be all of a decision, especially in the Vizquel vs Utley debate.

---

---

I guess that is fair. fWAR wouldn't be subjective because there is no opinion. Its Fangraphs stat. But since bWAR likes to grade the pitching portion of the equation with RA9 vs fWAR's FIP, WAR as a whole is subjective.

I will say, there is no better single # stat out there.

---

Bill James tried with Win Shares. But nobody understood it.

AggieEP said:

---

All the guys tied up in the juicing controversy just need to come clean and show me they can put their egos to the side.

The hall is full of guys that popped greenies so I don't really care so much about the fact that an athlete would take something to give them an edge, but I do care about the hall not being accessible to guys that refuse to be genuine with the fans. Bonds just has to look at a camera and admit that he's human and messed up and I'd vote for him the next day.

If the hall wants to make a separate section for these guys I'm ok with that also. But right now we basically have a hall of fame that doesn't include 3 of the top 15 players of all time (Arod, Bonds and Clemens) who were HoF locks even without taking anything.

---

this is a good discussion

and it's fair to wonder why none of these potential hall of famers have taken the mea culpa route -- none of them have

for example...someone who played from 1990 to 2005 would admit that they took 'roids from 1998 to 2002 or so... because they didn't want to fall behind the other players or lose their edge or hurt their team, etc..,

I think there might be 2 reasons for this

1. most of the players used steroids/HGH for 50% or 70% or 90% of their career. So they would be lying again to say they only took the illegal stuff for 3 or 4 years

2. the players union has strictly forbidden anyone from admitting usage. Because even non-Hall of Fame candidates will not talk about or admit usage (since Pettitte did it last)

Where I'm at on the hall is here. Getting into the hall of fame is a HUGE reward for a player following a great career. Some make the argument that the best players should be in there no matter the circumstances, but I disagree here. It's a personal reward for the player and their family so you danged well better earn that reward by being genuine with the fans that make it possible for them to make the hall.

I'm not sure if the players union is putting pressure on guys to stay quiet or not, but Bonds has had every chance to come out and discuss what happened and he's opted for silence instead.

I agree

I also don't have a problem with them getting in after they're dead.

HOF Ballot Tracker

The 2026 tracker already has one anonymous ballot with just David Wright checked.

Ryan Spilborghs once stated in MLB radio that he used greenies, and explained why. Obviously not the upper echelon of player, but I for one appreciated the honesty.

Random Blind Resume for the Thread

If you figure out who they are, hold off on spilling.

These players all play the same position & all within one year of age. Players B & C have dealt with some injury issues, but both B & C have a better postseason resume. Players A & C have Gold Gloves (A being the best defender of the 3). Players A & B have Silver Sluggers. No league MVPs for any.

1. Would you consider any HOF worth if their careers ended today?
2. If each had another 4-5 years of productivity (About 500 more hits, 100 more HR, 12-15 more WAR), would any make it to the HOF, in your opinion?
3. How would you rank these 3?

A
6848 PA
1664 H
279 HR
1011 RBI
856 RBI
216 SB
--
.273 BA
.342 OBP
.475 SLG
--
121 wRC+
60.5 WAR

B
4887 PA
1254 H
221 HR
702 R
667 RBI
21 SB
--
.289 BA
.362 OBP
.509 SLG
--
136 wRC+
41.2 WAR

C
5344 PA
1298 H
200 HR
686 R
724 RBI
33 SB
--
.275 BA
.352 OBP
.464 SLG
--
125 wRC+
40.5 WAR

Today?

Not a chance.

Player A is getting some weird WAR bounce because they aren't THAT good. Yes they are good but that WAR is misleading.

Player A is the only one who may make it partially because of who they play for. Media matters.

Mathguy64 said:

---

Today?

Not a chance.

Player A is getting some weird WAR bounce because they aren't THAT good. Yes they are good but that WAR is misleading.

Player A is the only one who may make it partially because of who they play for. Media matters.

---

Lots of credit for baserunning and defense, plus being available at a skill position.

At first blush, for #1 I say no on all three....but I'd listen if they were a catcher, a 3Bman, or a defensive maestro

For #2 maybe, if they hit all the add'tl metrics provided

For #3, 1 2 3

What's missing for me here are the individual awards.

I care about numbers to a certain extent. But I care more if a guy is a 3 time MVP and 2 time world series MVP.

I'm on record a million times on here that counting stats are not my main focus when I think about hall of famers.

I was a bit shocked at just how far away Murphy and Mattingly were on the contemporary ballot because I consider them 2 of the best of their generation at their positions. Not sure who I'd take over Mattingly at 1st base on my all decade team which for me means he should be in.

Murphy was the quintessential star on a bad team guy and I think if he's been on the 1990s Braves teams he'd be in.

I love following the MLB, the Hot Stove, trade deadline, draft picks, all of it. I'd put the MLB playoffs at the top of my favorite post-seasons.

The MLB Hall of Fame process is total nonsense. The holier than perspective, the "are you worthy of entering" schtick.

That said . . . who on here has been to Cooperstown? I've never been, I don't watch the induction speeches except for the clips that get shown on SC.

I went once in middle school and once in college. My old college roommate and I keep talking about going back with our boys now but we just haven't put it on the calendar yet.

If you love baseball history it is the mecca

I went after high school. If you love baseball then it's a bucket list item. I wouldn't build a trip around it, but I'd make it part of a bigger trip.

Here are the players if you didn't figure it out.

A - Lindor
B - Seager
C - Correa

IMO, they all have some work to do. I think Lindor will complete that work and get in. The other two are question mark,s with Seager being the next most likely and Correa in 3rd even before you consider the scandal.

Here is another way to look at it. The short stop position is going to enter a serious drought if none of the 3 make it. The '80s had Yount, Trammell, and Ozzie. The '90s had Larkin and Cal. The '00s had Jeter. The '10s don't have anyone. The only hope for the '20s is Bobby Witt. He's amazing, but we only have a 4-year sample size. He'll need to play just as much in the '30s and '20s to get there.

I am not old enough to truly appreciate Yount, Trammell, and Ozzie, but I feel like the current trio tops Trammell, Ozzie, and Barry. I'd put Yount in a high-tier category because his peak was so good.

If you compare '+' statistics (based on 100 at LA), the current players hold an edge.
AVG+
1. Seager 115
2. Correa 111
3. Larkin 111
4. Lindor 109
5. Yount 109
6. Trammell 108
7. Smith 99

OBP+
1. Seager 112
2. Correa 111
3. Larkin 110
4. Lindor 107
5. Trammell 107
6. Youint 104
7. Smith 102

SLG+
1. Seager 122
2. Lindor 114
3. Correa 112
4. Yount 109
5. Larkin 108
6. Trammell 103
7. Smith 84

Of course, the current players haven't hit the end of career decline just yet. But even with it, they're right there in the mix.

On a side note, once Ozzie made the HOF for his defense, obviously, it should have provided a clear path for Andruw Jones.