There are a lot of good players but I would only pick Alomar and Blyleven.

Pete, you mention Edgar Martinez being deserving--and he may be--but is there some reason he would be more deserving than Baines? I don't want to discriminate against the DH, but if Edgar gets in for being a DH and Blyleven gets in for being a steady contributor for many yrs, doesn't Harold have to make the grade for both reasons too?

..............................................................................................
Pete's reply: Fair question. Blyleven, I think, was more than a steady contributor, and Edgar's numbers and per-at-bat ratios -- though over a shorter span of time -- are significantly more impressive than Baines.

I'll go Alomar, Blyleven and Morris.

Im giving a vote to dawson, alomar, and larkin. larkin is a hall of famer though it may take a few years.

I think it's kind of a no-brainer for the top three, but that's just me.

Blyleven, Dawson, and Larkin

Blyleven and Dawson are two of the biggest snubs of the last decade, and Larkin was an elite Shortstops throughout the nineties.

Well.....the HOF voting has been hard to understand at times but this year, with no Aaron Mantle, or Mays type of player on ballot, the gates should open up for Dawson, Blyleven and Alomar....next year, again with no Brett, Musial or Bench type on the ballot, hopefully McGriff and Martinez wiil get in....by the way, speaking of past HOF snubs, hopefully the gates will open up for Tommy John and Jim Kaat via Veteran's Committee....also, perhaps with the Veteran's vote on Dec 6, the gates will open for Whitey Herzog, Marvin Miller, and Billy Martin....we'll see....Steve

Roberto Alomar, Edgar Martinez, & Bert Blyleven

I saw Alomar at a spring training practice with the O's stay after practice to field groundballs. He started doing tricks with his fielding, amazing glove flips & transfers. Slowly about ten O's players wandered back onto the field and surrounded him just to watch the incredible show.

Blyleven, Dawson, and Alomar.

If we could include more, my list would also have Raines, McGriff, and Edgar Martinez.

Alomar, Martinez and Blyleven.

Alomar and Blyleven in.

Larkin, Edgar and Dawson get over 50%.

I hope McGwire improves, but he'll likely get his usual 25%

Blyleven, McGwire and Alomar

If I had a ballot, with a max of ten, I'd vote for these nine:
Jack Morris
Andre Dawson
Roberto Alomar
Bert Blyleven
Edgar Martinez
Barry Larkin
Harold Baines
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell

is it limited as to how many players can be elected to the hof. the last few years it has been from 1 to 3 players. many of those on this years list should be voted in to the hof. my three choices are blyleven,dawson and baines

I'll take Andre Dawson, Barry Larkin and Andres Galarraga out of that bunch. Blyleven gave up too many{430 lifetime} home runs including a record 50 in 1986 and 46 the following year. If he had pitched in the heart of the steroid era he may have given up 600.

Mike Mussina, who did pitch when the hitters were shooting up, really deserves to get in when he becomes eligible.

Todd Zeile, are you kidding me?

I would vote for five of the candidates this year, and rank them in this order:

1. Blyleven
2. Morris
3. Alomar
4. Dawson
5. Larkin

Here's who I'd vote for:
Bert Blyleven
Jack Morris
Alan Trammell
Dave Parker
Dale Murphy
Barry Larkin
Harold Baines
Andre Dawson

Roberto Alomar? Hell no! Induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame is supposed to be based on sustained excellence. I remember watching Alomar quitting on his Orioles teammates in 1998.

Alomar, Mattingly, Murphy

Gil,

You're right about Mussina. The argument for Blyleven is the same for Mussina. Both were very good for a long time, yet neither pitcher was utterly dominant. Strikeouts aside, the numbers suggest Mussina was a little better, so Blyleven's election would bode well for the Moose.

Roberto Alomar, Edgar Martinez, Pete Rose.

Blyleven, Alomar, McGwire. It's a travesty that Bert Blyleven wasn't elected a long time ago.

I would only choose Dawson this year and Edgar Gonzalez for next year.
Edgar deserves to get but not this year.

I have a harder time voting a relief pitcher into the HOF than a DH.

This is for the Hall of Fame, not the hall of the very good turned mediocre. Murphy can't get in. McGriff..... please. Not even Baines (though I loved him when he played.)

I'm giving a non-vote to Lee Smith. Take a look at what he did. Not HOF material, but worth saluting.

Jack Morris and Alomar...nobody else is deserving this year.

Am I the only one who thinks Larkin is the most overrated player in the history of the game?

Todd Zeile? Really, he made the list? That alone is more recognition than he deserves.
Alomar deserves to be in.

Blyleven, because he was indeed one of the most durable and dominant pitchers of his time.
Edgar Martinez, because he was one of the best and most scientific right-handed batters of all time.
Jack Morris, because he was the common critical ingredient which made champions out of three different teams both with his tenacity on the mound and with his gritty leadership. If ever there was another "Mr. October" besides Reggie Jackson, it was Jack Morris.

A few indirect thoughts about the others:
Steroids never helped anyone hit a baseball with consistency.
If they don't make it in this time, they will be on the ballot again in the future.
It's the Hall of FAME.... not necessarily the Hall of UNLIMITED TALENT.... and certainly not the Hall of INFAMY.
Which incident involving Roberto Alomar do YOU recall seeing replayed the most times ?

Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin.

I'm one of those people who think there should be fewer, greater Hall of Famers. Alomar was a dominant player at his peak. Rich, if you look at Larkin's stats on baseballreference.com, you'll retract the overrated remark. He was an excellent player for a long time.

A lot of baseball writers I respect support Blyleven. I can't get past my memory of him as good but not great. To me, McGwire is a better candidate; his peak was short, but it is the Hall of Fame, and he was the game's most famous player for a little while.

I've also seen compelling arguments for Tim Raines, but if sportswriters are going to hold steroids against anybody, it seems to me that cocaine is worse.

Baines, Blyleven, and Dawson.

Alomar and Raines, maybe Dawson.

Raines doesn't get enough credit; when he played in NY's big market he was well beyond his expiration date. What a leadoff man, the best of his era next to Rickey.

Come to think of it, Dawson suffered in the same scenario, same town.

Both were dominant in their era.

Alomar and Raines, maybe Dawson.

Raines doesn't get enough credit; when he played in NY's big market he was well beyond his expiration date. What a leadoff man, the best of his era next to Rickey.

Come to think of it, Dawson suffered in the same scenario, same town.

Blyleven is in the Tommy John category. Not dominant.

Art Modell

He keeps getting unfairly stonewalled by sportswriters for the NFL HOF so I figured he might have a better chance here.

Blyleven only this year. Alomar doesn't get in for a few years because of spit. David Segui? *LMAO*

Todd Zeile
Write in Tom Shopay
Robert Zimmerman

1. Pete Rose
2. Roberto Alomar
3. Dale Murphy

Todd Zeile? Does everyone remember when he SPIKED THE BALL in the 1996 ALCS? Pete is still referencing "little Jeffrey Maier" 13 years later, but no one talks about the boneheaded play Zeile made. Perhaps he was trying to hold onto the O's final timeout?

At least he won't gain anywhere near the 5% to hang on and be on the ballot next year. Anyone think he gets a single vote?

I think there are several players here who have earned admission to the HoF. But I have seen no commenters mention Tim Raines. He was one of the best players in the league, stuck in Montreal. But he might be the second best leadoff hitter ever, behind Rickey. He got on base and hit with some power. He was arguably the best player in the NL for several seasons. I think the writers may overlook him as well, which I think is sad.

blyleven not being in is silly. penalizing him for pitching for bad teams is a no no. Raines? After Rickey, most dominant lead off hitter of the era. And yes Alomar, he's gotta be in. So does Mcguire....the guy hit a ton of hrs...take away the sterioid hrs and guess what? He still hit a ton!

Unbelievable that Blyleven is not already in the HOF. His first subpar season did not occur until his 13th year. He lead the league in shutouts 3 times, including a 17 win 5 shutout season when he was 38! During the 70s he was one of the top pitchers in the AL. He won a world series game and a championship with the Pirates in '79. If Blyleven had played for competitive teams throughout his career he would easily have had 300+ wins and he would have been a first ballot choice.

Correction: Blyleven won 2 World Series championships and had an overall 5 - 1 postseason record.

Nolan Ryan was a first ballot HOF selection. Yet except for Strikeouts and No-Hitters his career numbers are no better than those posted by Blyleven. And to his credit Blyleven has a no-hitter as well as 3700 strikeouts and 287 wins.

I kind of sped through some of the other comments, but unless I missed it, nobody's listed LEE SMITH?! I think that's a far bigger travesty than Blyleven given their respective impacts among closers, starters all-time.
Anyway, my ballot ...
Pete Rose
Lee Smith
Andre Dawson
Roberto Alomar ...
and still undecided on Barry Larkin

"Steroids never helped anyone hit a baseball with consistency."

No, but it does have the ability to turn a warning track fly ball out into a home run.

1. Larkin. If you consider he defense was very good and then compare his stats to SS's already in the HOF (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hof/hofstss.shtml), he holds up very well.

2. Alomar. Basically the same argument as Larkin.

Blyleven doesn't get in. He won 20 games only once, but lost 17 games FOUR times, 16 twice, 15 once. In fact, he never led the league in wins, but he did in losses in 1988. Only 2 all star appearances, never won a MVP. At the end of the day he was very good some years, but just not up to the caliber of one of the all time greats.

3. Jack Morris. Having said all that about Blyleven, I'd put Jack Morris in. His performance reached a peak of dominance that Blyleven's never did. While Bert has more total wins over more years, the quality of years pitched is no doubt in Jack Morris's favor. Won 20+ three times, led the league in wins twice, was 4-2 in the World Series- with both losses coming as a 37 yr old experiencing his last harrah.

Baines doesn't get in. As a designated HITTER the 384 HRs just aren't enough. He also never led the league in hits, average, RBI, runs, etc... very good some years, but never the best hitter in the league and never really that close to being the best hitter in baseball at any time in his career.

4. Andre Dawson. He's a fringe guy for me, like Jim Rice was. I understand the argument either way and am glad I don't have to decide for real. Right now I am leaning towards letting him in.

I think Bert Blyleven should already be in the HOF. The guy had a long and productive career to go along with the Ks, wins, World Series rings and he was excellent in the post season so I have no clue what more he needs to do to get in? I've heard that some writers look at him as a goof ball similar to how writers hated Rice for his less than gracious attitude towards the media, but I always thought these grudges are silly, but a lot of people think Dempsey isn't a manger because of his infamous tarp slides. I am not saying that I think he should be a manger or not, but the criteria shouldn't be based on sliding on a tarp and having the perception of not being serious enough to manage.

If I could vote, Edgar Martinez would be in the HOF. The guy was so damn good at the plate. He wasn't the n the mode of Papi Roids or the Big Hurt, but he could hit for avg., doubles, work the count, knock in runs and the funny thing, he was great defender till numerous injuries forced him into a DH. I don't think he gets in this time, but I do think by the 3rd time around.

I am surprised not that much love for Barry Larkin? I always enjoyed watching him play, as he was good at just about everything. Injuries hurt him at the end, but he had a long and fantastic career for the Reds. I am curious to see how many votes he receives.

Roberto Alomar was one of the best 2B that I've ever seen play. He could do everything from fielding to hitting to steal bases to getting the big hit. I would be shocked if he doesn't get in the 1st time, but there are guys in the Hall now, I don't feel are that special. Seems when you look at the NFL HOF and the MLB HOF, only the absolute best of the best get in the NFL while the very good players are allowed in the MLB HOF. Just my opinion.

david segui made the list ?? what is this-the rochester hof ?? blyleven ,mattingly and dawson....mattingly single-handidly revived the baseball card market but seriously had one of the sweetest left-handed swings i have ever seen...along with harold baines and palmeiro...

david segui made the list ?? what is this-the rochester hof ?? blyleven ,mattingly and dawson....mattingly single-handidly revived the baseball card market but seriously had one of the sweetest left-handed swings i have ever seen...along with harold baines and palmeiro...

david segui made the list ?? what is this-the rochester hof ?? blyleven ,mattingly and dawson....mattingly single-handidly revived the baseball card market but seriously had one of the sweetest left-handed swings i have ever seen...along with harold baines and palmeiro...

I'd say: Blyleven, Alomar and Jack Morris. If Blyelven were a Yankee, he would have been in years ago. He must have ticked off some media types because his numbers are solid.
As far as Morris, I'm only guessing that his somewhat high ERA worked against him and he wasn't always 'easy' to deal with. Still, he was a gamer, he hated to leave a game and always seemed to come through in the clutch.
Alomar was a middle infielder who could do it all. His career ended quicker than expected and of course, that spitting incident will probably sway some voters but I think he did enough to warrant induction.
Larkin has some support but to me, if you let him in then Whitaker and Trammel go too. I think you have to set the bar a little higher; otherwise the Hall will end up being full of solid, but not star players. As much as I liked Baines, he falls into that category, along with the likes of Dawson, Mattingly, Parker and even some guys already in...

Alomar, Blyleven, Dawson, McGwire, Morris, Murphy, Raines, and Trammell

alomar, blyleven and morris

My choices would be...

Roberto Alomar, Andre Dawson, Barry Larkin, Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell.

Alomar - one of the best 2nd basemen ever.

Dawson - great defense, excellent hitter despite a lack of plate discipline.

Larkin - One of the best shortstops in the last 50 years.

McGriff - Consistently excellent power, solid average, great eye.

Raines - Quite possibly the second best leadoff man in baseball history, and has been grossly under-rated.

Trammell - One of the most under-rated players in the last 50 years. He played the same time as Ripken, so he went under the radar.

For the ones I would leave out...

Jack Morris - Good pitcher for a long time, but ERA is too high for the HOF, in my view.

Bert Blyleven - Lots of strikeouts, but a study was done a few years ago, showing Blyleven along with many of his contemporaries (Seaver, Palmer, Ryan, etc.) and how they fared when their offense scored 3 runs, 4 runs, 5 runs, etc. My memory of Blyleven as a teenager in the 70's was that he would pitch a shutout when the Twins scored 10 runs (i.e. when a shutout wasn't needed), then when the Twins would score 3, he would give up 4. Interestingly, the study done by SABR confirmed this. When his team scored 3 runs, Blyleven won only 30% of his starts. When Palmer or Seaver's teams scored 3 runs, they each won over half the time. Bert Blyleven is not a Hall of Fame pitcher.

Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Andre Dawson, Barry Larkin, Mark McGwire, Jack Morris,Dave Parker
I wouldn't be able to REALLY argue about any of these but the TOP 3 are Alomar, Morris, and Parker. all 3 were money when it came time to do the deed.

1. Mattingly
2. Alomar
3. Blyleven

I think we forget the actual criteria for the HOF. Its about contribution to the game of baseball. On the field, that means, who was at the very top of the game. Blyleven and Morris belong in a category with Mike Mussina, good, above the curve pitchers who played for long time. But they're not HOFers. On the other hand I cast my ballot for these five who were the very best at what they did:

Lee Smith: 4 time saves leader, 3 time Rolaids winner (in both leagues)(more than Gossage)

Andre Dawson: 8 time AS and GG. 1 MVP, 2 MVP runner-up.

Dale Murphy: Back to back MVP, hit more HRs than anyone in the 80s.

Roberto Alomar: Best 2B in the game for 10 straight years

Barry Larkin: At first I said no, but again, he was at the top of the game for 10 years.

My unbiased vote:

Mark McGwire
Roberto Alomar
Tim Raines
Barry Larkin

Since the HOF is supposedly about career achievement, McGwire tops my list. Nobody seemed to care ahout steriods during the late-90's, and I don't see what difference it makes now. The writers should've been screaming about it when they first spotting the bottle of Andro in McGwire's locker, not when everyone else started to care.

Alomar because he was one of the top players of his time and the best 2nd baseman in history

Raines because he was the top leadoff man in the NL and one the best OF in the game.

My Dark Horse would be Larkin, being that he was one the top SS of the 90's offensively and defensively.

Apologies in the order of: E. Martinez, Byleven, McGriff, Dawson, Smith,

Correction:

About Alomar, I should've said "He was one of the top players of his time and ONE of the best 2nd baseman in history", not THE best in history.

Although some may argue he was one of the best.

How can anyone say Larkin and then no to Trammell?

The thing that bothers me about the DH argument is that guys with amazing offensive numbers who were horrible fielders (Mike Piazza and Manny Ramirez, off the top of my head) won't have any problem getting into the Hall.

Basically, who cares if DH's didn't play the field? Pitchers aren't penalized for not hitting. Why are DH's penalized for not playing the field?

andrew -

Larkin: .295/.371/.444, 379 SB

Trammell: .285/.352/.415, 236 SB

Trammell had 25 more hits than Larkin in about 300 more at bats. Tram also had 43 more rbi, but that's more of a team stat anyway, and again, he had more at bats.

Larkin leads in every other offensive category. And he won an MVP Award.

Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Andre Dawson, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mark McGwire, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, Tim Raines, Lee Smith

I know you only asked for 3, but the candidates get the same amount of love for being 10th on the list as 1st. At least I didn't add "Fire Trembley."

Alomar was a great one. I recall when there were three top-of-the-line 2nd basemen in the majors -- Alomar, Craig Biggio and Chuck Knoblauch. Circa 1995, you could have picked any one of them out of a hat and been reasonably sure of an all-star performer, if not a sure-fire trip to Cooperstown 15 years or so down the line.

Knoblauch flamed out in New York, but Biggio punched his HOF ticket with 3000 hits in Houston. Alomar's trickier, with the wanderlust, the spitting incident and the relatively early retirement. But he could do it all, and did, and made good teams better. In.

Bert Blyleven should have been in years ago. Andre Dawson was the NL version of Jim Rice, plus an MVP (and 2nd in the MVP twice). Dale Murphy was a two-time MVP winner -- if that doesn't make you one of the top players of your era, what does?

Mark McGwire is right behind Frank Robinson on the HR list, andro or not. Edgar Martinez was the top DH of all-time. Tim Raines, as someone mentioned, may have been the #2 leadoff man ever.

Lee Smith set the record for saves -- if it's a meaningless stat, why is there an award for the top reliever? Jack Morris was the top winner of the 80s, and money in the playoffs. And Fred McGriff put up Lou-Gehrig-type numbers, on the natch.

Harold Baines, Andres Galarraga, Barry Larkin, Don Mattingly, Dave Parker, Alan Trammell and Robin Ventura will probably get some votes. Larkin and Trammell are deserving of discussion at least.

Just my $.02US.

Pete Rose
Mark Mcguire
Bert Blyleven
Barry Larkin
Roberto Alomar

1. Alomar
2. Blyleven
3. Trammell

would also take:
4. Edgar
5. Raines

copter -

I was with you until you posted this lunacy:

"And Fred McGriff put up Lou-Gehrig-type numbers, on the natch."

Not sure what "on the natch" means, but here's some food for thought (league numbers are the league average ratios during each player's career):

McGriff: .284/.377/.509
League: .268/.337/.416
Difference: 16/40/93

Gehrig: .340/.447/.632
League: .286/.356/.413
Difference: 54/91/219

Lou Gehrig was an absolutely amazing ballplayer. Easily one of the five best hitters of all time. Comparing Fred McGriff to Gehrig is an insult to Gehrig's memory.

That said, I do think that McGriff should be in the Hall of Fame. But here's why:

Player A:

Career: .284/.377/.509, 493 HR

162 Game Avg: 32 HR

- 10 Seasons with 30+ HR
- 4 Seasons with .550+ SLG

Best Seasons:

1989: Led the AL in OPS (.924) and HR (36)

1994: .623 SLG, 34 HR, 94 RBI in 113 games (strike year)

1999: .310/.405/.552, 32 HR

Player B:

Career: .287/.359/.476, 504 HR

162 Game Avg: 27 HR

- 5 Seasons with 30+ HR
- 0 Seasons with .550+ SLG

Best Seasons:

1982: .549 SLG, 32 HR

1984: Led the AL in walks (107), OBP (.410), 29 HR

Hopefully, you guessed that Player A was McGriff. Player B was our very own Eddie Murray.

Eddie was a shoo in because of one of the Hall's magic numbers: 500. McGriff is borderline because he only hit 493. I'm not sure if you could find two more comparable players, but McGriff is probably going to get tossed aside because he missed a HOF milestone by seven home runs.

Not Brooks

While I think McGriff is worthy of HOF consideration, I really, really think that Murray's induction had a lot more to do with then his 507 HR's.

Dave -

"A lot more"?

I realize that I failed to mention Murray's 3000 hits, but if there was "a lot more" to Eddie's induction than 3000/500, why is it that there's absolutely zero HOF buzz about McGriff?

pete rose, any player who has
the most hits ever and is
excluded from the hall is a
joke.........

played with the all time greats, mays, robinson, clemente,marichal, carlton.etc..

in the non-steroids era also...

I would only vote for Bert Blyleven.

bob -

Rose bet against his own team. He knowingly changed the outcome of who knows how many games.

Then, he lied about it for years until he realized that telling the truth might get him into the Hall.

What a joke...

..............................................................................................
Pete's reply: There is absolutely no evidence or admission by anyone that Rose bet AGAINST his team. In fact, it is generally accepted that he always bet on his team, though that's almost as bad and could have negatively affected future games if he was managing differently to win the games he bet on.

Segui?! This is a joke, right?! BTW, he belongs in Hall of Lame!

Roberto Alomar
Jack Morris
Bert Blyleven