Circle of Greats 1964 Ballot

This post is for voting and discussion of the fifth round of voting for the Circle of Greats, which adds players born in 1964. Rules and lists are after the jump.

As always, each ballot must include three and only three eligible players. The one player who appears on the most ballots cast in the round is inducted into the Circle of Greats.  Players who fail to win induction but appear on half or more of the ballots cast win four future rounds of ballot eligibility. Players who appear on 25% or more of the ballots, but less than 50%, earn two years of extended eligibility.  Any other player in the top 9 (including ties) in ballot appearances (or who appear on at least 10% of the ballots) wins one additional round of ballot eligibility.

All voting for this round closes at 11:59 PM EST on Saturday, January 19th, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EST Thursday, January 17th.

If you’d like to follow the vote tally, and/or check to make sure I’ve recorded your vote correctly, you can see my ballot-counting spreadsheet for this round here: 1964 COG Vote Tally . I’ll be updating the spreadsheet periodically with the latest votes. Initially, there is a row for every voter who has cast a ballot in any of the past rounds, but new voters are entirely welcome — new voters will be added to the spreadsheet as their ballots are submitted. Also initially, there is a column for each of the holdover players; additional player columns from the born-in-1964 group will be added as votes are cast for them.

Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players. The holdovers are listed in order of the year through which they are assured eligibility, and alphabetically when the eligibility year is the same. The 1964 birth year guys are listed in order of the number of seasons they played in the majors, and alphabetically among players with the same number of seasons played.

Holdovers:
John Smoltz (eligible through 1960)
Tom Glavine (1962)
Mike Mussina (1962)
Curt Schilling (1962)
Craig Biggio (1963)
Roberto Alomar (1964)
Kevin Brown (1964)
Kenny Lofton (1964)
Larry Walker (1964)

Everyday Players (born in 1964, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues):
Barry Bonds
Rafael Palmeiro
Barry Larkin
Mark McLemore
B.J. Surhoff
Ellis Burks
Lenny Harris
Jose Canseco
Stan Javier
Tom Prince
Mark Grace
Ozzie Guillen
Chad Kreuter
Dave Martinez
Brady Anderson
Jay Buhner
Will Clark
Joe Girardi
Roberto Kelly
Kevin Elster
Darryl Hamilton
Tom Lampkin
Mike Macfarlane
Craig Grebeck
Jeff Huson
Pete Incaviglia
Jeff Reboulet
Billy Ripken
Thomas Howard
Jeff King
Nelson Liriano
Luis Rivera
Chris Gwynn
Trent Hubbard
Keith Lockhart
Eddie Williams

Pitchers:(born in 1964, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues)
Kenny Rogers
Roberto Hernandez
Michael Jackson
Mike Fetters
Dwight Gooden
Bret Saberhagen
Bobby Witt
John Burkett
Rick Reed
Kevin Tapani
John Habyan
Mitch Williams
Rich DeLucia
Scott Kamieniecki
David West

Leave a Reply

349 Comments on "Circle of Greats 1964 Ballot"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
e pluribus munu
Guest
Oh. Barry Bonds. I’m multiply on record at HHS declaring that I would not now vote for flagrant PEDers for the Hall. There were years when much of my baseball watching consisted of turning on the TV when I calculated Bonds would be coming to the plate, then turning it back off after I saw a boatman scoop up the ball. Without chemical assistance, those balls would have easily been caught by fans in the stands. Apart from raising my electricity bill on false pretenses, imagine all the fuel expended on fraud by those gullible boaters – and in an… Read more »
Dalton Mack
Editor

Had the same dream, epm. Really a shame. Our ballots are similar, but I swapped Schilling for Smoltzy.

Jeff Harris
Guest

Smoltz, Glavine, Schilling

Ed
Guest

Bonds
Alomar (my preferred candidate of those with only one year of eligibility left)
Larkin (don’t think he’ll have problems staying on the ballot but I have to do my part to make sure)

Mike
Guest

Smoltz
Biggio
Larry Walker

Mike
Guest

John Smoltz
Craig Biggio
Larry Walker

Stacked ballot. What to do with Bonds, Palmeiro and Kruetwr.

The Diamond King
Guest

Bonds, Smoltz, Glavine

Phil
Guest

Bonds, Alomar, Glavine. C’mon, people—if I understand the rules correctly, this is Alomar’s last chance.

brp
Guest

And?

Shout-out to my boy Mark Grace, my all-time favorite ballplayer. However, I have more integrity than the BBWAA and won’t cast an Aaron Sele vote for him. All you single guys, go find a slumpbuster in honor of Gracey. (http://www.markgrace.com/quotes.html) Eventually I’ll vote for a pitcher, I swear.

Bonds, Biggio, Walker.

Thinking I may quit wasting 2 votes on Biggio & Walker but not quite this round.

Alex Putterman
Guest

Bonds, Glavine, Mussina

Mike
Guest

John Smoltz
Craig Biggio
Larry Walker

Stacked ballot. What to do with Bonds, Palmeiro (PEDs) and “greats” like Chad Krueter?

Mike
Guest

Sorry for multiples. I kept getting an error message.

Brandon
Guest

Smoltz, Larkin, and as much as I’d like to leave him off I just can’t bring myself to leave him off…Bonds

Nick Pain
Guest

Bonds, Biggio, Schilling

Andy
Guest

Bonds, Schilling, Mussina

Bells
Guest
As a thought exercise, I decided to ask myself how I could ‘punish’ Bonds from a purely statistical and technical standpoint. About the harshest thing I could think of would be to just discard Bonds 1999-2007 (of course, McGwire et al were ‘using’ before then so who knows how far back it goes, but Bonds’ insanity at the plate happened after 1999). So, even though it’s entirely likely that a ‘clean’ Bonds would have provided SOME value, let’s just say he provided none for those 9 seasons, based on a technical ‘he broke the rules so let’s discard his results’… Read more »
bstar
Guest

Not that it matters much, Bells, but unless I’m mistaken 1999, not 1998, was Bonds’ last clean year.

Bells
Guest
Yeah, I am of that belief as well, but I guess I picked 1998 as an endpoint because of what happened in baseball that year with McGwire and Sosa – it fits the narrative in my head better that Bonds was like ‘screw these guys for getting attention, I’m gonna do what they do’ after that year. The numbers certainly seem to point to 2000 as the turning point, not 1999. But either way, this is a pretty arbitrary exercise, in terms of both knowing when he started and knowing what his motivations were – I was just sorta showing… Read more »
Gootch7
Guest

Newbie here…. been reading forever but decided to just pop in on the Circle of Greats discussion.

Bonds only played 102 games in 1999. His ex-girlfriend Kimberly Bell testified in court that he told her he blew out his elbow because of steroids.

http://nesn.com/2011/03/ex-mistress-kimberly-bell-claims-barry-bonds-blamed-1999-injury-on-steroid-use/

BryanM
Guest

Interesting dilemma; Bonds was a great, great player ..and then there’s PEDs For the HOF , issues of punishing arise, because he wants in, and they are “honoring the dishonorable” for us, IMHO, the greatness triumphs easily, your math above confirming it – I don’t think Barry recognizes the authority of our little court, so he’s hard to punish. So for me
Bonds – can’t stand the guy
Schilling – no comment
Larry Walker — i flipped a coin and Mussina (heads) lost .

qx
Guest

Barry Bonds, Craig Biggio, Barry Larkin

Gary Bateman
Guest

Bonds, Alomar, Mussina

ATarwerdi96
Guest

Barry Bonds, Curt Schilling, John Smoltz

latefortheparty
Guest

Barry Bonds
Larry Walker
Mike Mussina

I’m guessing it’s now or bust for Larry Walker. I accept this will probably be the last stand for Kenny Lofton. I want Schilling to stick around long enough to get in. However, to thoroughly mix my metaphorical cliches, this dance card is getting so full someone very deserving is going to get voted off the island.

Tom
Guest

Bonds, Mussina, Schilling

Scott Horsfield
Guest

Barry Bonds, Larry Walker, John Smoltz

bstar
Guest

Bonds, Glavine, Schilling

Doug
Guest

Bonds, Mussina, Walker

Mike HBC
Guest
Despite my hardcore Braves fandom, I will eventually stop supporting both Smoltz and Glavine. I know there will eventually be plenty of candidates who I will feel should be in the top three. But not this time. Glavine, Smoltz, Barry Larkin. There ya go. Also, all of this “strategic voting” stuff is ridiculous. If you believe Alomar or Schilling or whoever is deserving (as I did for Jim Abbott when I was the only person who voted for him), support them; if you don’t, don’t. It’s not as if continually coming in 7th or 8th means Larry Walker will eventually… Read more »
Mike HBC
Guest

…And for the record, that last remark is in no way aimed at anyone in particular; indeed, I feel like one in every six votes is some odd “strategic” vote, so I couldn’t possibly aim it at any individual.

Michael Sullivan
Guest
Given the criteria of 1/year, Bonds is the only guy from 1964 that clearly belongs. Larkin is clear for the real hall, but at best borderline for this circle, plus I think he’ll get some support this year. There are a few pitchers on the new list I think should have gotten a real look for the regular hall, but all are pretty clearly short of a 100-120 player hall, so I won’t feel bad if they fall off the ballot next week. I like Brown and Walker, but I’m not really sure they belong in this hall, and it’s… Read more »
Artie Z.
Guest

Barry Bonds, Barry Larkin, and Roberto Alomar

Bonds and Larkin knock Moose off of my ballot. I know I prefer Larkin to Alomar, and back when Alomar and Moose were first on the ballot I picked Alomar over Moose so I’m sticking with it. Supposing Bonds and Clemens don’t get a big backlash, I’m guessing the next election up for grabs is 1961 as I see 1964: Bonds; 1963: Unit; 1962: Clemens. The best pitchers born in 1961 are Jimmy Key and … Tim Belcher. The best position players are Mattingly and Galarraga.

Atlcrackersfan
Guest

Smoltz
Glavine
Mussina

Mike G.
Guest

Bonds, Mussina, Walker

Insert Name Here
Guest
As I did last time, I’m going to make an initial vote based on my method for determining the top three (using primarily WAR/162 games during a series of 5+ “peak” seasons, along with a series of tiebreakers), and make any strategic changes later. Additionally, I am not considering PED users Bonds, Palmeiro, and Canseco, although I admire Canseco for uncovering many other ‘roiders. That said, and after running my method on all these players I end up with the same vote as last round: 1. Curt Schilling (7.3 WAR/162 (raised after adjustment for relief season) during 6-yr peak of… Read more »
Bells
Guest

Hey INH, nothing much to say in terms of debate or commentary, but I just wanted to give you a shout-out that I enjoy reading your detailed analysis/methodology each round, gives me a different statistical perspective on these ballplayers to think of the peaks you describe above. And anything that recognizes the (in my opinion) underrated Brown, Walker, Lofton and Saberhagen in the top 6 is pretty good by me.

Insert Name Here
Guest

Thanks, Bells!

I guess I decided to lay it out like this because I found myself annoyed that most voters seem to just lay down their three with no explanation. I mean, if that’s what someone wants to do, they have every prerogative to do it, but I personally would rather have the reader know why I’m making my vote if it’s an open ballot.

Also, it’s an easy way for me to keep track of how I rank the players if/when I go to make any strategic changes. 😉

Insert Name Here
Guest
This is about where I would make a strategic change. Before I do so, I would like to comment that the lack of support for Kevin Brown is APPALLING. If I could vote for him three times, I would, and be sure that I will support him in the “redemption round” or whatever it’s going to be called. That said, I can now address my change. I was considering throwing in a vote for Lofton or Saberhagen, but either would likely hinder Brown’s chances, so I won’t do that. I’d also like to keep my vote for Walker to ensure… Read more »
Ed
Guest

INH: You said that the lack of support for Kevin Brown was appalling. And you also said you weren’t considering PEDs users. Just want to point out that Brown was mentioned quite prominently in the Mitchell report.

Insert Name Here
Guest

Ed – I am aware that Brown was mentioned in the Mitchell Report. However, I also take an “innocent until proven guilty” approach. Based on the evidence available, I don’t consider Brown guilty at this time (Are we really supposed to trust Kirk Radomski and various hearsay claims?).

Also, you yourself (and, unfortunately, many others) voted for Barry Bonds, who was found guilty for obstruction of justice for his testimony regarding BALCO. Bonds is one of the few that I would never vote for because I consider them to be proven users.

PP
Guest

Bonds, Mussina, Glavine

(I’m not voting for Mussina or Glavine after ’61 when one of them might get in)

Dr. Doom
Guest

Bonds
Schilling
Walker

I love/hate how deep these ballots are getting…

Mike L
Guest

Mussina, Glavine and Larkin
I’m not ready for Bonds yet, and if I not ready for him, I’m not ready for any credibly suspected PED user.

Insert Name Here
Guest

I agree… and I think it’s unfortunate that we’ve just opened this round, and Bonds has a HUGE lead. We’re now looking at a situation where two of our first four COG members are ‘roiders (Bonds and Piazza, although Piazza did it before it was banned). I know everyone seems to hate Curt Schilling (I do as well, mostly for what he did to my home state of Rhode Island), but at least Schilling didn’t do something to harm baseball.

Dr. Doom
Guest
I’m not asking this in a snarky way, but as a serious question. I’ve heard the argument many times that steroid users “harmed baseball.” But I don’t understand how. The game is healthier than ever in terms of attendance, and it seems to be getting better coverage. There’s more access for fans with websites like this one. I’ve met more and more people my age (mid-20s) who are disillusioned with the NFL’s relentless self-promotion, and who are turning more to baseball for their sports fix, INSTEAD of football. I just don’t see HOW the game has been harmed. So please… Read more »
BryanM
Guest

The same way that the tour de France has been harmed as a sport;cheating renders the contest less meaningful and makes a mockery of the honest efforts of those who didn’t cheat- the fact that it may not have been harmed as a business,as you attempt to show, for the same reason that Lindsey Lohan remains popular – is neither here nor there, unless your only interest in baseball is financial.

Bells
Guest
Speaking as someone who has followed the Tour de France and cycling throughout the years (god, is this gonna get me beat up on this site to admit that?) I think the comparison is apt – namely, to answer Dr. Doom’s question, the concerns about ‘cheaters’ ‘harming’ the sport is less about the utilitarian impact of ‘how many people follow the sport now’ and more about the retroactive impact on people who were already fans. Part of being a sports fan is this childish sense of dreaming big, of achieving things on the highest level vicariously through sporting idols. The… Read more »
Dr. Doom
Guest
While I don’t disagree with all of the arguments you all put forward, I DO disagree with the moralizing. It’s pointless. If someone told you you could make millions of extra dollars by taking a pill, you’d probably do it. And if you didn’t, a bunch of other people would. That wouldn’t make them bad people. That would make them people who look for an advantage, when there wasn’t a clear-cut punishment for engaging in that behavior. They did something stupid, and made a mistake. But I refuse to believe that my childhood baseball heroes are just these AWFUL human… Read more »
Mike L
Guest

Dr. Doom. I’m not moralizing. I told you I was being selfish. I liked the excitement of the old milestones, and, as I said, for a smaller person, I like the illusion that there were people on the field who weren’t that different from me. I can’t answer the question of whether I’d take the pill. That’s the Faustian Bargain that everyone has to decide for himself. I find it difficult to equate the juicer’s accomplishments to the non-juicer. Others can decide for themselves.

e pluribus munu
Guest
Doom, I agree with you entirely about the moral aspects of this, I just don’t see this as a moral issue. What PED users hopelessly damaged was the meaningfulness of the game’s statistical history, which is far more central to baseball than to any other sport. What are we supposed to make of the single season home run record, for example? The legitimate holder of perhaps the highest profile record in baseball is Roger Maris, and how many twelve year-old fans even know who he is now, or will ever care? That’s irreparable damage, and it’s replicated throughout the statistical… Read more »
Ed
Guest
Dr. Doom – In my opinion you are wise beyond your years. My problem with the anti-PEDs crowd is that I have yet to see a logically consistent argument put forward against the PEDs users. 1) Some claim that it’s about “unnatural enhancement”. But these same people don’t seem concerned about baseball players getting LASIK eye surgery, many of whom are getting their vision enhanced beyond the 20-20 level. So it can’t really be about unnatural enhancement. 2) Some claim it’s about “the cheating”. But that can’t really be true either cause these same people don’t seem to care about… Read more »
Artie Z
Guest
This is meant to be a serious question. Many people have voted for John Smoltz in this Circle of Greats. John Smoltz will likely get many votes from the BBWAA when he becomes eligible for HOF voting. I haven’t voted for Smoltz in the Circle of Greats because I haven’t thought he’s one of the top 3 players on any ballot, but I can see the arguments for him. John Smoltz’ “natural” career ended, for all intents and purposes, in 1999, the same way that Tommy John’s “natural” career ended in 1974. Smoltz and John (and many, many others –… Read more »
Artie Z
Guest

Did not see Ed’s post – he must have been typing it while I was typing mine. Apparently he and I share some of the same views.

Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

I read in Al Stump’s (2nd) Tyrus Cobb biography about a game in which Cobb hit for the cycle in the minors, and then hit a 2nd homerun, a low liner that just cleared the wall in left. The leftfielder kept a ball in his back pocket, however, and feigned the catch, then ran in, as it was the third out. There was only one ump, behind the plate, who was in no position to see the truth. Cobb saw it, though, and needless to say, violence ensued.

e pluribus munu
Guest
Responding to Artie Z’s good question @148 (somewhat differently from birtelcom’s good response @151): Medicine evolves over time and players make the best use of it they can to address medical problems. It parallels changes in nutrition and the hygiene of training and I don’t see an issue with Tommy John surgery on that basis. The question parallel to PED use would seem to me to concern use of medical/prosthetic procedures to improve natural abilities, rather than to repair injuries to natural abilities or defects like myopia (which concern restoring level-playing-field conditions). That question may be difficult to answer, but… Read more »
Mike L
Guest

epm, the issue of using HGH for health issues, or recovery issues, is an interesting one. Assuming it does promote healing, then MLB and the MLBPA could develop guidelines for off-season use when prescribed by a physician, with “blackout periods” and a back end date prior to the start of the season. You might also apply it in season, say for people on the 60 day disabled list, with a termination date.

Ed
Guest
In response to Birtelcom (151), Mike L (152), and EPM (154): 1) Thanks for the interesting and thought provoking replies. 2) With regard to Birtelcom’s distinction of different types of cheating, I want to make two points. First, I don’t see BBWAA writers making that distinction. What I see them saying is things like “I will never vote for a cheater” when it’s pretty clear what they’re saying is “I will never vote for someone who cheated by taking PEDs”. And it’s pretty clear that they’re okay with cheating via taking amphetamines (also undetectable by an umpire). I just want… Read more »
Dr. Doom
Guest
One of my biggest problems is that, essentially, if things continue as they are, I will never, ever be able to take my kids to a Hall of Fame that has the players I enjoyed watching in my youth. And that’s the dumbest thing ever. Because for those of you who have been there with your kids, I’m guessing this was an important part of your trip. And I may never get it. And that just sucks. So for all of the talk about what’s worse than what else, this strikes me as the worst thing of all.
Mike L
Guest
Dr. Doom, I think my reaction is a little cerebral and emotional. Football and basketball are played by giants. Their numbers are unmemorable. Football has gone from a 12 to 14 to 16 game schedule in my lifetime; the equivalent of forty extra baseball games. They are basically exhibition sports where you watch to be entertained, and then you go on to the next thing. Baseball looks (or looked) like real people could play it, even a few my size. You could pore over the Sunday sports section and read the stats and spend hours taking them apart. Numbers had… Read more »
PP
Guest
That said, I think Bonds is going to end up with a % closer to Frank Thomas than Maddux, which in a way makes him “borderline.” He was very good in ’88, unreal in ’92 and ’93, unreal again in ’96, and, well, just plain sick starting in 2000. I am bothered by some of those Popeye muscle stats: 232 walks, 73 homers, .609 OBP (DiMaggio’s 56 game streak will go before that one), .863 slugging, but cut those down by a 1/3 and you get a Willie Mays type career. If I thought baseball didn’t know what was going… Read more »
bstar
Guest

inh @39, what proof do you have that Piazza was a ‘roider?

Jeff H
Guest

Schilling harms Baseball with every time he opens his mouth.

BryanM
Guest
It seems to me that the discussion of PEDs has got awfully complex . @69 , in response to Dr Doom’s question , I said that cheating harms the sport. That’s not moralizing, it’s just explaining. The thing that gives sporting contests their peculiar charm is that they are played according to a set of rules, and the winners are supposed to defeat the losers within those rules. I voted for Bonds in this round because , in my opinion, he was the best player on the ballot. I am also 100% convinced that he cheated over a number of… Read more »
Voomo Zanzibar
Guest
This is tricky beyond Bonds. I’m once again employing a strategy of: who would I pick if I was building a team? – Using an intuitive version of the 5-year peak strategy outlined by # 34. Can’t beat the centerfielder sparkplug, so I’m going with Lofton. I hate having to choose between Alomar and Biggio, so I’m going with a pitcher. And none of the pitchers are head and shoulders above the rest, so I almost want to vote for Dwight Gooden just because. But really, I would have loved to see Kenny Rogers and Michael Jackson share a stage….… Read more »
Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

I’m trading Kevin Brown for Larry Walker.

And I’ll go ahead and drop Bonds for a player who, like Lofton, deserved better than 4.4% on his first shot at the HOF – Will Clark.

So:

Lofton
Larry Walker
Will Clark

MikeD
Guest

So a question. Unless Alomar gets at least 25% of the vote this round, then he will drop off the ballot forever, all future rounds. Correct?

Ed
Guest

No. The top 8 non-winners automatically advance regardless of their percentage.

bstar
Guest

And even if he doesn’t finish in the top 9, Alomar could resurface later if it is decided that a special vote to re-establish worthy players who fell off the ballot is needed.

Bells
Guest
@105 bstar – or, even if he’s not in the top 9, recall that the rules changed a round ago so that anyone with 10% of the vote gets carried forward. I could see this happening very soon, judging from the disparate results of this election – clearly people think Lofton and Brown are just a level below the 9 guys getting all the votes (okay, a few levels below Bonds) but by 1958 we might just have 12 candidates that, even without strategic voting, could each get more than 10% of the vote. All it takes is 8-9 people… Read more »
bstar
Guest

Bells, good point but I’m not sure there’s enough votes out there for 12 people to all get 10%, especially in years where we have at least one heavyweight on the ballot.

Hartvig
Guest
I’m not so sure. Right now with 61 votes counted (vs 79 total in the 65 balloting) in addition to the leader we have 7 players with a 24.5% or larger share of the vote with excellent shots at 2 year extensions plus Alomar with 16.3% and Lofton with 8.2% and only a couple of votes shy of reaching the 10% guaranteeing he moves forward. I’ll admit that’s only 9 players and not 12 but 3 of the players over 25% could lose 5 votes apiece and still stay over. I’ll admit it doesn’t seem likely but with the consensus… Read more »
MikeD
Guest

Okay, thanks all. That will help with my decisions, at least when it comes to strategic voting.

Raphy
Editor

Bonds
Glavine
Larkin

Mo
Guest

Bonds,Glavine, Biggio

RonG
Guest

Biggio, Smoltz, Schilling

Adam
Guest

Bonds, Schilling, Lofton

Nadig
Guest

Schilling, Glavine, Walker.

RJ
Guest

As always, the battle between Schilling, Glavine, Mussina and Smoltz is fascinating. I’m personally inclined towards Mussina and Schilling, but there’s really not a lot in it. Which one, or ones, eventually make it in is anyone’s guesss.

Dalton Mack
Editor

Barry Bonds.
Curt Schilling.
Kenny Lofton.

J.R. Lebert
Guest

Biggio, Larkin, Smoltz.

David Horwich
Guest

Bonds, Larkin, Glavine.

Luis Gomez
Guest

Bonds, Alomar, Walker.

Some side notes:
1) I never heard of John Habyan and David West.
2) I named the last dog I had, Canseco (some 20 years ago).
3) Really? Jeff Reboulet played 10 or more seasons?
4) Those lists look like the 2007 actual Hall of Fame vote, except this has the wrong Ripken and Gwynn.

cubbies
Guest

bonds, schilling, and the guy with the same creer war as our most recent inductee, walker.

mosc
Guest

Their owar is not that similar. Just saying. DWAR is stupid.

koma
Guest

Barry Bonds, Mike Mussina, Craig Biggio

Chris
Guest

Bonds, Biggio, alomar

Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

Fun trivia question:

Who are the only players with seasons of 50 HR and 50 SB?

Answer:
Barry Bonds and Brady Anderson

Daniel Longmire
Guest

Bonds (can’t deny his brilliance, despite all my qualms)
Alomar (good enough for the regular HOF means good enough to continue here, in my books)
Glavine (one of these Big Four pitchers has to win outright, and soon)

David Horwich
Guest
If one of the Big Four pitchers is going to win, they’re probably going to need to make it to the 1961 ballot. The 1963 ballot will feature Randy Johnson, who I think is clearly superior to any of the pitchers in the “Mussina Cluster”, as well as Edgar Martinez. In 1962 Roger Clemens enters the lists. The best players born in 1961 are Don Mattingly, and Jimmy Key. After that, the competition stiffens again: 1960: Ripken, Gwynn, also Puckett 1959: Raines, Sandberg 1958: Henderson, Boggs, also Trammell 1957: Whitaker 1956: Molitor, Murray 1955: Yount 1954: O Smith, G Carter,… Read more »
Ed
Guest

But it could be Biggio or Larkin or possibly Alomar. Hard to say. Will definitely be an interesting vote since it will be completely wide open with no clear cut favorite.

Dr. Doom
Guest

You know what’s funny (to me, anyway)? I looked ahead, and there are A LOT of deep ballots. But one of the weird things to me is that Johnny Bench and Nolan Ryan were born the same year. Yet, Bench’s career as a productive player was basically over as Ryan was getting going still. Crazy, huh?

Ed
Guest

Dr. Doom – Carlton Fisk was also born the same year as Bench and Ryan, and like Ryan he played 10 years past when Bench retired. Course Fisk had so many injuries early in his career that it probably helped him last longer.

wpDiscuz