|For Jim Edmonds,|
is the HOF in the
'Cards' for him?
Some hot takes by me while lamenting that the Little Gritmeister won't get 5 percent of the vote ...
Remember that voting eligibility has changed; writers removed from active baseball coverage for more than a decade are no longer eligible to vote.
That's a good thing, in general, and will bring sabermetric issues into play.
That said, here we go.
|Larry Walker: Can|
he gain traction?
Personal thoughts on these and more in a minute. Larry Walker leads me to look at returning players, as my Eckstein joke aside, nobody besides the above, among first year eligibles, is a HOFer or even on the borderline of the borderline.
So, without further adieu?
5. Alan Trammell falls well short, in his last year of eligibility. Edgar Martinez continues to tread water, with his vote total being a good test case of what younger writers think about career DHs. (That said, he was a semi-career DH; but, pay attention, David Ortiz.) Walker makes a moderate move upward, but stays below 15 percent.
7. Will Curt Schilling's chances continue to "evolve' (heh, heh) or not?
That said, some snapshots now.
As I said in the past with yet another Cardinal, Lee Smith, closers in general aren't HOFers. Neither of the two current candidates are.
Edmonds? Hall of the Very Good, but not HOFer. (Walker is, though, in my book.)
Piazza, Baggs, Tramm should all have already been in. So should Moose. Raines, I lean yes, but not quite as strongly as the above. Martinez, I lean no, for DH-related reasons.
My thoughts about roiders, and the ideal of more formal confessions from them, MLB, and their managers (including last year's inductees Tony La Russa, Bobby Cox and Joe Torre) has been stated on multiple occasions. They shouldn't be in, and neither should the three managers.
Note: I am definitely pretty much of a "small Hall" person. For those who claim that cutoffs for a "small Hall" are arbitrary, ANY such cutoffs are arbitrary. Ditto on the 10-vote rule, which "big Hall" people hate. Whether a rule is imposed from outside, or internally developed, unless you believe in divine command theories of ethics, and your "ethics" extends to rules in general, rules of this nature are arbitrary. That includes yours, because you have an arbitrary cutoff rule for your "big Hall," too.
If you claim you don't, I'll ask you why Eckstein isn't a HOFer. You have arbitrary rules, too.
Deal with it.
I see no divinity running around; as for the arbitrary rules, for the ESPNers and a few others who want a "big Hall"? Start your own, if you don't like the rules of the current voting.
Otherwise, the claim that "but my rule is different" is the surest indicator of special pleading and oxen being gored.