Ken Griffey Jr. is the only newcomer to the ballot who seems like a lock. Unless you really like closers and think that saves are the best stat in baseball! Plus there's Jim Edmonds, who has a very interesting case but will probably get stuck in sub-15% limbo for the next few years.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14090307/hall-fame-ballot-ken-griffey-jr-trevor-hoffman-newcomers
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Monday, 9 November 2015 23:22 (eight years ago) link
the elimination of older voters is interesting, i wonder if we'll see some dudes jump up the ballot as a result. maybe some of those "he didn't feel like a hall of famer when i watched him play" guys have been cut.
― nomar, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 00:54 (eight years ago) link
Heard an old-guard guy on the radio today (Bob Ryan) who thought the demographic move towards younger voters would help the PED guys.
Putting them aside--I remain agnostic*--my ballot would go like this:
PiazzaBagwellRainesSchillingMartinezMussinaWalkerGriffeyHoffmann
For the 10th spot, either Trammell or Edmonds. I don't know where the line should be drawn for closers, except that I don't think it should be drawn directly under Rivera; wherever it is, I think Hoffmann clears it.
*(I think it was NoTime who said to me that not voting for someone is not an act of agnosticism. If you're an actual voter, I agree: you have to make up your mind. But if you're not really voting, I think agnosticism is valid. The decision is up to others, and I'm fine with whatever they decide because I see both sides of the argument.)
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 05:13 (eight years ago) link
That sounds like something I would say. I'm not buying the "I'm not a voter so I don't have to make up my mind" argument though. It's like having a discussion about this year's NL Cy Young race, but leaving Greinke and Kershaw out of the discussion because you grew up hating the Dodgers. You can't say oh I won't vote for those two guys because they're Dodgers, so they're disqualified AFAIC, here's my pretend ballot without them included.
Clemens and Bonds and whoever are all on the ballot, so they're part of the discussion no matter who might be uncomfortable with it.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 10:10 (eight years ago) link
Hoffmann's career rate stats are what the average middle reliever puts up in a season these days. He's the upgraded version of Lee Smith -- a bit more dominant, pitched long enough to compile 20% more saves, but otherwise not that remarkable of a pitcher. Wagner's best seasons are still eye-popping.
Maybe we've been spoiled by Mariano Rivera, but I think postseason performance should weigh more heavily on a closer's HOF case. A position player comes to bat just as often in the playoffs as he does in the regular season, but a closer's innings (as a %age of his team's total innings) go way up. Teams can't win championships anymore without well balanced, dominant bullpens. Closers are marginal HOF candidates for the most part, so we should be putting an emphasis on additional factors (like the postseason). Hoffman and especially Wagner weren't very good in the playoffs.
And small sample size arguments don't apply here. Good hitters still fail 70% of the time, so you can't put much stock in 20-30 less than great at-bats in a short series. Closers are supposed to fail less than 10% of the time. If you can't nail down the save in a playoff game, you choked.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 10:30 (eight years ago) link
The net effect of my non-vote is the same in both cases, zero, but "This is a complicated issue where I understand both sides of the argument and am okay with wherever the writers land" vs. "I'll leave Greinke and Kershaw off my hypothetical ballot because"--I have to stop there, because the analogy breaks down even before the analogy breaks down. In one case, I'm stepping back from an issue that's being decided by other people, and my stepping back more or less jibes with what's going to actually happen (i.e., none of them are going into the HOF in the near future); in your hypothetical, I'm taking a stance that would demonstrate a disconnect with what's going to actually happen.
I think there are good arguments against Hoffman--the idea that he's less deserving than Wagner might be one of them--but I can't go with the postseason argument. Hoffman's overall postseason numbers aren't great, but they're far from terrible: 3.46 ERA, 13 IP, 11 H, 14 K, 4 non-intentional BB. In his four NLDS's, his ERA was 2.70; in his one NLCS, it was 2.08. In four of his six postseason series, his ERAs were 2.08, 0.00, 0.00, and 0.00.
It comes down to one lousy World Series (ERA of 9.00--I'd have to check, but with his team being swept 4-0, I'm not sure how decisive his two innings were) and an even lousier NLDS in '96, his first (10.80--I'm just using ERA for convenience). So you'd be giving a lot of weight to 3.2 innings vs. the 1089.1 he pitched in the regular season, which, proportionally, would be giving a lot of weight to one start for a starter who pitched somewhere between 2,500-3,000 innings.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 12:55 (eight years ago) link
None of them are going into the HOF in the future *because* people are "being agnostic" and letting others decide for them, waiting to see what others do before assuming the responsibility expected of them, and so on. Some voters are definitely approaching it like you have -- they have arbitrarily decided to pretend that certain players aren't on the ballot, and that's just as arbitrary as leaving two pitchers off a Cy Young ballot just because.
For a non-hypothetical example, take the 1999 AL MVP race, the year that Pudge won and Pedro was second because certain writers decided that pitchers have their own award and don't belong on the MVP ballot. How likely it was for a pitcher to be MVP was besides the point.
For Hoffman, his postseason numbers don't hurt his case, but they don't help it either. I think closers will need that on their HOF resumes, especially with so many teams making the playoffs now. Wagner was famously awful though in October.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 13:38 (eight years ago) link
Is that true? Have actual voters gone on record as being agnostic? I honestly don't know--if they have, I agree with you, an actual vote does not allow for agnosticism, whether it's the HOF or the Cy Young. A vote or a non-vote states a position. I thought all the voters had made up their minds on the issue (even if their reasoning is, "Well, I'm not in favor of PEDs, but everyone was doing it, so I'll vote him in"--that's still taking a position), but maybe you're right.
But I still don't see a parallel between me--no vote--and someone with a vote, unless you think that actual voters are monitoring message boards and letting that influence their decision. And if you do think that--if you want to argue that voters are influenced by the general discussion "out there," and that therefore everyone does have an obligation to take a position--I actually don't think that's an unreasonable point to make.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 13:59 (eight years ago) link
A number of voters have gone public saying that they prefer to wait and see if new evidence comes to light, that's one version of agnosticism IMO.
I'm not saying that voters are influenced by message boards. I'm saying that we all need to discuss the same ballot, otherwise the discussion has no point. I have no idea why we'd want to discuss a pretend, made up ballot on this board when there's a real life ballot to talk about.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 14:09 (eight years ago) link
Fair point. Part of it too, for me, is that the PED discussion just goes around in circles, and it's much more interesting to discuss people like Hoffman.
Once again, thank you, Bud Selig.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 14:37 (eight years ago) link
i think for closers, i'd cast a vote for rivera but no one else. if hoffman pitched in the 7th and 8th innings instead of the 9th, compiling the same career stats minus the saves, there wouldn't even be a discussion about him. i don't think finishing out a game at the end makes a pitcher particularly special.
― nomar, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 17:14 (eight years ago) link
If Bruce Sutter is in I don't see why Hoffman wouldn't be. Then again, why is Sutter in there.
I think Hoffman stacks up favorably with guys like Eck, Fingers, and Gossage, who are in.
Then again, I'd vote for Bonds and Clemens over Hoffman in a split second.
― polyphonic, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 20:08 (eight years ago) link
pretty sure closers either get in based on facial hair as much as they do saves. like if lee smith had mutton chops or a better mustache he'd have received 90% on his first ballot. so hoffman, i don't see it. he was a bit scruffy but i don't recall much facial hair.
BUT he's got this face that reminds me of david patrick kelly. maybe i'll revise my opinion.
― nomar, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 20:16 (eight years ago) link
honestly though i'm not even kidding, i don't see much in a lot of HOF closers beyond this general intangible quality that involves pumping up the crowd and a good theme song and usually an association with a single team over a long period of time.
― nomar, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 20:17 (eight years ago) link
mariano is the best of the bunch by some distance. gossage was up there too. fingers and sutter, idk.
― nomar, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 20:18 (eight years ago) link
no on hoffman. just to wildly speculate, if there's anything regarding the future of baseball management over the next 10-20 years, it's that the Closer role is going to wildly change and possibly disappear altogether.
― Karl Malone, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 20:22 (eight years ago) link
Hoffman faced tougher competition than Gossage, I'd argue. But Gossage wasn't a one-inning reliever.
― polyphonic, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 20:22 (eight years ago) link
if there's anything regarding the future of baseball management over the next 10-20 years that i'm confident in, i meant
― Karl Malone, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 20:23 (eight years ago) link
Are we headed for career set-up stars, like what the Royals and Yankees have now? I could see that maybe happening, where someone like Betances or Herrera settles into that role at a young age and stays there for a decade-plus, and the bullpen is built more around him than a series of closers.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 20:44 (eight years ago) link
That'll only happen when the paychecks reflect the on-field value. If Herrera's your highest-paid reliever and you brought him in specifically to be your stopper or whatever, then players will gravitate to those roles. But that's not how the pay structure works. Closers more or less still get paid the most. Eventually Herrera and Betances will want to be paid what they think they're worth.
― polyphonic, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 20:48 (eight years ago) link
the whole thing with closers is still a problem, like managers actually waiting until a situation arises where they'll be credited with a save. i mean it's probably the single dumbest stat in all of baseball and doubtlessly the one that causes the most bullpen mismanagement.
― nomar, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 20:50 (eight years ago) link
(xpost) Right, but I'd expect that the one (the paychecks) would follow the other (usage pattern, perceived value, star visibility) to a point where the permanent and newly deified set-up men eventually make more than the series of short-term and less celebrated closers. I mean, if you think that could ever happen. I don't know--I'm sure there are studies out there analyzing whether more leads are given up in the 7th, 8th, or 9th innings. (We already know that relatively few are given up in the 9th, whether your closer makes 15 million a year or the minimum, like Osuna.) Not sure what Karl Malone envisions.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 22:12 (eight years ago) link
Sutter's election was one of the more questionable ones in the past decade, in part because he had a short career, but he pitched only 47 fewer innings than Hoffman who seemed to pitch forever. Hoffman is slightly ahead in WAR, although I think WAR is misleading for closers.
The biggest difference between the two in terms of performance is that Hoffman's career IP were chopped up into smaller pieces so he could rack up more "saves". It's obviously more difficult to be effective over multiple innings than in just one inning, so the 70's and 80's closers have a big edge there over 90's and 00's closers who pitched about the same number of innings but had inflated save totals and more impressive strikeout rates.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 22:12 (eight years ago) link
Not sure what Karl Malone envisions.
something grotesque and seizure-inducing, probably!
i guess i just think that of all the areas where a manager can have a meaningful impact on the game, the (mis)use of relievers is probably the one that could most obviously stand to improve. think of all the times that there was clearly an intense high-leverage situation in the 7th or 8th inning, and the manager didn't even consider using their best pitcher (the closer) because it wasn't a save situation. also, apart from the use of closers/the best relief pitchers, i think that bullpen management offers the most opportunities for improvement since there are so many potential decisions - as more and more data flows into the game, i expect that the thinking will move away from the Mike Matheny style (i have to have a closer and a defined 8th inning guy and a defined 7th inning guy) and more toward a dynamic situational kind of thinking. i don't think it will happen overnight or anything, but it seems obvious that things would continue moving in that direction. and as bullpen use changes i doubt that the traditional "closer" will continue to be a common ole, and (FULL CIRCLE) as a result people like hoffman will start to seem like relics of the past rather than as HOF candidates worthy of consideration based off of one garbage stat.
― Karl Malone, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 22:32 (eight years ago) link
I think with closers the difference between who is considered HOF worthy vs who isnt (like hoffman vs someone like idk isringhausen or another random dude isn't exactly the difference between Larry walker vs rusty greer imo. so much is based on that one arbitrary stat at the expense of so much else. Which is why I guess it's a good thing that the only closers people are talking abt for the hall are the first guys who were stars bc of it and the guys who saved 600+ games. I doubt we will see another closer get serious consideration in the future bc I agree with karl malone's predix
― nomar, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 22:46 (eight years ago) link
(xpost) Which KC and the Yankees and no doubt other teams are moving towards right now--KC's three set-up men seem interchangeable, and all three were much more formidable than their actual closer, Holland. Maybe not the exact same thing, but at one time it was called bullpen-by-committee.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 22:52 (eight years ago) link
When teams carried nine pitchers (five starters, four relievers) and only one reliever could throw 90+ consistently then it made some sense that he'd be treated like a wizard with special powers to shut down opponents in the ninth. The other three relievers were all failed starters trying to hang on, hoping for a spot start here or there, or junkballers who'd pitch three or four innings when the starter was knocked out early. Now every team carries twelve pitchers (seven relievers) and everyone throws 95+. Like clemenza said, relievers are becoming interchangeable, and closers are becoming less special each year.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Tuesday, 10 November 2015 23:23 (eight years ago) link
My guess as to what actually happens: Griffey around 95%, Piazza up to around 80%, Bagwell just over or just under. So two or three go in.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 November 2015 00:01 (eight years ago) link
and Trammel out.
:'(
― Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 11 November 2015 00:03 (eight years ago) link
Trammell, my bad.
Jay Jaffe's HOF season kickoff
http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/11/10/jaws-hall-fame-ken-griffey-trevor-hoffman
― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 November 2015 16:55 (eight years ago) link
it'll be sad to watch jim edmonds top out at 30% of the vote
craig edwards of fangraphs fame maintains this sometimes amusing account: https://twitter.com/JimEdmondsHOF
― Karl Malone, Thursday, 12 November 2015 17:04 (eight years ago) link
whatever % Raines gets will make me sadder :(
― AKA Thermo Thinwall (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 12 November 2015 18:55 (eight years ago) link
Interesting history of the silly inability to elect anyone unanimously:
http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/ken-griffey-hall-of-fame/
Specifically, how Seaver came close to ending that: five no-votes, but three of them were blank ballots protesting Rose's omission, and one was an error by a voter just coming out of heart surgery. There was only one real no-vote, an older guy who stuck to the illogical idea that since no had gone in unanimously before, no one should ever go in unanimously.
― clemenza, Saturday, 14 November 2015 14:56 (eight years ago) link
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=F2E5D8FC5199DFAF!7156&ithint=file%2cxlsx&app=Excel&authkey=!AC7uZHAmcVGWgwE
posting the HOF counter now so it doesn't go under the fold
― How Butch, I mean (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Saturday, 14 November 2015 16:22 (eight years ago) link
Great article as usual from Pos. But I disagree that if one player would get elected unanimously then it would lead to a string of others. The logic would only shift slightly, from "if Mays and Aaron weren't unanimous then nobody should" to "Jeter was elected unanimously and these guys were no Derek Jeter ".
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Saturday, 14 November 2015 16:38 (eight years ago) link
Surprised at how little love Sheffield as getting. Dude had a monster career. Was there some PED connection I'm forgetting?
― AKA Thermo Thinwall (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Saturday, 14 November 2015 18:31 (eight years ago) link
Gary Sheffield was often an axxhole to and in the press and he was tied into the NY PED story with the Yanks. He was also a bit of an enfant terrible in his early days in Milwaukee, leading the club to cut bait with him even though it was obvious he most likely could be a star. Business of baseball kinda screwed Sheffield as he seemed to do well in San Diego and Miami, but those clubs couldn't afford to keep talent. The lone fanbase that seemed to embrace Sheffield was in Atlanta and Sheff took the bigger deal to go to the Yanks. That moving around also makes him a bit mercenary, so he's not really thought of with any one club or fanbase.
All this said, Sheffield was one of the NL's best right handed power hitters in his time in baseball.
― earlnash, Saturday, 14 November 2015 19:29 (eight years ago) link
also part of it is the 'crowded' ballot. i'm not at all sure he is one of the ten best candidates, especially if you're pro-Bonds-Clemens.
― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 15 November 2015 01:03 (eight years ago) link
was it Sheff that once took a swipe at a fan while jumping for a ball?
― AKA Thermo Thinwall (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Sunday, 15 November 2015 01:15 (eight years ago) link
i was going to suggest that gary sheffield was the best player ever to play for eight different teams, but of course rickey played for nine and gaylord perry also played for eight. and kenny lofton (11!) also out-wars him
i'm not saying lofton belongs in the hall, but he's pretty close and it's absurd that he got knocked off the ballot after one year
― mookieproof, Sunday, 15 November 2015 04:12 (eight years ago) link
Is Sheff's -28.6 dWAR the worst of all time (or close to it)?
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Sunday, 15 November 2015 09:11 (eight years ago) link
Comfortably worse than Manny's -22.5. Dick "Dr. Strangelove" Stuart was -12.9 in 43% as many games, and he managed to do that playing first base--he was the guy I'd always read about being the worst fielder ever, either him or Babe Herman. A list from 2012, led by our own EE:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1060314-40-worst-fielders-in-baseball-history
― clemenza, Sunday, 15 November 2015 21:25 (eight years ago) link
yeah sheff was a great player but a one-dimensional slugger in an era full of them.
― k3vin k., Sunday, 15 November 2015 21:41 (eight years ago) link
that bat wiggle tho
― mookieproof, Sunday, 15 November 2015 22:06 (eight years ago) link
Mookie OTM.
― :wq (Leee), Monday, 16 November 2015 18:59 (eight years ago) link
Career .292/.393/.514, 500 HR, 250 SB is pretty sweet
― polyphonic, Monday, 16 November 2015 20:06 (eight years ago) link
sheff had some legitimately incredible seasons but the HOF voters always subconsciously dock points for guys who bounce around a lot. i think fans underrate them too.
if lofton was a brave his whole career during their era of peak success, for example, i bet he'd still be on the ballot. the HOF loves those reliable cornerstones!
― nomar, Monday, 16 November 2015 20:19 (eight years ago) link
i always remember sheff's first half that one season w/detroit, he was as good as he'd ever been and looked like an MVP candidate. then the bottom dropped out in the second half and he was done careerwise.
― nomar, Monday, 16 November 2015 20:21 (eight years ago) link
He had one of the best seasons any Padre has ever had:
1992, 23 years old: .330./.385/.580. 557 AB, 48 strikeouts. Total monster stuff.
― polyphonic, Monday, 16 November 2015 20:53 (eight years ago) link
it's a symptom of the bigger problem of deserving players needing to wait AT ALL in order to get into the HoF. You have 10 available slots to vote; if you have 10 qualified players on the ballot they should all be voted for. Basically there should never be anyone on the ballot who deserves to be in the HoF... bc they're all there.
― How Butch, I mean (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Thursday, 7 January 2016 17:06 (eight years ago) link
Halladay's 2020 too.
― clemenza, Thursday, 7 January 2016 18:17 (eight years ago) link
Okay, I see...guess I'm off by a year.
― clemenza, Thursday, 7 January 2016 18:18 (eight years ago) link
i did not know that junior swallowed 277 aspirin after his first year as a pro
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920315&slug=1481176
― mookieproof, Thursday, 7 January 2016 21:53 (eight years ago) link
..interesting...NYT analysis
Both, it should be noted, got a boost in support, at least in the voting percentages. Clemens was named on 45.2 percent of the ballots and Bonds was named on 44.3 percent after they finished at 37.5 and 36.8 in last year’s election. But if you ignore the percentages, Clemens was named on 199 ballots this time and Bonds was on 195. Last year, Clemens was on 206 ballots and Bonds on 202. The year before that, Clemens was on 202 and Bonds on 198.So the actual vote totals for Bonds and Clemens have not moved much in either direction in the past few years. What did change this time around was a purge of the voting ranks that the Hall of Fame carried out before the recent balloting. Writers who had not actively covered the game for more than 10 years were no longer eligible to vote.That change, combined with some new writers becoming eligible, resulted in a net reduction of 109 voters from the year before. At least some of those removed from the voting rolls had been voting for Clemens and Bonds, so the ultimate impact of the purge cannot be quantified, but the net result was a small drop in the vote totals for each player and a modest spike in their voting percentages because fewer votes over all were cast. To a certain extent, one factor canceled out the other.
So the actual vote totals for Bonds and Clemens have not moved much in either direction in the past few years. What did change this time around was a purge of the voting ranks that the Hall of Fame carried out before the recent balloting. Writers who had not actively covered the game for more than 10 years were no longer eligible to vote.
That change, combined with some new writers becoming eligible, resulted in a net reduction of 109 voters from the year before. At least some of those removed from the voting rolls had been voting for Clemens and Bonds, so the ultimate impact of the purge cannot be quantified, but the net result was a small drop in the vote totals for each player and a modest spike in their voting percentages because fewer votes over all were cast. To a certain extent, one factor canceled out the other.
uh
― Karl Malone, Thursday, 7 January 2016 22:44 (eight years ago) link
not a horrible point just presented badly: the feeling is that everyone who would ever vote for those two are currently voting for those two and cutting the fat wasn't enough to make those 200 votes matter, so they'll just be hovering at those 200 votes forevermore
― qualx, Thursday, 7 January 2016 23:34 (eight years ago) link
Ick, Doc making me side with Clemens: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14522532/roger-clemens-roy-halladay-get-social-media-spat-hall-fame-voting
― Sofialo Ren (Leee), Friday, 8 January 2016 01:28 (eight years ago) link
Don't see why Halladay would ever wade into that.
― clemenza, Friday, 8 January 2016 04:52 (eight years ago) link
ya, that was unexpected. he was supposed to be the quiet type.
― Mad Piratical (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 8 January 2016 21:20 (eight years ago) link
Posnanski has two longish pieces on McGriff and the HOF today.
http://joeposnanski.com/a-thought-on-mcgriff/http://joeposnanski.com/ugh-yes-more-on-mcgriff/
The most interesting point to come out of it is that, if not for the strike, McGriff would almost certainly be in--even though (I'm with Joe) he realistically falls short.
― clemenza, Friday, 8 January 2016 23:30 (eight years ago) link
hadn't thought of that, but yeah it's probably true
― k3vin k., Saturday, 9 January 2016 00:12 (eight years ago) link
I quoted mookie's post above in a Hey Bill question that he got around to responding to today:
Bill: Someone posted this on my message board yesterday: “I really hate everything about this process. It gets everyone moralizing and grandstanding, it leaves righteous candidates hanging for years and it makes perfectly good ballplayers like Alan Trammell seem like failures because they lose every year for 15 years or, like Edmonds/Lofton/Delgado, get knocked out on the first try.” I think you’ve made the same point yourself, the unfortunate move towards the HOF as the be-all and end-all when remembering players from the past. What brought this on? Three guesses: 1) The card boom of the late-‘80s (HOF = $, for both the players and collectors; 2) sabermetrics (old school vs. new school distrust, vociferous advocacy, etc...not a knock on sabermetrics—I’m here, right?); 3) the internet, which has a way of degrading everything. By the way, as someone who collected cards for a time, I definitely plead guilty to #1—HOF potential became my filter for who I'd collect. Any thoughts?Asked by: Phil Dellio
Answered: 1/12/2016The process becomes tiresome. It would be a good thing if someone were to start a "rival baseball museum" dedicated to the memories of Minnie Minoso, Stan Hack, Dwight Evans, Mike Garcia and Carl Furillo, but for something like that to work you have to be serious about it. You have to devote a lifetime to making it work, and you have to make good decisions in setting it up. We've only got shovel apiece, so it just hasn't been done yet.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 01:08 (eight years ago) link
Someone posted this on my message board yesterday
HMPH.
― Sofialo Ren (Leee), Wednesday, 13 January 2016 01:25 (eight years ago) link
Just to clear up any ambiguity, I was definitely implying ownership.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 01:31 (eight years ago) link
The last thing needed is a "rival museum".
I'm not even sure anymore whether the voting process can be revamped, it was already messed up even before the arguments about steroids and the totally vague "character clause" ruined it even further. Maybe the best thing is for the HOF to separate itself from baseball journalists completely and start functioning like a regular museum. Hire a curator or a team of curators to make decisions -- in a regular museum they don't look at polls to decide which artists to feature, so if a baseball museum wants to have a Barry Bonds exhibit then let them.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 09:12 (eight years ago) link
I don't know, a Bizarro anti-Hall featuring Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe, and Marge Schott exhibits would be pretty fascinating.
― pandit pran nathalie (sanskrit), Wednesday, 13 January 2016 18:30 (eight years ago) link
and come to think of it, a top notch candidate for a Kickstarter swindle.
― pandit pran nathalie (sanskrit), Wednesday, 13 January 2016 18:31 (eight years ago) link
I probably agree--James expanded on the idea today (not behind the firewall yet):
http://www.billjamesonline.com/hey_bill/#48992
― clemenza, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 20:35 (eight years ago) link
Many of the clubs do have their own hall of fame, which really is a good way to honor many of the players that get mentioned in these arguments. The Reds have a quite a nice one at Great American and have a yearly ceremony where they add new members during a home game.
― earlnash, Thursday, 14 January 2016 01:34 (eight years ago) link
i'm not sure how best to achieve it, but what the process needs is for everyone to chill the fuck out -- which probably means removing sports writers columnists, who are basically now paid to provoke
one thing is fuck the 'morals' clause -- if they were decent enough that they were allowed to play at the time, put 'em in
but mainly chilling out. there's been a mild discussion about whether eric lindros should be in the hockey hall of fame (he is not, yet), but it seems like other sports' halls are celebrations of the game more than gatekeepers against the merely good. hockey used to even waive the waiting period for obvious candidates (which led to mario lemieux making a post-cancer comeback as an enshrined hall of famer; the game was not significantly besmirched). meanwhile baseball has voters who won't support candidates until their second year because first-ballot is for babe ruth alone ffs
― mookieproof, Thursday, 14 January 2016 02:18 (eight years ago) link
remove the baseball hall of fame
― qualx, Thursday, 14 January 2016 02:35 (eight years ago) link
someone needs to thomas jefferson slave apartments it
― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 14 January 2016 02:59 (eight years ago) link
considering shoeless will never get in and comiskey has his spot, maybe we are the ones who need to chill about the museum?
what matters most is your own hall of fame. (barry bonds and a sunset)
― Van Horn Street, Thursday, 14 January 2016 05:52 (eight years ago) link
wonder what murray chass is up to today
― mookieproof, Sunday, 24 July 2016 18:58 (seven years ago) link
Next year: Bagwell and Raines in. I-Rod gets the two or three "cloud-of-suspicion" penalty; Manny, no; Vlad draws around 60-65%, good shape for a year or two later.
― clemenza, Monday, 25 July 2016 00:36 (seven years ago) link
Active pitchers and the Hall of Fame:
http://www.billjamesonline.com/are_we_watching_any_hall_of_fame_hurlers/
Recent weirdness aside, I like Sale's chances better than the writer does.
― clemenza, Monday, 1 August 2016 02:27 (seven years ago) link
i had totally forgotten about sale's bizarre start to his career. gets drafted at 20, makes the majors after 2 months playing in the minors as a reliever, comes out of the bullpen exclusively his rookie year, then becomes a starter and is immediately one of the best in the game
― have you ever even read The Drudge Report? Have you gone on Stormfron (k3vin k.), Monday, 1 August 2016 03:12 (seven years ago) link
and two months is pretty misleading -- he pitched 10.1 innings in the minors!
― have you ever even read The Drudge Report? Have you gone on Stormfron (k3vin k.), Monday, 1 August 2016 03:18 (seven years ago) link
currently active players with a shot at the hall of fame better imo
― qualx, Monday, 1 August 2016 06:03 (seven years ago) link
rereading that, alex in sf was very confident ortiz was not going to the HOF
lol we have so many HOF threads
i miss zachlyon on the baseball threads where'd that guy go
― have you ever even read The Drudge Report? Have you gone on Stormfron (k3vin k.), Monday, 1 August 2016 06:37 (seven years ago) link
i agree let's all talk about how smart and handsome he was
― qualx, Monday, 1 August 2016 08:47 (seven years ago) link
oh hi lol
― have you ever even read The Drudge Report? Have you gone on Stormfron (k3vin k.), Monday, 1 August 2016 15:04 (seven years ago) link
from that bill james link
Keeping in mind that the historical average is about 8 Hall of Fame starting pitchers, if I had to take a stab, I think the following active pitchers will eventually be enshrined: Clayton KershawMadison BumgarnerFelix HernandezMax ScherzerJustin Verlander
kershaw definitely, felix almost definitely, the others i'm not sure on. scherzer could be the righty randy johnson, w/his relatively late breakthrough into dominance. verlander is having a pretty damn good year but i'm not sold on him going forward, not 100%. bumgarner is an interesting pick; good stats, decent if not HOF level WAR seasons prior to this one, and i think he might be about to go on a dominant run for a few years. it's probably either him or strasburg for the cy young award this year assuming kershaw is done.
― nomar, Tuesday, 2 August 2016 17:40 (seven years ago) link
Not convinced that Verlander's rebound is strong enough either--he's definitely better at 33 than 31, but he's still well short of where he was in 2009-2012. If he basically treads water and declines slowly for another 5-6 years, I think he falls short.
Rightly or wrongly, Bumgarner's World Series performance will obviously be near the top of whatever advocacy he receives (for now, anyway--he could still mess that up with a couple of poor series).
― clemenza, Tuesday, 2 August 2016 18:10 (seven years ago) link
As of right now, I prefer Greinke's chances to bother Verlander and Schezer, but I would say those two have what it takes to go in.
― Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 3 August 2016 01:15 (seven years ago) link
I guess the latest complete overhaul of The Vets Committee(s) is of little interest
― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 August 2016 03:21 (seven years ago) link
i posted about it in one of our other HOF threads!
― have you ever even read The Drudge Report? Have you gone on Stormfron (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 3 August 2016 03:45 (seven years ago) link
ok sorry, hard to keep track of
― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 3 August 2016 03:50 (seven years ago) link
starting to think adrian beltre is gonna be a high % first ballot guy, 3000 hits next year seems to be a lock and 500 HR seems increasingly likely. it looks probable that before the end of the season he'll pass george brett in career WAR, too.
― nomar, Sunday, 21 August 2016 19:49 (seven years ago) link
yeah it's good to see how much he's strengthened his case the past few years
i think he'll stop short of 500 but that number was a pipe dream when this rangers era started, i wouldn't have predicted 400 back then
― qualx, Sunday, 21 August 2016 20:21 (seven years ago) link
i think we'd be talking about him as an inner-circle guy if he never went to seattle
like yeah adjusted stats account for park factors but some guys just get especially destroyed in certain environments. something about seattle just wrecked him. and those were his age 26-30 years.
― qualx, Sunday, 21 August 2016 20:29 (seven years ago) link
Guessing he goes in first-ballot with about 90% when the time comes.
― clemenza, Sunday, 21 August 2016 22:25 (seven years ago) link
in that regard, Beltran's case is more interresting.
― Van Horn Street, Monday, 22 August 2016 01:37 (seven years ago) link
I'm curious to see if Beltran has a couple more productive seasons in him, it's obvious at 39 he has not lost the ability to hit.
― earlnash, Monday, 22 August 2016 03:42 (seven years ago) link
adjusted stats account for park factors but some guys just get especially destroyed in certain environments. something about seattle just wrecked him
The other Adrian, Adrian Gonzalez, has had his career undermined by the parks he's played in even more (weirdly enough, a lot of overlap in the teams they've played for).
Beltre (home): .310/.386/.471Beltre (away): .273/.305/.490
Gonzalez (home): .280/.355/.462Gonzalez (away): .301/.370/.525
After about a half-season's worth of games in Texas at the beginning of his career, Gonzalez has spent nine of 11 seasons in San Diego and L.A. He did get couple of years in Fenway, one of which was arguably his best season offensively.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 02:59 (seven years ago) link
http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/73235/cole-hamels-future-standards-hall-of-fame-pitchers
― nomar, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 17:39 (seven years ago) link
After wavering a bit the last couple of seasons, Evan Longoria is right on track again. Getting out of Tampa Bay would probably help.
― clemenza, Thursday, 25 August 2016 17:53 (seven years ago) link
Jeff: A question some friends and I have been thinking about – can you name a player off the top of your head, whose reputation as a “great” player has been damaged by the advent of sabermetrics? I feel like Pete Rose would be one such player. Christ, the guy was named All Century and some delusional people still argue that he is the best hitter/player who ever lived.
Klaw: Andre Dawson. Tony Perez. I guess Jim Rice, although no one ever considered him a great player until he became the Luddites’ cause celebre. Jack Morris, perhaps.
― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Friday, 30 September 2016 12:13 (seven years ago) link
Morris' rep sure has been inflated as part of the nonthinking backlash.
― Andy K, Friday, 30 September 2016 13:24 (seven years ago) link