hall of fame, next vote...

Hall of Fame Ballot 2004

Bruce Sutter was the pitcher that brought back and popularized the split finger fastball, which considering how popular a pitch it has become in the past 25 years, it is something that he should get some credit.

"Boggs, for instance, is not a classic Hall of Famer, in my eyes, despite his 3,000 hits; he was a very, very good player, but not a dominant player."

Appearantly Buster forgets the mid 80s when Boggs career batting average was at .355 or so, he won 5 of 6 batting titles and his on base percentage was at a SABERMETRIC stoner high. He also won two of those batting titles by more than twenty points! After age 32, he only once hit over .330, but a bunch of players peak around that time in their career. Boggs average with runners on base and the bases loaded is also off the chart.

Oddly enough, I don't think Boggs was quite the same player after that whole scandal with Margo Adams broke. I think opposing teams quit putting chicken on the buffet when Boston was in town or something.

I think it would be interesting to know how many hits Boggs would have put up if he would have been brought up in 81, when he was 21 instead of 24. Boggs always claimed that he was just a good a hitter at 21, but since he played 1b was always behind Yaz in the depth chart and never got the chance to play in the bigs until he learned how to play 3b. He didn't get called up in 84 until they were wracked with injuries, then he hit over .400 for a month or so and stayed in the lineup from then on.

I grew up mostly watching NL baseball, but Boggs was one of my favorite players to follow and watch hit. Maybe not as fearful as some of the great power hitters of his day, but like Tony Gwynn, he was one of those hitters that seemed to dumbfound pitchers on how to get them out.

Earl OTM about Boggs, the guy was an offensive powerhouse.

It's the usual BS with guys like Sandberg -- 2B and 3B are underrepresented positions in the HoF because their offensive numbers aren't at the level of 1B or OF, they're not remembered for being "flashy" like SS, and they're not "on-the-field leaders" like C. Sandberg is a no-brainer.

Gossage should be in, I hear the arguments for Sutter that he wasn't great for as long as some other guys, but a) he was dominant for about the same length of time that Mo Rivera has been (and a lot of people consider him a future HoF player -- yeah, I know Mo's postseason performance is part of that, but still), and b) he INVENTED a pitch, which is a damned significant contribution to the game.

The Blyleven arguments boil down to the fact that he WAS great, but was pitching for bad teams. I think people are wising up to the idea that there are guys like Sutton who are in only because they pitched for good teams.

That season I remember seeing Jack Morris throw a no hitter on TV against the White Sox as it was the game of the week Saturday Afternoon on NBC. I can remember my dad was working in the garage and coming in every so often to check it out how the game was going, as he joked after the first inning or so wouldn't it be funny if he threw a no hitter.

But if that were the case, there'd be 80 or 90 members, except for what, 240 now?

By the established standard, Blyleven belongs. If you're "very good" for long enough (BB was in the top 10 in league Adjusted ERA 11 times from '71-89), that's worth 5-6 years of dominance (the peak vs career, Koufax vs Spahn argument). There was some research I read in the last year that showed Bert didn't suffer quite as much from his teammates' inadequacy as generally thought, but it wasn't enough for him to drop off my "ballot."

>The funny thing about Morris, as I recall, is that he always seemed to pitch just good enough to stay ahead.

"I know not seems..." I'll try to find a link for you, Thermo, but someone recently did a study of Morris's career in this regard, and it showed *no* special ability to pitch that way. He threw 1150 fewer innings than Blyleven and his career ERA was only 5% better than the league's (Bert 18%) -- that's not a negligible difference. Morris had a good career, but not a HOFer.

I'd vote for Gossage on greatness and longevity, Sutter on peak and pioneer role, close but unconvinced for Lee Smith. Rest of ballot: Boggs, Sandberg, and TRAMMELL, most deserving SS of that era below Ozzie. Dawson and Rice fall short.

It's sad that the Vets Committee process has obviously been fucked up to the point where they may never elect anyone, as I fear Ron Santo will die before his deserved induction.

I'm not sure that would be worst thing ever actually, but my problem with Blyleven is that during his time he was never really recognized as being one of the best in the game. He wasn't voted to All Star games, he didn't make Cy Young top 10s, he wasn't talked about as being a great pitcher. And I think that hurts him. NOW if the reason why none of those things occurred was that he toiled entirely in obscurity for shitty teams and if he'd been on the Dodgers, the Red Sox, the Yankees and the Reds for those years instead that there would be a complete about face and he'd be considered among the best pitchers of his era, well all I can say geez that's bad luck for Bert, but I think that's a hard argument to make conclusively.

MIR, here's a 4-year-old Neyer column on Blyleven... Alex, I think it's conclusive:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2000/1213/943398.html

And he later wrote:

"Blyleven was, over the course of his career, a better pitcher than Ted Lyons or Early Wynn or Bob Lemon or Red Ruffing or Rube Waddell or Red Faber or Catfish Hunter or Lefty Gomez, all of whom are in the Hall of Fame... It's not Blyleven's fault that he generally pitched for unspectacular teams that played in hitter's parks. In fact, Blyleven pitched for 22 seasons, and in only four of those 22 seasons did Blyleven's home ballpark favor the pitcher, statistically..."

And to appeal to the butch old-timers: 242 complete games!

Four of 'em (third twice).

http://baseball-reference.com/b/blylebe01.shtml

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1815

It concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that he could.

That's the article I meant, MIR, thanks.

I think he's written a couple of other columns on Blyleven, maybe I can find them ...

Those are some mind-numbing stats!

This, and many other articles stating his HoF case are collected -- where else? -- on Blyleven's web page:

http://www.bertblyleven.com/hall_of_fame.shtml

xpost -- yeah, the Morris article is a bit of a numbers slog, but it's well done.

Enough, believe me. And I saw him compare him to two HOF pitchers, one of whom is IMO a mistake and the other who is basically in the Hall because he had a zillion strikeouts and a slew of no hitters. Compare him to Carlton or Seaver or Hunter or any of the really great pitchers from his era, if you want to make your point (that this guy is getting job) don't just claim he was "better than Don Sutton" cuz my response to that is so the fuck what.

That second ESPN article is much better btw and makes a pretty good case.

No, Bert is not Seaver or Carlton.

He played for fifteen years, and he had about four great years, four good years, and the rest were downright BAD. If he'd pitched for anyone other than the 70's A's and Yankees dynasties, there's no way he'd be anywhere near a serious HoF discussion.

See this is where I get the impression that cold-dispassionate analysis of the stats lies a little. For 5 years (71-75), Hunter was probably hands down the most feared pitcher in baseball. No he might not have been Koufax, but he was still by all accounts pretty amazing. Those five years count for more to me than 20 some odd years of just pretty good workmanlike pitching (I will admit that these breakdowns of Blyleven's stats are making a pretty case that he was better than that.) (I do have to wonder WHY if Bert was so great, he um didn't get snatched up by better teams? I mean that can't all be bad luck, right?)

Postseason Pitching

Year Round Tm Opp WLser G GS ERA W-L SV CG SHO IP H ER BB SO
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
1970 ALCS MIN BAL L 1 0 0.00 0-0 0 0 0 2.0 2 0 0 2
1979 NLCS PIT CIN W 1 1 1.00 1-0 0 1 0 9.0 8 1 0 9
WS PIT BAL W 2 1 1.80 1-0 0 0 0 10.0 8 2 3 4
1987 ALCS MIN DET W 2 2 4.05 2-0 0 0 0 13.3 12 6 3 9
WS MIN STL W 2 2 2.77 1-1 0 0 0 13.0 13 4 2 12
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
3 Lg Champ Series 2-1 4 3 2.59 3-0 0 1 0 24.3 22 7 3 20
2 World Series 2-0 4 3 2.35 2-1 0 0 0 23.0 21 6 5 16
5 Postseason Ser 4-1 8 6 2.47 5-1 0 1 0 47.3 43 13 8 36
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+

He didn't get many chances, but Blyleven pitched well in the playoffs and was a part of two World Series Champions.

Many of his best years came before free agency, so he didn't have much choice in the matter.

Even with free agency, it's only during the last ten years or so that all the best players end up on big-market winning teams at some point, since eventually those are the only teams that can afford them. If Jaret Wright can bounce around for a while, have one good season after a slew of crappy ones, and end up with a multi-year deal from a perennial contender, then Blyleven would have ended up playing for more winning teams too, if he was playing today.

Even so, every era has a few great players who toil away in relative obscurity. Look at Bobby Abreu, or even Carlos Delgado. If Delgado goes to the Mets, maybe in 20 years people will be saying "if he was so good, why did his teams always finish in third place?"

Alex, nobody's saying Hunter wasn't GOOD, just that Blyleven was better for MUCH longer, and that "good press" shouldn't be a measure of excellence. And I don't see Hunter '71-75 being "amazing" ... His most "impressive statistics" are wins (ie, having good teammates) and innings pitched (which blew out his arm, as MIR says). I think he got extra credit for the pennants and the sexy nicknames. And it's cute how you use high Cy Young finishes as relevant to Hunter, not relevant for Blyleven. (Also, I don't see Hunter's status as the first Big Splash free agent being relevant; see Marvin Miller's book for how clownishly Catfish handled that situation.)

The "cold-dispassionate analysis of the stats" is the most reliable evidence there is. Not "what you heard" (from Joe Morgan?). And it isn't so much that Blyleven toiled for bad teams (they were more often mediocre), but pitched in hitters' parks.

I hope it happens soon so that he lives to attend his own induction.

It's not lookin' good for Marv, MIR -- when the Vets voted last in '03, no one came close to getting 75% ... and of the 60 votes required for election, Miller got 35. He got three FEWER votes than Walter O'Malley -- or as we call him in Brooklyn, Satan.

Miller and other non-players are on the "composite" ballot. Here's this year's players' ballot:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/2005/2005_vc_candidates.htm

The only one I'm sold on is Santo, but Dick Allen and Tony Oliva have decent cases -- as does Curt Flood for courage and legal pioneering.

Mickey Lolich won't get in the Hall, but his pitching in the 68 World Series may be the best performance ever in the fall classic by a starter. The guy out pitched Bob Gibson in Game Seven on TWO days rest. ESPN Classic was showed that game a few months back and it was great. Harry Caray was doing the play by play.

While I don't know if he is good enough player to make the hall, Al Oliver had a pretty good career and never gets put on these kind of lists.

My general point is that "b...b...but he was a bit of an asshole" is a criticism that's used far too often despite being irrelevant most of the time. As long as the guy didn't compromise the game of baseball (Pete Rose being the most obvious example) then I couldn't care less if he was moody and didn't get along with everybody. If he could bring it on the field, then that's the most important thing.

(xpost)

Haha I need to learn to check baseballreference.com before I say stuff sometimes.

Example #2: replace "Reggie Jackson" with "Barry Bonds" in the above paragraph.

Or consider the Yankees and Red Sox of the last few years. When the Yankees were winning, they were "professional" and "disciplined". Their lack of comaraderie was viewed as an asset, i.e. "they're all business when they take the field". OTOH, the Sox were drama queens who didn't know how to win when it counts.

Fast forward to this past year. The Yanks are up 3-0 and they're winning because they're the professionals who respect the game and know how to win. Five days later, the exact same guys are described as "cold" and "unemotional" and that's why they lost. In the meantime, Manny and Pedro's weird quirks and selfishness are ignored, and suddenly all the drama becomes an asset because the Sox are "loose", "having fun", and "relaxed", and that's why they won.

"So we're supposed to believe that Reggie was a poison when his team lost, and a leader when they won?"

I don't think anyone really said Reggie (or Barry or Albert Belle) was a leader at any point though (well maybe Reggie when he got older.) They just said when they won that they were very good players (which obv all three were) and at times very clutch players. That doesn't mean that they also didn't cause some problems in their respective clubhouses/franchises (which all three obv did.)

Great players are great players irrespective of their teams. You can be a great player on a good team or on a bad team. Similarly, if someone is a clubhouse cancer, then that should also be independent of the quality of the team. But it isn't. The same guy who is a cancer when the team loses is a leader when the team wins.

This doesn't mean that team chemistry doesn't count for anything. But it counts for a lot less than player performance.

Haha watch out conventional wisdom! Barry's coming after ya!

Next thing you know, I'll be claiming that there's no such thing as a clutch hitter!!

Reggie's championship teams in both Oakland and the Bronx were filled with hot heads, both on the team, the managers and owners. It was a crazy atmosphere, yet they won, mostly because they were freakin' loaded with talent top to bottom. One thing I find interesting about both of those clubs is that they both won titles with two managers, the A's with Dick Williams and Alvin Dark, the Yanks with Billy Martin and Bob Lemon. Both clubs had complete freak owners with big checkbooks with King George and Charlie Finley.

70s baseball was cool. You had both of these clubs and the Big Red Machine. KC, Baltimore, Philly, LA and Pittsburgh all also won their division more than once in 70s.

Yeah, for purpose of analyzing a player's career worth, it all should come down to stats, or as I prefer to call them, FACTS. We can all spin our own fantasies of who's a "clubhouse cancer" -- one of my first choices would be late-career Saint Cal Ripken -- and it doesn't prove a damn thing.

I agree Mr. Cal could be pretty detrimental to his team by that point too, but Mr. Morb WHY if everything is so easy to calculate based on the "facts" (haha) do we even bother having votes then? Why isn't there just a formula?

2. I'm not advocating a fucking formula, but INTERPRETING the record of the player's career.

Took me a second to figure this out--I thought he was still playing for somebody--but I-Rod's "officially" retiring:

http://cnnsi.com/2012/baseball/mlb/04/19/rodriguez.retires.ap/index.html#?sct=mlb_t11_a2

I guess he goes into the Bagwell group: automatic first-ballot if they vote on stats alone, some undetermined amount of time in limbo otherwise.

thought the same thing when i saw he's retiring. who else are you putting in this group?

Bret Boone...just kidding. Those are the first two that come to mind--let me think about it.

Thome, too. Got any others? The cloud-of-vague-suspicion group...

Piazza?

was Pudge on any sort of nefarious "list"? a coworker of mine seems to think so.

p sure he was named in the mitchell report but didn't have to testify?

came to camp 30 pounds lighter when they started testing

tbh, I just assume anyone on the mid-90s Rangers was using (note: don't care)

Canseco said he used too (note: also don't care)

I remember people pointing fingers on the basis of some drastic offseason weight loss a few years ago ...

I was looking at his B-R player page and was wondering

1) he had a negative dWAR for three straight years from 2002-4. I don't get it ... he was great defensively, then bad for three years, then great again?

2) he had a 67 career WAR, which barely puts him in the top 100 all-time. I don't know, doesn't that seem a bit low for one of the best catchers ever (and probably the best ever defensively). It would suggest that either a) catchers aren't all that valuable (because they usually aren't among the league's best hitters) or b) a catchers' value isn't well represented by current metrics.

catchers have shorter careers and their position takes a bigger toll when it comes to hitting
comparing his WAR against everyone is less meaningful than comparing him to other catchers

BB-Ref ranks his 67 WAR at...67th place, coincidentally. That definitely doesn't seem too low to me.

and #2 among catchers, #11 among catcher WAR/game

10th if you eliminate Jack Clements since he was pre-modern

tbh, I just assume anyone on the mid-90s Rangers was using

One exception:

http://s.ecrater.com/stores/68455/495a38266a0b5_68455n.jpg

Refused to take anything stronger than Flinstones vitamins.

"a catchers' value isn't well represented by current metrics"

From what I understand this is very true on the defensive side of things. All the traditional catcher stats are really hard to isolate as individual achievements (SB, CS, PB/WP) and those are the things that a catcher does that actually appear on a stat sheet.

Or the ability to call a game, which, if you accept that there is such an ability in the first place, exists in some grey area that's hard to isolate. (When Piazza lost those close MVP votes, the Dodgers would always be at or near the league lead in team ERA. But they were good staffs pitching in Dodger Stadium--how do you quantify Piazza's role in that? Seeing as he's catching the bulk of the games, comparing him to second- and third-string Dodger catchers doesn't seem to get you anywhere.)

I don't think Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Lee Smith and Bert Blylevyn were Hall of Famers. Morris, Sandberg, Sutter and Goosage have much better arguments in their favor...Morris was a monster and at his best (which he was for a large part of 80s) he was one of the best pitchers in baseball...

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:50 PM (7 years ago)

Wow--in view of some of the arguments I've had with Alex the last couple of years, the assessments of Blyleven and Morris there are surprising, to put it mildly. Where I was around the same time (far as I can tell, I posted this in the spring of 2002).

catchers have shorter careers and their position takes a bigger toll when it comes to hitting
comparing his WAR against everyone is less meaningful than comparing him to other catchers

This is what I'm getting at -- if you are going by career WAR, then only two out of the top one hundred best players were catchers. That doesn't seem right. Maybe 1000 games at catcher are equivalent to 1500 games at first base? If you could choose between having a star catcher for ten years or a star first baseman for ten years, you'd probably choose the catcher because good players at that position are much harder to come by.

Or the ability to call a game, which, if you accept that there is such an ability in the first place, exists in some grey area that's hard to isolate.

The ability to call a game exists, but I don't think it's all that important today. In 1910 when pitchers grew up on farms and had 7th grade educations, a guy with his head in the game at all times who could micromanage the other players was important. Now, I'm sure that the best pitchers know the hitters every bit as well as heir catchers do.

From what I understand this is very true on the defensive side of things.

Yeah, it's accepted that Pudge shut down the opposing team's running game based on reputation alone. How much was that worth to his teams on average?

I'm sure that the best pitchers know the hitters every bit as well as their catchers do.

With an established starter, I wouldn't doubt that calling a good game basically amounts to being able to guess almost unerringly what the pitcher wants to throw (and is going to throw) anyway; if you're on the same page, and you only get shaken off a handful of times, you've called a good game. With younger pitchers, or guys whose emotions run high on the mound, I'm sure game-calling skill figures much more prominently.

If you could choose between having a star catcher for ten years or a star first baseman for ten years, you'd probably choose the catcher because good players at that position are much harder to come by.

Ok, but what if it's Catcher for 10 years or First Baseman for 15? I mean that's why these guys are lower on a list of career totals, they just don't provide as much career value.

Exactly, then it's a tougher question. But if it's twice as hard to find a star catcher than a star first baseman, then ten great catching years might be worth twenty great 1B years. Career WAR doesn't account for that, even if you only compare players at the same positions, or on a WAR/162G scale.

"Wow--in view of some of the arguments I've had with Alex the last couple of years, the assessments of Blyleven and Morris there are surprising, to put it mildly."

Alex in SF in 2004 had read a lot less about sabermetrics than Alex in SF in 2006 even.

"With younger pitchers, or guys whose emotions run high on the mound, I'm sure game-calling skill figures much more prominently."

To be honest, I think it's probably a lot less important than a pitching coach or even a general organizational pitching philosophy i.e. pitch to contact or whatever (which are other things that are really hard to quantify.)

I-Rod had pretty much a rifle when he was young as a catcher. I remember in an article about I-Rod back in the early 90s and it had a quote with Sparky Anderson pretty much saying he was the best he had seen since Bench.

Mike Piazza is a better all around hitter, but I'd say Rodriquez might be the better all around player (but it's slight either way). Both of them are the two best catchers of their time and probably on the first hand list of top catchers ever.

Pudge definitely has more guilt by associations on the roids issues than Piazza, but for some reason I got a feeling he might will end up being on that gets a hall pass on the issue faster than the others.

Yeah, I bet Piazza gets more of a steroids penalty from Hall voters than Pudge will

I think Rodriguez is going to be treated with more suspicion. The arc of his career seems more in line with PEDs to me--he had this four- or five-year burst of offensive production starting in '99 that didn't quite fit with the rest of his career. (Looked at one way; you could also argue that there was steady improvement over a number of years leading up to 1999.) Piazza was pretty great right off the bat, and his production was fairly consistent for the next decade.

I'm not sure that any hitter who debuted in the 90's will be elected on the first ballot (except Jeter). Rodriguez might have a chance because of his defense and his MVP award. But you're right about his "career arc" looking suspicious (I don't care, but lots of other people do), that will hurt his case for sure.

Yeah, I don't think the writers care about the career arc. They care about Piazza being a big muscular guy who hit tons of homers. While Pudge is a smaller guy who was a defensive whiz. The only guys who ever seem to get any steroid grief are the guys who hit tons of homers (and Roger Clemens).

Well Pudge is going to have the benefit he is going to come up in 2018 after many of the big names have already gone up and gotten turned down. That Rangers clubhouse is probably one of the most suspect ones though tied to the scandal...probably up with SF, Houston, SD and the NY ones (although I don't remember a whole lot Mets per say getting mentioned as Yanks by rumor).

I don't remember anything coming up about Piazza persay. Maybe it did and I just don't remember compared to the big ones.

(xpost) The only problem with that theory is that Piazza hit 35 home runs as a rookie in 1993; his career high only nudged up to 40, and between '93 and 2002, he was in that 35-40 range six times. Rodriguez, by contrast, went 35-27-25 during his peak, and otherwise only barely hit more than 20 twice the whole rest of his career. If the sportswriters are indeed doubling as detectives, I suspect Rodriguez's batting line is the one they're going to look upon with more skepticism.

On the other hand, Rodriguez was playing before Pizza, and, because he retained defensive value, he also outlasted him by four years--I'm sure that will weigh in Pudge's favour. We'll see. I'd never thought about NoTime's theory that no hitter (except Jeter) who debuted in the '90s will make it first ballot, but I think he might be right; I haven't come up with any counter-examples yet.

"Rodriguez was playing before Pizza"--he predates hot dogs and nachos, too. Guy's been around forever.

@Kurkjian_ESPN
Pudge caught Nolan Ryan, who was born in 1947, and Stephen Strasburg, who was born in 1988. Amazing

I've never heard Piazza and roids get talked about. Lots of Pudge talk - but, as noted, his career lasted long enough for a lot of the stink to dissipate.

Assessing I-Rod:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/cliff_corcoran/04/20/ivan-rodriguez-retirement/index.html?sct=mlb_bf3_a5

Just looking over something I wrote a while back, and I realize there are in fact three hitters who debuted in the '90s who I think have a pretty good shot at first-ballot induction: Thomas, Chipper, and Vlad. I'll throw in Piazza, too, for a total of four.

I've never heard Piazza and roids get talked about

scurrilous BACNE anecdotes.

I get lots of back-pimples and I've never touched a steroid outside a couple of months treatment for psoriasis 20 years ago. Irrelevant, yes, but equally and just as valiudly anecdotal.

we're not talking about reality, we're talkin the BBWAA

Thomas is still widely seen as a failure for the second half of his career. I don't expect him to be first-ballot.
Chipper - maybe. He's a baseball writer's wet dream.
I'd bet more money on Vlad not getting in than getting in on the first ballot.

I've never heard Piazza and roids get talked about

scurrilous BACNE anecdotes.

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, April 27, 2012 1:16 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Also a gay, iir my slanders correctly

Just looking over something I wrote a while back, and I realize there are in fact three hitters who debuted in the '90s who I think have a pretty good shot at first-ballot induction: Thomas, Chipper, and Vlad. I'll throw in Piazza, too, for a total of four.

― clemenza

i think that seems about right, at least for the first three. chipper no doubt of course, thomas should be a 95%+ finisher but it'll be more like 85%. a couple of decent high mvp finishes in his post-glory years, epic numbers, the only player who volunteered to speak to the mitchell report folks iirc. i think his decline is gonna play to the writers like griffey's did: almost an example of his trustworthiness or some such bullshit like that.

vlad is gonna be close but i think he does it.

Also a gay, iir my slanders correctly

but a gay Republican, even if he didn't sleep with wasn't pals w/ Rush Limbaugh like George Brett.

Vizquel:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/29182/omar-vizquel-and-the-hall-of-fame

I didn't fuss too much over my "no" vote--he seemed viable for about five minutes after his strong '99 season.

It's sad that the Vets Committee process has obviously been fucked up to the point where they may never elect anyone, as I fear Ron Santo will die before his deserved induction.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 14:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

:/

This bit from Verducci seemed far-fetched to me at first, and it still does to an extent, but he does provide some context:

But what if (Bochy) wins another World Series? Indeed, you might say this World Series brings Cooperstown into play for the winner, be it Leyland (1,676 wins and 17 games over .500 in a 21-year managerial career with one World Series championship) or Bochy, who also looks to get his second title. One of them will become the 14th manager to win more than 1,400 games and multiple World Series. All of them are in the Hall or assured of going in except Houk. Bochy is far from wrapping up his career. He's only 57. The point is that he has quietly amassed a resume that is headed toward some serious Hall of Fame consideration.

17 games over .500! Quite an accomplishment!

Not saying that Leyland isn't a good manager but the argument that he's basically won just slightly over half his games is pretty funny.

I basically agree--like I say, seems farfetched. It was just his "Only 14 managers..." bit that caught my eye. (Leyland's got the sagacious, chiseled face of a HOF manager, but then so did Roy Hartsfield.)

He does completely have the look down. Way more than Bochy who basically just looks like a mean drunk. I could get behind a HoF for Leyland based on him being the most manageresque looking manager.

has to be smoking on the plaque

Totally. Also play by Harry Dean Stanton in the movie about Miguel Cabrera's Triple Crown season.

"You have won some salted meats and a bottle of Rebel Yell!"

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/97/97ngrizzled.phtml

I have a dream that baseball managers will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the success of their teams, but by how really wise and wrinkly they look.

http://static.foxsports.com/content/fscom/img/2011/06/26/062611-MLB-Detroit-Tigers-Sparky-Anderson-PI_20110626165052600_335_220.JPG http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/001/621/836/Casey-Stengel_original_crop_exact.jpg?w=340&h=234&q=75

http://nbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/jack-mckeon-marlins.jpg?w=320 http://nbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/jim-leyland1.jpg?w=320

Tim Hudson:

http://mlb.si.com/2013/05/01/tim-hudson-braves-win-200/?eref=sihp

A longshot, though I wouldn't completely count him out yet. Five percent chance, maybe? The best thing in his career box is the lifetime .650+ winning percentage, but the number of voters who care about such things dwindles a little bit more each year. May end with a WAR over 60.0.

i would say he has almost zero chance, especially if someone like curt schilling has trouble getting in. hudson doesn't have anything, for lack of a better adjective, 'legendary' about him like schilling does.

I'd definitely agree that if it's a long slog for Schilling, Hudson's a non-starter. Without thinking about it, I'd probably already subconsciously voted Schilling in. But you're right, he started off at a fairly modest 38% this year. We'll see what happens the next three or four years.

I'd probably file Tim Hudson in the hall of very good. The guy has been very consistently solid, can't argue he would be a good guy to have on your staff for a decade. Hudson's lost a season or two to injury over his career, which takes down his total counting numbers. That said, I think the way the guy pitches on guile and control, if he can avoid more injuries he could still pitch for a few more years and the Braves are setup to be a pretty good club for the short future.

hudson was i think the first of the billy beane-cultivated "ace" pitchers to arrive in the majors and in the wake of the big splashes made by zito, mulder, and harden he ended up lost in the shuffle and pretty underrated. never as flashy as those three, never a big K guy, but still often the best guy on the staff. obv ended up being the best in the long run. since he arrived, what righty SPs have been better? halladay, verlander, king felix, and the peaks of a couple others i guess? he's good.

thought Harden came after Zito/Mulder/Hudson?

he did.

Hudson's case is probably closest to Mussina's -- very good for a long time but never really had the star aura about him. Mussina's peak and career numbers are better though, so if he has trouble getting in then Hudson has no chance.

yeah harden was '03 so he was a couple years after those big 3, but he was definitely another oakland ace in the making who made people forget about hudson, it seems, or at least made them a lot more comfortable about dealing him. all i remember about harden was how good he was in 2008, especially with the cubs.

This is fairly obvious, but nice summary lifted from James's site of how rookie age relates to HOF chances:

# of Players   Rookie Age   Hall of Famers   Pct.
    3	          18	          1	     33%
   11	          19	          3	     27%
   48	          20	         12	     25%
  111	          21	         10	      9%
  172	          22	          7	      4%
  202	          23	          8	      4%
  212	          24	          2	      1%
  135	          25	          0	      0%
   67	          26	          0	      0%
   26	          27	          0	      0%
   12	          28	          0	      0%
    5	          29	          0	      0%
    2	          30	          0	      0%

Doesn't include active players--Ichiro will almost certainly add a hall of famer towards the end of the chart, but he's a special case that doesn't change the relationship at all.

who are the players who that sample is drawn from?

who = from which

Good question. It can't be inclusive, can it...let me check.

1) All players who played before 1950 (even one game before 1950), and

2) Players who have played since 2011 (2011, 2012 or 2013), since those player may not yet have complete careers.

3) All players who played less than 800 games in their careers.

This third elimination creates a major selection bias in the data, which makes these players who are studied here quite different from all rookies, and limits our ability to generalize what we learn from doing this. (On the other hand, not restricting the study group would cause other problems which, in my judgment, would be much worse, so...six of one, half-dozen of the other. Doing the study this way, you learn quite a bit but you can’t generalize it reliably because of the selection bias. Doing the study the other way you wouldn’t learn anything to begin with.)

I'm too tired to try to make sense of that.

I assume the three criteria are the exclusions, right? So everyone else (played post-1950, career started pre-2011 and played more than 800 games) is the sample?

That'd be it, yeah--all I had to do was glance at some of the names included (e.g., Mantle) to figure that out. The study had to do with a reader question about the predictive value of rookie seasons--the HOF stuff came out of that. I'd link to the whole thing, but it's behind the paywall.

is that for players who played a full rookie season, i'm guessing?

I think so, but I scanned the piece and couldn't clarify that. I think I remember a line about "true rookie season."

Jay Jaffe's HOF favourites, by position, among active players:

http://mlb.si.com/2013/07/26/who-is-cooperstown-bound-a-look-at-active-players-with-strong-hall-of-fame-cases/

I don't know if Cooperstown will ever get over its third-base blind spot, but if you throw in Wright and Longoria, I'd say there are four pretty strong candidates right now.

Voters gonna have to get real sabermetric for Utley unless he lasts til 40.

I wonder what the TV ratings will be like to hear the great-grandchildren of Hank O’Day, Jacob Ruppert and Deacon White.

Tom Cheek got his posthumous Frick Award today, so that's getting coverage here. But that's not induction--all you get is your name on a plaque that's kept in the supply cupboard.

next to the McGwire/Sosa memorabilia

Revived for general purposes. Very quick list from the active WAR leaders--add/delete/adjust as needed. (Trying to guess actual voting; omitting anyone with a PED problem.)

Safe: Pujols, Jeter, Ichiro, Rivera
Probably safe too, but a half-notch lower on the rung: Cabrera, Halladay
Close to safe: Beltre, Mauer, Cano, Verlander
Very good bet: Felix
Getting stronger: Votto, Wright, Longoria
Maybe: Beltran, Helton, Pedroia
Early jump: Trout, Harper, Kershaw, Strasburg, McCutcheon

That's only 21 names--historically, there are about 30 HOF-bound players active in a given year. As there would be this year without PEDs.

Missed Sabathia--add him to "maybe."

Add Posey to "early jump." That's 23.

Feel like Yadier Molina has an outside chance

not sure of serious....

I think outside-shot's accurate. An MVP this year would have really helped. The list of MVP catchers is almost exclusively made up of guys who are either in the HOF or probably headed there:

http://members.tripod.com/bb_catchers/catchers/mvp.htm

From the official list, only Howard, Munson, I-Rod, Mauer, and Posey are not in, and the last two or three look good.

If Utley plays decently the remainder of his new contract, I like his chances either w/ new-era writers 10-15 years from now or a Vets Committee (assuming they ever fix that).

not sure of serious....

I'm kind of serious. He is regarded by many as the best defensive catcher of this era, and is a stabilizing force for a pitching staff that always is good despite lots of turnover .. AND he's a pretty good hitter.

Utley is currently 13th by JAWS among 2b, a hair ahead of Biggio. (Of course, they are both behind Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker...)

Yadier 24th among catchers. Not sure if they will put a catcher in mostly for defense if Ted Simmons (and Piazza!?) have trouble as heavy hitters.

Wait, I had a spasm of dyslexia -- Molina is 42nd among catchers. The only catching HOFer he's already passed is Rick Ferrell, who is considered one of the least deserving inductees.

Morbius on the Cabrera thread: "Andruw Jones and Beltran should both be HOFers..."

Honestly don't get the Andruw Jones argument. He was a fantastic defensive player through his 20s, and a pretty good offensive player helped by his era. (Highest OPS+, 136.) He suffered sharp decline at 30, and when he hit 31 he was finished. Jones wasn't Pujols in his 20s, not even close--i.e., Pujols goes in even if he's Andruw Jones for the next five years--and he wasn't Sandy Koufax, forced into retirement at a moment when he was probably the most dominant player in the game. He was simply a very good player through his 20s who then, literally, fell off a cliff.

Lance Berkman?

By the way, Trout's so next-level that "early jump" doesn't do him justice. He needs a separate "just needs to stay clear of Lindsay Lohan" category.

I tend to group Berkman with Matt Holiday in my mind--big hitters who I think will ultimately be lost in a sea of big hitters. I thought he had a chance after 2011, but he's fading fast.

The Andruw Jones argument is a 'peak' argument (and thru his 20s is pretty long peak, as he came up at 19).

Part A:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_CF.shtml

Part B:

WAR, Position Players

1998 NL 7.4 (5th)
1999 NL 7.0 (2nd)
2000 NL 8.1 (2nd)
2002 NL 6.6 (6th)
2005 NL 6.7 (4th)
2006 NL 5.6 (10th)

Career 62.7 (103rd)

I tend to group Berkman with Matt Holiday in my mind--big hitters who I think will ultimately be lost in a sea of big hitters.

Yeah, that's probably true. You could throw Paul Konerko in that group, too.

That's the thing, though--I don't see those peak WAR numbers as being good enough to get in without building on them in your 30s. I'd just as soon put in Garciaparra: 7.4., 7.1, 6.8., 6.6, 6.1.

What about the Big Hitters who are being dismissed on no evidence or hearsay, eg Bagwell, Piazza? xxp

I'm assuming ppl who dismiss Andruw & Beltran wd have to be convinced on Kenny Lofton too.

Even tho Jones' OBP is higher than Dawson (the worst recent mistake of the BBWAA), Andruw will get more skepticism for "hitting" .254.

Andruw was better for longer than Nomar. (Again, w/ peak value -- Koufax didn't build on anything in his 30s.)

rating Verlander and Felix as approaching safe is a little premature; they are down in the 160s in JAWS, where the only modern HOFer keeping them company is Catfish Hunter. (JV at least has some postseason heroism to boost his standing.)

not sure what's hard to get abt jones -- if his UZR is any indication, he's one of the greatest defensive players of all time and he also happens to have 434 HR. it's not like this was a tiny peak, 10 yrs isn't abnormal.

10 years is basically sandberg/puckett. nomar is more like mattingly.

he doesn't seem to be active anymore, but scott rolen is one i wonder about. he probably won't get much of a look (in that berkman/beltran/bagwell mold) but he's got 70+ fWAR.

Rolen is 10th on the 3b JAWS list, everybody ahead of him is in except Chipper and Beltre

Out for a while...I just can't cross that bridge of electing a guy who contributes zilch once he hits his 30s (with the unique exception of Koufax). I'll concede, as I have before, that I'm much more comfortable discussing offense than defense. We'll see what happens--my guess is that Jones does not last more than two or three years on the ballot.

i'm always wary of throwing my support behind a guy whose statistical case hinges largely on defense, since we seem to know less about that, but the thing about andruw is that, subjectively, we all knew we were watching one of the greatest defensive outfielders ever, and probably the best of his generation bar maybe griffey

and i'm all for keeping the hall relatively exclusive, but at least according to JAWS, andruw fits in right with the best (the average JAWS for a center fielder is a bit skewed toward the high side, since willie mays and ty cobb were really good)

lofton is a guy who i never thought of as a HOF candidate but who WAR seems to love, mostly due to his baserunning, defense, and the generous positional adjustment that comes with playing CF for 17 years

Although I find it bothersome that Lofton only played 150 games twice in his career--or three times, if you want to give him credit for '94 (played in every game but one)--I'd be much more comfortable putting him in than Jones. Lofton's offensive-to-defensive ratio for WAR is about 4-1; four parts what metrics analyze really well, one part what is still a work in progress. Jones' ratio is about 5:3--so much of his case rests on the more contentious part. I didn't see Jones play enough to even have a subjective opinion; my subjective opinion on Roberto Alomar is apparently wrong.

The other thing I like about Lofton is that wherever and whenever he played, he was productive--right until the end. At age 38 in Philadelphia, he was getting on base and scoring runs. At age 40, his final year, his line is .296/.367/.414, and he scores 86 runs in fewer than 500 AB. He always contributed; he always made money for his partners. (I will say that Jones' last four seasons look better if you were to group them into two seasons.)

And for that, Lofton got all of 3% his first and last time on the ballot. I don't see Jones doing a whole lot better, unless he catches a break and debuts against a weaker field.

http://www.bravesjournal.us/?p=8729

keltner list on lofton

Good piece. I like the Keltner Test. I once tried to run a variation on it to see who was more famous, Suicide or the Shoes.

well, it's too late to keep the Hall relatively exclusive, unless you mean that almost no hitters from 1985-2005 are making it soon.

revamping the Frick Award

http://www.baseballnation.com/hot-corner/2013/9/4/4694728/baseball-hall-fame-ford-frick-award-broadcasters-new-system

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/40383/helton-falls-just-under-hall-of-famer-bar

shoenfield on helton's chances. have to agree, though it wouldn't be the end of the world if he got in

vlad will make for some interesting debate in a few years

BP podcast did Vlad & Helton today. Helton was crazy productive on the road at his peak.

Couple of opposing Helton pieces in the last couple of days:

James -- Yes (it was a "Hey Bill" answer, behind the paywall now)
Schoenfield -- No (http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/40383/helton-falls-just-under-hall-of-famer-bar)

the BP 'cast briefly summarizes the James case

Sorry, didn't realize Kevin had posted the Schoenfield link.

Jay Jaffe on Vlad: http://mlb.si.com/2013/09/16/vladimir-guerrero-retires-hall-of-fame-chances/?sct=mlb_wr_a2

I would vote Guerrero in myself. I know his career WAR is right on the bubble, but his career now ends at 36 while he was still somewhat productive, and I don't doubt he could have gotten enough AB over the next three or four seasons to make a solid counting-stat argument (500/3,000, probably, which I don't discount) to go along with his impressive peak. Didn't realize till reading the Jaffe article that he was .358/.364/.679 in the minors the year Toronto wouldn't bring him up...which looks like one walk in 55 PA, but the rest suggests he still had something left.

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=20190423

yessss, i was looking for this one. from the freaking corner!

the statistical case for vlad is pretty mixed tbh -- great peak, right at the average HOF (an average which is skewed high thanks to the likes of babe ruth and hank aaron), but probably didn't play long enough to accumulate enough WAR or pass some of the traditional counting milestones. he also played in massive hitters' parks (his career AIR is 109) during a historic offensive time period. his WAR numbers are hurt by his defensive metrics (-10 dWAR over his career, even though he was a fine fielder -- 7 runs above average according to DRS, +10 by UZR -- the positional adjustment is what does him in), but his raw numbers are great -- career OPS+ of 140, two more walks than strikeouts in his career (something pretty rare for a slugger like vlad in this era)

ultimately though you look at his 7 year peak of 41.2 WAR, about 3 MVP shares, and the fact that he played the game like no one else, i would vote for him. sue me

i will not sue u

also he gets a bonus for no batting gloves

i mean, todd helton was a great player. i watched a lot of baseball during todd helton's prime, and i feel fairly confident that i am not going to remember him as anything other than the dude from the rockies who could mash. vlad was an artist

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/29590/vlad-guerrero-a-legend-in-winter

this is great

ppl remember vlad as the dude who would swing at anything but his k numbers are miniscule by current standards and he hit .318 all-time. should have run less; that's about it

he walked more than he struck out!

no he didn't

if you include IBBs

As a practical matter, Guerrero will, I imagine, have some good-guy sentiment on his side when he goes on the ballot--popular, exciting player, no PED association, didn't overstay his welcome (or at least didn't get the chance to). Sort of like Kirby, pre-scandal. That may matter at some point.

?

737 bb, 985 k

if you include IBBs

― sing, all ye shitizens of slumerica (k3vin k.), Monday, September 16, 2013 8:58 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

pretty sure ibbs are counted as real-life bbs

i mean, it's cool that he was ibb'd 250 times, but that's part of his 737

hm, maybe you're right. but i'm not sure

IBB are a subset of BB. Either that, or Barry Bonds walked 352 times in 2004.

ok yeah that was what i'd always thought, but recently after reading about how wOBA and wRC+ are calculated, i learned that they don't count IBBs so i thought maybe they had always been separated

kinda surprised how low his career war is...
was his defense seriously that bad?
can someone tell me why he didn't play in 2012 and no one gave him a chance this year?

OK, arguing about who gets in a Bondsless HOF during a playoff race is just ridiculous.

To quote the Thomas Jefferson Slave Apartments, blow it up.

Guerrero could still hit but he'd become a liability in the field and on the bases. In the days before every team carried 47 relief pitchers he'd have latched on as a PH/occasional starter who'd appear in 70-80 games a year for sure and could have extended his career another two or three years. Thome managed to hang on in that kind of role (as is Giambi now), but he was power hitters up until the end, so teams found a way to justify the roster spot.

he was *a* power hitter, rather

vlad had a tryout with the jays in the spring of 2012 iirc, but was cut

even back with the angels his knees were too shot to really play the field

ahhh right. the knees.

Helton was pretty tremendous but I also feel confident that no Rockies hitter will get in before possibly tulo. I might vote for Helton, idk. I definitely would vote for walker.

I would take Walker over Helton too. Helton's home/road splits were better than i expected, but still favoured home to a noticeable degree. and you could see his numbers take a dip post-humidor, but nothing epic. he went from being Albert Pujuols to Carlos Delgado. and then a few years later he morphed into John Olerud (sorry my go-to references are mostly Blue Jays/Mets).

he's close - but i just can't consider Helton a hall of fameor.

Thinking about Vlad when I was thinking about him as a player, I'd figure he was pretty similar to Andre Dawson as they both had bad knees, total cannons in the outfield and both started with the Expos. Looking it up, man Vlad's career batting average is .318, which is pretty impressive.

OBP is a little less impressive, however. but ya - def see the Dawson parallel.

Posnanski on Guerrero:

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.ca/2013/09/vlad-impaler.html

Lots of that good-guy sentiment throughout. He also points out some uncanny similarities to Helton, pointing out that the two couldn't have been more different in how they got there:

"Helton hit .317. Guerrero hit .318. Helton had 2,505 hits. Guerrero had 2,590. Helton had 2,791 runs-plus-RBIs. Guerrero had 2,824. Helton had 61.2 WAR. Guerrero had 59.1 WAR. You could make a strong Hall of Fame case for both."

From 2007 to 2011, by the Fangraphs numbers, Vlad Guerrero swung at more than FORTY-FIVE PERCENT of the pitches out of the strike zone.

and connected with ALL OF THEM.

had vlad been more selective, he'd have been better. but i might have enjoyed him less

Vlad Guerrero was nasty on way low pitching. He just hit some of that stuff like a golfer and clobber home runs on stuff like a foot low or more. His arm in the outfield was amazing when Vlad was in Montreal. I can't remember who it was but I remember him just nailing someone from the Cubs at third on an absolute strike from deep in the right field warning track at Wrigley. It was a crazy great throw not unlike the one Dave Parker did in the allstar game.

The talk of Vlad and Walker gets me to thinking how many good outfielders the Expos turned out in that period of time. They were able to bring up also Marquis Grissom who was a player you could also file into the hall of very good, as he was quite a solid player of the same period. The Expos also stole Moises Alou from the Pirates on waivers (dumb move Pittsburgh) and he was playing around these guys too. Alou also had a very good career and was just a very tough right handed hitter with combination of good line drive power and really hard to strike out. (That said, Alou didn't draw a ton of walks.) He could still hit late into his career, but he was often injured.

moises was a solid player; it is perhaps sad (or awesome?) that i will mainly remember him for pissing on his hands to toughen them up

I still can't decide which one is more weird that practice by Alou or Clemens use of icy hot on his groin on days he pitched.

wasn't there someone else who would eat something like 6 hotdogs before every start?

surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/writers-view-the-best-players-not-in-the-hall-of-fame/

I recently posed a question to 22 baseball writers from across the country. It was a question that doesn’t have an easy answer. Given the subjectivity involved, it doesn’t even have a right answer.

“Who are the three best eligible players — not including Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens — not in the Hall of Fame?”
...

Point Totals:

Raines = 38
Piazza = 36
Bagwell = 31
Biggio = 22
Schilling = 18
Trammell = 11
Kaat = 8
Whitaker = 7
Hodges = 5
Palmeiro = 5
Allen = 4
Martinez = 4
Gooden = 3
Minoso = 3
Adams = 1
Garvey = 1
Morris = 1
Murphy = 1
Tiant = 1
Walker = 1

lots of interesting stuff here, although the names are mostly predictable (piazza, bagwell, biggio, raines, schilling are all mentioned frequently). but the minoso mention surprised me - i didn't realize how good he was! an obp machine. and i definitely didn't realize he made a comeback with the sox at age 50 AND 54. pretty amazing.

well those comebacks were mainly for box office.

I just know Jon Heyman musta said Garvey.

only one for Walker?!

i was wondering - if you just removed Ricky Henderson from history, like he never existed - would Raines be in the hall already? he was such an amazing base runner, that only someone like Henderson could have overshadowed him (and i realize Raines was good at a great deal more than just base running).

I think playing in MTL hurts him more than being in Rickey's shadow, but OTOH, Gary Carter and Andre Dawson had their best years in MTL too and they were elected. But both of them had very high profile seasons for bigger clubs after leaving MTL too.

Raines got enough attention via All Star and MVP votes in his prime to make me think he was appreciated when he played (which also agrees with my very fuzzy memories of his 80's prime) but that's the problem sometimes with having a very long career -- twenty years passed between his best years and the year he finally become eligible for the HOF, and people forgot how great he was.

I wonder if mythic "coke vial in the uniform pocket" plays a role.

those Jim Kaat votes shoulda gone to Bobby Grich

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2013/09/when-it-raines-part-i.html?m=1

I really think they'll change the rules in the next few years and let writers vote for up to 15 players, or something to that effect. Too many great players are going to be lost in the shuffle otherwise.

hopefully they're just waiting for Morris to drop off the list.

Another thing that hurt Raines was that what may have been his greatest season, 1987, was curtailed by 20+ games because of owner collusion. He was a free agent that winter, and, coming off a batting title and everything else he'd accomplished to that point, no one signed him. So he resigned with Montreal, and didn't play his first game till May 2. He went on to hit .330 with 18 homers, slug over .500, and score 123 runs in 139 games. Add back that missed month and who knows?

I don't think letting them vote for 15 guys would change much -- they can vote for 10 now, and I'm pretty sure most vote for 4 or less.

i don't think 20 games really makes too huge of a difference.

ok - i did some math. if you average out his WAR for 1987 and apply it to another 20 games (assuming he stayed healthy) - that would have added another 0.96 WAR. better than i thought!

What I meant for '87 was that Raines might have, with those extra 23 games, won MVP that year. That was the infamous Andre Dawson MVP. Raines finished behind Wallach on his own team (because of Wallach's RBI) and 7th overall, but maybe, with eye-popping Rickey Henderson numbers (90+ steals, 140+ runs), and the fact that the Expos won 91 games (rather than the Cubs last-place finish), he might have snuck in. Doubtful--Henderson finished behind Mattingly in '85, when he clearly shouldn't have--but possible. And if Raines had won, MVPs resonate with HOF voters.

playing in Mtl is what hurt him most.

even having an extra 2 HRs to bring him up to 20 could have helped his MVP cause. but still doubtful tho he would have been able to secure MVP with another 20 games tho imho.

Sparked by River's retirement, nice Posnanski piece that draws a line under 20 post-war HOF'ers and asks: what conceivable reason could there have been for not voting for this person?

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.ca/2013/10/unanimous-hall-of-famers.html#more

So it's not about Barry Bonds, etc.--even if Joe disagrees with the rationale for not voting for somebody, he can at least understand it there. But what reason could you have for not voting for Stan Musial or Willie Mays?

Rivera's, of course...

i actually just had this conversation with my stepfather, who always has thought it was weird that no one has made it in unanimously ("how could you justify not voting for hank aaron?"). my answer was that it was pretty likely that rivera won't get in unanimously, even though literally no one denies his credibility, because there are only 10 positions on the ballot. i could see myself thinking that rivera is such a lock, and there are >10 deserving candidates, that i'd rather throw a vote to edgar martinez or frank thomas, who might really need the vote

(haven't read the post yet, maybe that's what joe said)

no way frank thomas is going to be hurting for votes right?

big hurting

ordinarily no, but there's gonna be a real logjam coming up

always assumed the lack of any unanimous inductees was due to certain voters figuring whatever candidate was a lock anyway and using that slot on their ballot on some other favorite candidate of theirs that need the vote more. i'm sure there are also some 'well ______ didn't go in unanimous' and general assholes contributing to it as well. is seaver still the highest percentage of the vote or did someone surpass that? still not surprised it hasn't happened, it only takes one crank and the bbwaa has plenty to spare. what was mystifying to me for the longest time was dimaggio not going in until third ballot, but having googled it there's a reasonable explanation sorta - http://www.johnny-web.com/dimaggio_hof.htm - and a very possible sign of things to come there. wtf at 1950.

seaver is still #1

it's a tough thing to quantify, but racism had to play some role in guys like aaron or joe morgan not getting in

joe d not getting in until the 3rd try still makes no sense, did they give everyone one vote back then or something? some good names around him those years but...he's joe freaking dimaggio

xp to myself "not getting in" = not being unanimously selected, obv

I should have mentioned that when it comes to Mays, Aaron, Robinson (Jackie and Frank), etc., Posnanski is not oblivious to the obvious, and acknowledges it deftly.

The other recurring reason is a never-ending chain that began with "If Ruth wasn't unanimous, then I won't vote for Ted Williams," and then continued from there through Mantle and Mays and beyond. Silly--especially when you're about four generations of writers past the initial vote--but it goes on.

what's really insane is that stretch he mentions in the 60s where the bbwaa was apparently high on crack - spahn only getting 83%, snider only 20% initially, yogi not going in first ballot (and this is when voting and ballot were comparable to now, not that insane logjam dimaggio faced). musial's the most mystifyingly stupid to me - baseball writers hating williams or being racist ok no surprise but there's no way to not vote for musial and not be anything but and idiot and an asshole. sports journalists.

u guys really love playoff baseball

haha was waiting for that

There's a baseball game tonight? (Swear I almost put up a preemptive post...)

Rivera won't be unanimous because some people won't vote for a closer.

I'm not even sure he'll crack 90%, as admired as he is--for the reason you point out, and also because of the getting-worse-all-the-time logjam. (Besides Helton, was there another prominent retirement this year?)

At this point, why would be unanimity be an achievement? "I was the first guy all these dingleberries could agree on, there must be SOMETHING wrong with me."

i think jim thome as good as retired

this is the right place for this (the comments are where the action is)

http://www.baseballnation.com/2013/10/31/5050566/david-ortiz-jack-morris-hall-fame-cases-candidacies

A lot of people advocating for Edgar in there. (Who's the third best DH ever after those two? Is there anyone else who made a career of it?)

frank thomas probably played more games at DH than anywhere else

Harold Baines had more than 60% of his PA as a DH, so him, I suppose.

PA: 6618
HR: 236
Slash: .291/.370/.467

A lot of that was compiled during the boom years, so consistent, but not especially noteworthy.

Aargh, of course--Thomas.

Thomas spent a little under 60% of his career DH-ing, but still more than half:

PA: 5698
HR: 269
Slash: .275/.394/.505

Also boom years, nowhere near the levels of early in his career at 1B (.337/.453/.625--I think people forget that he was more or less Pujols early on).

yeah if thomas is going in it's on the back of his early work for sure

One more point about Thomas: his first three years in the league (60 games in '90, full seasons in '91 and '92) were still very much dominated by pitching. His OPS+ lines were 177/180/174, right in line with what he did when offense took off in '94. (His '94, like Bagwell's, was off the chart.)

Jaffe's analysis of Ortiz:

http://mlb.si.com/2013/10/31/david-ortiz-hall-of-fame-red-sox-world-series/?sct=mlb_t1t_a3

thurman munson seems like a guy who's gotten way less support than he deserved

Paul Molitor "played" more games at DH than at any other position (about 40% of his total games played), but without his second act as a DH he's not healthy and productive until age 40 and in the HOF.

In checking his player page, I'd forgotten that Molitor a) played every position on the diamond during his career other than C, b) he was never strictly a DH, e.g. in 1991 he played 112 games at 1B and 46 games at 1B.

Reading this, it's not clear to me why Ortiz became a full time DH. Was he really so injury prone that the Red Sox and Twins wanted to keep him off the field? It seems he used to be a more than capable fielder.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/41989/how-david-ortiz-became-david-ortiz

My memory had him as a full-time DH in Toronto, but you're right, he actually got in 23 games at first base during his great '93 season. (Plus a start at 3B in the World Series that was a story at the time.) In '94, he was very close to full-time, and in '95 he only DH-ed.

Also, I agree with whoever said on the WS thread that Matt Carpenter reminded him of Molitor. They've both got that angular face with the beakish nose--Jim Eisenreich had the same look.

the van cleef

catchall Expansion Era vets' ballot. Marvin Miller hangs on past death.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/joe-torre-tony-la-russa-bobby-cox-on-baseball-hall-of-fame-expansion-era-ballot?ymd=20131104&content_id=63663010&vkey=news_mlb

Cox -- obviously
Garvey -- no
John -- maybe
La Russa-- putting my own feelings aside, probably
Martin -- yes (I've always maintained that my hedging over PEDs has nothing to do with morality; to underscore that, I'd have no problem with Billy Martin in the HOF)
Miller -- obviously
Parker, Quiz, Simmons -- the last two were underrated, but no x 3
Steinbrenner -- probably
Torre -- yes

Too many. Cox and Miller if I limit myself to two.

Cox
Miller
Jeter (living legend rule exception)

i'd put la russa and torre in before cox but assuming maddux and (perhaps a bigger assumption) glavine go in next year it would be nice for cox to go in w/ them. a pity smoltz had to play eleven games for the red sox and cards in 2009, he could've gone in w/ them.

dave parker should be in the hall of fame for this photo

Smoltz wasn't going in on the first ballot anyhow. His case is similar to Schilling's, and Schilling didn't even get close on his first try.

but Schilling was never a 9TH INNING CRUNCHTIME SAVIOR

Smoltz was asked to close (I think he was asked), he stepped in for a few years and did a great job, went back to starting after that and continued to do well. Not sure that's worthy of ridicule. (You're probably ridiculing the writers, not Smoltz...some writers--the theoretical ones who are going to vote him in for his work as a closer...it's hard to tell sometimes.)

If Smoltz doesn't close for three-plus years then his arm would have died on him a lot earlier. Instead he was still one of the best starters in the NL at age 40. His career path is really one of a kind.

More than the years as a closer, Smoltz has the OCTOBER CLUTCH!! credentials to put him over the top, but then again so does Schilling and it's not helping him.

smoltz has way more post season innings than schilling

ballot handicapping by Goldman

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2013/11/5/5067270/hall-of-fame-expansion-era-ballot-joe-torre-bobby-cox-tony-larussa-billy-martin

Posnanski's going to work through the whole list over the next few days:

Quiz
Garvey/Parker

Dave Concepcion - He probably was the best shortstop in baseball in the 70s. That said, the hitting line isn’t going to change any minds. I figure he might get in like Bill Mazeroski in the veterans committee.

Bobby Cox – no doubter.

Steve Garvey – I think the bigger drag isn’t on what Garvey did as a player is more people think he is a creep. Garvey was a player a whole lot of fans loved to hate and then his transgressions after baseball, he’s a big fake and just not likable.

Tommy John- The guy was a pretty good for a long time and I would imagine most clubs in hindsight would like having him in the starting rotation. The guy had to have some serious guile to be able to pitch that long, even if often average for that long and striking out that few of batters. I’d have to say this is a player that got the most out of his talent, which is admirable.

Tony La Russa – total no doubter.

Billy Martin – They don’t call it the Hall of Fame for nothing.

Marvin Miller – obviously should be in for tie to history of game.

Dave Parker – One of my favorite players as a kid. Get well Cobra!

Dan Quisenberry – This guy had style. I’d take a reliever that doesn’t walk people very much any day.

Ted Simmons - I mostly remember this guy playing for the Brewers later on. I look at the stats and they look pretty impressive for a catcher to me. I don’t know how good he was with a glove.

Joe Torre – I think he has had a pretty remarkable career in baseball. He was a really good player, just fell off the cliff in his 30s. He eventually had a lot of success as a manager. Torre will be in the Hall at some point.

tommy john was kind of amazing. here's a guy who had some very successful seasons where he'd toss 260+ innings and strike out 70 batters. He was just an insane groundball pitcher and basically jamie moyer if moyer wasn't nearly the strikeout pitcher he was.

Garvey was a clown imo. and he was good but he wasn't a HOFer, he was basically a 1970s michael young. no shame in that but nothing hall worthy. his other playing career had some amazing highlights though:

At the age of 22, Garvey married Cynthia Truhan."[18] They married in 1971. They had two children, Krisha and Whitney. Cynthia left Garvey for famed composer Marvin Hamlisch.[18] (Cyndy would later claim Garvey "gave me away" to Hamlisch after a private two-hour conversation.[18]). Garvey was already romantically involved with his secretary.[18] The couple divorced in 1983.

Garvey discovered in July 1988 that Cheryl Moulton was pregnant with his child, Ashleigh, a pregnancy Garvey subsequently claimed was intentional on Moulton's part, but without his "consent."[18]

Although Moulton was pregnant with his child, Garvey proposed to Rebecka Mendenhall because of what he termed her "ultimatum" in November 1988.

In January 1989, less than two weeks after ending his engagement to Mendenhall, Garvey became engaged to Candace Thomas, whom he met at a benefit for the Special Olympics. He broke up with Mendenhall, the first week of January but she insisted that they meet one last time. During this "meeting," Mendenhall became pregnant with their one and only child born October 13, 1989.

Over the next few weeks, Garvey and Candace Thomas began a whirlwind courtship that included trips to the inauguration of President George H.W. Bush and the Super Bowl.[18] Rebecka Mendenhall then discovered she was pregnant with Garvey's child.[18]

When these details became public, Garvey's post-baseball political ambitions were widely seen to have disappeared under the weight of two illegitimate children.[18] Garvey, in the midst of what he later termed a "midlife disaster," sued Cyndy, his ex-wife, for access to his two children.[18] His daughters testified in court that they did not love their father and did not wish to see him.[18] (Cyndy was hand cuffed and jailed based on 167 counts of contempt .[18]) Under the shadow of multiple lawsuits and damage to his reputation, Garvey lost business opportunities, declared himself broke, and found himself paying half his monthly television earnings in child support.[18] and millions in legal fees. He and Candace Thomas married in February 1989, and had three children, Ryan, Olivia, and Sean. The Garvey's remain happily married almost 25 years and still reside in Southern California.

I initially balked at Earl's suggestion that Concepcion was probably the best shortstop of the '70s--I know he was good, and I was a Reds fan at the time, but there must have been someone who was better, no? But when you start looking around, it pretty much comes down to him or Campaneris. WAR favors Campaneris, with 36.0 for the decade to Concepcion's 30.1; that does surprise me. Close enough, though, that I think you could go either way. Roy Smalley peaked higher in '78, but he arrived late. Same with Yount--he sneaks in three pretty good years, but he doesn't turn into Robin Yount until 1980. I thought Russell might be in the running, but not really. (Never knew Russell's nickname was "Ropes"--rhymes with "Lopes.") Garry Templeton ("If I ain't startin', I ain't departin'") was a big deal when I was younger, but WAR doesn't like him--never walked, lousy SB percentages. The Cards traded him away for somebody, can't remember who. Bucky Dent hit a big home run. When it came to shortstops, it wasn't the '80s or '90s.

(Am I forgetting someone obvious? I scanned Jay Jaffe's list.)

Concepcion is no Trammell, as I think Neyer said.

As noted in my last line--I don't even think he was the equal of Tony Fernandez, the fifth-best shortstop of the '80s.

(Or maybe the fourth--forgot that Yount moved to the outfield halfway through the decade.)

Just out of curiosity, did a quick scan of the year-by-year WAR leaders through the '70s, and there wasn't a single shortstop who placed in the yearly Top 10s (both leagues combined) even once. Most forgotten name to show up on one of the lists: Dave Goltz in 1978.

Tommy John is a lock, just consider his contribution to the advancement of medicine.

if he gets points for that Dr Frank Jobe needs a wing

"Concepcion is no Trammell, as I think Neyer said."

This is true. Don't doubt it.

One thing I think is interesting on Concepcion's career stats is that he really did improve as a hitter after a pretty slow start his first three years.

dave parker won't make it, nor does he really deserve to

but i hope he does

If Tommy John was on the BBWAA ballot now instead of 20 years ago, would he get elected (leave aside the issue of the BBWAA ballot being stacked and just think about TJ's profile in general). I think he would based on greater name recognition alone -- TJ surgery is talked about a lot more than it was then. He certainly looks good next to Jack Morris or Andy Pettitte.

hmmmm

Career bWAR

John 62.3
Pettitte 60.9
Morris 43.8

TJ ahead of Marichal and Drysdale, tho obv w/ less impressive peak.

career WAR divided by years played should be a standard stat

what about years lost to injury?

hmm, good point, maybe per 500 plate appearances or X # of innings pitched or something

but yeah, just mentioned that because:

john 4710 IP
pettitte 3316 IP
morris 3824 IP
marichal 3507 IP
drysdale 3432 IP

the JAWS system sort of tries to account for that, but agreed that a denominator of some sort could be widely used

I am not sure I like the idea of a player being less "impressive" because he hung on for an extra 4 years to get that $$$

what if cars only had odometers and not speedometers? the officer would pull you over and say "sir, do you know how far you have driven?", and you'd say "yes, the odometer says just over 34,000 miles", and then the officer would say "hmmmm, so it does. and i suppose we'll have to leave it at that, as i cannot prove any wrongdoing here with respect to your current speed without a denominator."

isn't one of the things people look at the avg WAR/y during peak years & length of peak?

all i'm saying is I don't say I drove an average of 35 mph because I sat in my driveway for 15 minutes listening to that one last jam before going in the house

Haha, yeah. I'm not advocating for using WAR/playing time to replace just plain WAR, just that it should also be taken into consideration, especially when comparing players with differing career lengths

career v peak value, both are good to look at

i think WAR/yr wouldn't be incredibly valuable (better at least if it were by PAs or innings pitched)

i'm guilty of just using career WAR as a barometer of should vs shouldn't and i wish that'd stop, i wish we'd all stop trying to replace old HOF milestones with new ones and act like grownups who can process and analyze different sets of information without forcing it into some big pretty grand total

nothing against WAR it's just that these arguments always happen with all these players between 55 and 75 WAR, which seem to be the extreme ends of the ? zone, and i don't think WAR is a useful tool in figuring out those players or where that line 'should' be

and honestly, i'm a big-hall guy, but if there are so many players who live in that zone and they're all a bunch of question marks maybe the line should just be higher

for the record no i have no idea what i'm saying rn

lol no i think most would agree that WAR is a starting point, and much better at separating players far apart than close together

no, you are both wrong

a player who hits a homerun in his only at bat in the major leagues is more valuable than a guy who averages 5 WAR per year for an 18-year career, because his WAR per at bat is higher

the end, that's my story

when FG and BR synchronized their replacement level or w/e it added/subtracted like 8+ WAR to some players, and we still don't have a grasp on UZR before 2002 (or 1B/C UZR at any point), and we can't even decide on ERA or FIP for pitchers, urgh

xp

i don't really know what you're sarcasming at ZS

obv didn't mean WAR per plate appearance but WAR per 600-or-so plate appearances, etc

seeing as WAR per year wouldn't know the difference between a cup of coffee at age 20 and a full season at 30

changing the denominator wouldn't matter xp

ZS was just goofing tho i think

oh, i'm just sarcasming at no one in particular, sorry!

but yeah, if there was going to be a WAR/time stat, i think WAR/AB would actually work. or maybe (WAR/AB) x 100, just to make things less decimalized. if you average 5 WAR per 500 AB, that would leave you with a (WAR/AB) x 100 of 1.0. or WARservicegoamericawarisgood for short. of course it would be totally meaningless in small samples. but that's also true of tons of baseball statistics. when pete kozma was jesus for the last month of 2012, only total fucking idiots who nonetheless filled the airwaves of sportstalkradio believed that it meant anything.

god, if you think my sarcasming is insufferable tonight (and it is, i know), you should have had a conversation with someone last winter in STL who thought pete kozma was actually good. it honestly felt like a circle of hell, i couldn't help but try to scratch my skin off

Probably WAR/PA would be the way to go.

the main point of WAR and all other non pitcher-win numbers is to laugh at Jack Morris For the HOF ppl.

Can you name the MLB hitters who produced the most WAR per plate appearance?

No idea if this is accurate but i guess someone was thinking about it...

if you somehow actually "get" all 20 of them, you're an insane person

i typed in number 17 as a joke and it was right

i only got 11, missed some really obvious ones (a.m. brainlessness)

#17 & 18 were hardest. I suspect #17 will fall out of the top 20 before long.

actually his yearly totals are still pretty high! Good thing he misses 30-50 games every year.

wish i could give it a shot but the website is blocked at my work. is there a minimum PA requirement, or is it just straight up WAR/PA?

doesnt specify min PA, just B-R as a source

Only 14/20, but no wrong guesses. Missed #12, #14 (surprised), #15 (should have had it), #16 (a guy who probably gets overlooked a lot), #17 (yeah, shocking), and #20 (team sort of threw me off, but I guess that's the best designation).

got 15/20, dumbest omission was aaron. kept trying to put "jones" for braves

there must be a minimum PA or WAR or else you'd think trout (or puig) would be #1

The first name I typed was "Henry Aaron," got nothing, gave up, said "just give me the fucking names already." Oh, you wanted HANK Aaron?!

just figured it out and trout would actually be a distant second, with 13.96, just ahead of bonds. that baby ruth lady was good

those gams were so nice

you can just type the last name, geez. its like yall have never sporcled before.

18/20. Missed #17 and 18.

I was looking at the career leaders in XBH, and a benchmark that's close to infallible (if you adjust for one thing) in predicting induction is 1,000 XBH. Thirty-five guys have done it (Helton ended up two short). Of those 35, a) 21 are in the HOF, b) 6 will go in for sure (Pujols, Griffey, Thomas, Chipper, Biggio, Thome), and another 6 almost certainly would have gone in if not for other factors (Rose + 5 PED guys). That leaves Sheffield, who could be added to the 5 PED guys--I'm not 100% sure if he would have made it minus PEDs--and Luis Gonzalez, who was never going to go in regardless of PED suspicion. Ortiz is at 969, so barring sudden free-fall, he'll cross 1,000 with room to spare.

At that point, he either joins the 6 sure-things, the 5 who are in limbo, or Luis Gonzalez as the second (or third, if you count Sheffield) 1,000-XBH guy who's not in the HOF because he wasn't considered good enough.

That's all clear, right?

I hedged on including Thome in the sure-things, but I think I was over-compensating for the fact he comes out of the offensive boom years. When you look at his career box, he's got the HOF covered a number of different ways. And if he's in that category of vague-suspicion with Bagwell and Piazza, so be it. I'm positive Bagwell and Piazza are going in within the next 2-4 years--I know people want them in right now, but they're both near 60%, they will go in shortly.

I'd never noticed this post before:

The funny thing about Morris, as I recall, is that he always seemed to pitch just good enough to stay ahead. If his team had 7 runs he'd give up 6 and if his boys only managed 1 run he'd throw a shut-out. It was the weirdest thing.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 23 December 2004 03:07 (8 years ago)

So that's where that theory started!

(And since Sutter and Candy Cummings are in the Hall for inventing pitches, I now elect Thermo for inventing one of the key theories of our time.)

Jack Morris says he would've had a better ERA if he'd been asked to

bonus reference to murray chass as a 'blogger'

Long five-part James article on the expansion ballot, behind the paywall. I'll skip to the last paragraph:

My ballot: 1. Joe Torre (yes), 2. Bobby Cox (yes), 3. George Steinbrenner (yes), 4. Tony La Russa (yes), 5. Dan Quisenberry (yes), 6. Dave Parker (maybe), 7. Ted Simmons (maybe not), 8. Billy Martin (maybe not right now), 9. Steve Garvey (probably not), 10. Tommy John (I’m afraid not), 11. Dave Concepcion (no). Marvin Miller...certainly not right now; we can talk about it in a few years.

(His stance on Miller has only to do with Miller's expressed wish not to be inducted, not that he doesn't deserve to be inducted.)

Team success mattered more to Jeff Kent than HOF candidacy

o rly

http://deadspin.com/deadspin-buys-hall-of-fame-vote-will-turn-it-over-to-d-1467003665

lol have you ever seen a big internet poll on HOF voting? if they're going for 75% of the readers they'll be sending in a blank ballot. strds players still probably won't make 50%. and "deadspin readers" isn't some special, 'intelligent' fanbase it's like 50 billion people

Neyer on process, logjam etc

http://www.baseballnation.com/2013/11/27/5151640/baseball-hall-fame-ballot-candidates-deadspin-2014-bbwaa

Posnanski's "48,384th" Jack Morris post:

http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/more-more-morris-2/#comments

Reader comment: "Bo Jackson is famous. Jose Canseco is famous. Bill Buckner is famous. They're all more famous than Eddie Matthews. Don't get distracted by the word 'fame' in 'Hall of Fame.' It leads you to lousy places."

I do, on occasion, give a tiny bit of weight to fame. I'm not consistent, and I probably couldn't even articulate when I think it applies. I'd give Billy Martin a little credit, for example. But yeah, lousy places.

looking at the ballot, there are 18 guys I might throw a vote too. Don't think it will happen tbh but i wouldn't be surprised to see Maddux lose a few votes bc some folks want to save votes for guys they're worried would fall off the ballot. also I'm 50/50 on whether anyone besides Maddux will make it.

Assuming you'd vote for Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Mussina, and Kent from this year's group, which added to last year's holdovers would total 22. So you'd eliminate Mattingly, Lee Smith, Morris, and...McGriff maybe?

Those 5+ biggio, bagwell, piazza, raines, schilling, clemens, bonds, martinez, trammell, walker, mcgriff, mcgwire, sosa, palmeiro

so 19. I guess if I had to stick to ten: maddux, glavine, thomas, biggio, bagwell, piazza, raines, bonds, trammell, clemens. some strategic voting there.

Glavine and Kent - personally would not vote for. Muss - I'm on the fence on.

xpost

i'd be happy if the HOF argument over the next 5-10 years expanded to included "let's stop underrating pitchers who didn't have pristine ERAs in the hardest pitching era maybe ever and let's stop overrating hitters in the same era"

mussina is way more deserving than many of these high OBP/HR 1Bs/corner OFs

if maddux & glavine dont go in together im gonna chimp out

Reader comment from the same Posnanski post, the prime years of two pitchers:

Pitcher A (10 seasons): 335 GS, 173-112, 2471 IP, 3.55 ERA, 114 ERA+, 1.24 WHIP, 36.4 WAR, 0 Cy Young Awards, 1 IP title, 1 AL K title

Pitcher B (12 seasons): 348 GS, 175-96, 2468 IP, 3.15 ERA, 131 ERA+, 1.20 WHIP, 59.9 WAR, 1 Cy Young Award, 1 IP title, 3 straight years of leading MLB in K

"A" is Morris, "B" is David Cone.

I'd normally agree with al leong that no one except Maddux gets through this time, deserving or not--the vote's going to be split so many ways, 75% looks more like 90%--but I think there will be a desire to see Maddux and Glavine go in together, and that might be enough to push Glavine over.

plus possibility cox goes in also.

http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/no-100-curt-schilling/

this looks like it will be fun

Just came to post about that. I've voted in a few different polls on his site, but it looks like this list is entirely his own.

You'll be very happy, Kevin, when--I bet--Trout checks in at about #37.

wtf are u not seeing about Mussina, TT

equal to Glavine, played w/ a lotta shitty defenses, as Schoenfeld said today

@TomGlavine
Congrats Bobby Cox on your HOF induction, so proud to have played for you, your the best

#your

@Buster_ESPN 40m
Don Fehr on Marvin Miller/HOF vote: "Marvin should have been elected to the Hall many years ago. It is a sad and sorry state of affairs..."

@Haudricourt 2m
We were told Marvin Miller received six or fewer votes for HOF. Coincidentally, there are six former players on the Expansion Era committee.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbDwxR0IQAAOU-M.jpg

@DSzymborski
By the way, to "catch" Morris's ERA+/IP? Halladay needs 1074.2 IP of a 7.10 ERA. Would *that* enhance his case?

Joe P. gets called out by a reader for an old-school gaffe:

Joe: "Torre also was an excellent postseason manager, always willing to grab the moment, something I think Bobby Cox sometimes did not do."

Reader: "I can’t find 'GTM' in Baseball Prospectus. If there is any substance or definiton – or any meaning whatsoever – to the words 'grab the moment,' please provide some substantive examples and the numbers and comparable acts from superior moment-grabbing managers..."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2013/12/roger-angell-baseball-hall-of-fame.html

Angell waiting this long for that award is like the Giants waiting to retire Monte Irvin's number til he was 92.

That's great. The Summer Game was one of the first baseball books I ever bought. I didn't understand at the time (I was probably 15 or 16) that Angell represented the most literary and rarefied extreme of baseball writing--is there anybody else like him? he might have that whole corner to himself--but he covered all those World Series from the '60s I missed, so I was glad to read all that. When I discovered Bouton, and then James a few years later, he probably started to seem a little stodgy. Then he and Robert Creamer were all over the Ken Burns documentary, and I reconnected with his seasonal wrap-ups for the next few years.

Looking forward to Bouton getting the award within the next millennium or two.

Neyer on the secret Bennies Era balloting

http://www.baseballnation.com/2013/12/11/5199704/hall-fame-voting-committee-marvin-miller-veterans

judging candidates by their commercials

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=22440

neyer steps out: http://deadspin.com/these-guys-sucked-in-the-playoffs-should-that-matter-t-1488336874

After I read that, click-click-click and I landed on this:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/awards/aw_out.shtml

Never knew the writers have been giving out a DH award since the very first year it was introduced. Or that they renamed it the Edgar Martinez Award right after Edgar retired. Or that David Ortiz has now won more Edgar Martinez Awards than Edgar Martinez, 8-5. (No big deal--Willie Hernandez won more Cy Young Awards than Cy Young.)

Other multiple winners: Willie Horton, Hal McRae, Greg Luzinski, Don Baylor, Harold Baines, Dave Parker, Paul Molitor.

Mussina v Glavine

http://www.baseballnation.com/2013/12/24/5237398/tom-glavine-mike-mussina-hall-fame-voting-process-ballots

i agree with him that moose is more deserving than glavine and the ballot limit needs to be lifted (obv this is the real issue) but the whole thing where he treats the MVP points system like some scandalous error is just lol. it's a weighted ballot, that's how it works. glavine didn't sneak in through a loophole, he got more points than hoffman bc the voters liked him better than hoffman, even if he got less 1st place votes.

er, *cy

Tom Glavine was just a bigger star. The guy played on the Braves who were always on national TV on cable and won their division every year for pretty much the heart of his career.

They both were great, yeah Mussina was better but part of this type of popularity is just luck and circumstance. You come up on crappy teams or don't play in the playoffs, fans don't know about you as much. Burt Blyleven was probably better than Don Sutton, but Sutton pitched for the Dodgers when they were one of the most popular clubs on TV. Same deal, Sutton had the 300 win club punched on his card too.

are... you not aware of the teams mussina played for

orioles never went to the series w/ him, yankees stopped winning them once he showed up...is a bullshit line and hence part of the equation for some moron. mussina dropping off the ballot seems insane to me - is there really that much of a risk of it happening? i get the ballots crazy clogged but this is someone w/ a pretty strong case. i could see the argument for mussina being the better pitcher, glavine having had the better career. could glavine's union leadership hurt him? amazed this hasn't come up since it came up and so often when glavine was discussed at the time. if glavine goes in this year it will be synergy w/ maddux and cox. not that he isn't a hall of famer but his case isn't so unimpeachable to make him a cut above the rest of the morass. forgot that mussina finally got that twenty win season his last year, maybe that's not as much of a factor anymore (though god it was brought up as a strike against him at the time), maybe it's just not being brought up cuz he won one extra game than he ever had in a season before.

the only way i can see it NOT being at least a risk is if enough voters completely blacklist anyone ever linked (or "linked") to PEDs and they have room for him, but there are also going to be plenty of voters who still somehow end up with only 3 or 4 guys on their ballots. cause voters are idiots. and still plenty of "he doesn't deserve first ballot" voters. v real possibility

honestly if i had a ballot i'd probably leave off obvious guys like maddux/thomas for sake of guys who might wrongly fall off. or i wouldn't vote bonds/clemens. the whole thing is fucked, and so easy to fix.

"is a bullshit line and hence part of the equation for some moron"

Not doubting Mussina is probably a better pitcher, I am just stating why he's not going to get more votes than Glavine. Life isn't fair, sometimes the popular kids get picked first. Mike Mussina is a hall of famer as a pitcher, I don't doubt that, but I don't have a vote other than some marketing gimmick.

That said, I have seen Tom Glavine pitch way more than Mussina as I have grown up following NL baseball. I wonder what Glavine's ERA would be without would do in the first inning. That guy would get popped a bunch for a couple of runs early in the first then throw zeros for six or seven innings to follow. Glavine definitely got by more with guile than power. He was pretty cool on the mound and I saw him pull of quite a few escapes after seemingly loading up runners in scoring position, by getting a big double play ball.

Easy to look up:

ERA, 1st inning (career): 4.58.
ERA, all other innings (career): 3.34.

You're exactly right.

I can't see Mussina falling off. He just needs 5%--55 or 60 votes. There are surely that many sportswriters, new-stat-leaning guys, who realize how good he was. My guess is that he holds around 10-20% for a few years, starts building, gets in when the logjam clears.

I agree with Earl about luck and timing. Glavine's best year was 1991, when he had an 8.5 WAR; no starter was close, and he won the Cy Young going away. Mussina's best year measured by WAR was 1992, a year later, with 8.2; he finished fourth in Cy Young voting. But even if you cast aside Eckersley, who won that year, and McDowell, who for some reason finished second, there was still Clemens in third, with an 8.8 WAR. I know WAR wasn't even around then...in the context of 1992, Clemens had the same number of wins, more strikeouts, a lower ERA. Mussina just wasn't going to win--bad luck.

obviously 5% of voters would want to vote for him, that isn't the problem. the problem is whether or not those new-stat guys are going to put him in their ten. those stat guys are same ones reserving spots for all the controversial players, either the roiders or the more borderline guys close to running out of time. moose has more of a chance on the ballots of the old guys leaving off bonds/clemens/sosa/mcgwire/bagwell/piazza // raines/trammell/martinez/walker/schilling. and that's still leaving out maddux/thomas/biggio/glavine and, for some fucking reason, jack morris, all of whom will be occupying half the spots on a great number of lists.

mussina isn't a terribly unique case but he seems the best and most likely representative for the type of player who'll fall through the cracks, who definitely wouldn't if there wasn't a name limit.

the concern is valid and raising the issue of being limited to 10 names is worthwhile but i really, really doubt he doesn't get 5% of the vote

impt to make a big deal about it in case any passing stat nerds here have a bbwaa card, DON'T FORGET

real problem is i think at least one deserving guy is gonna get left off, if not him it'll be someone else. honestly kenny lofton should've gotten a fighting chance last year but this year he'd be even more toast.

I think two or three deserving (or at least deserving of consideration) guys fall off the ballot. This could be it for McGwire and Palmeiro -- even the people who voted for them in the past might have to bump them to make room for the no-doubters like Thomas and Maddux. Fred McGriff and Larry Walker are borderline HOFers and deserve to stay on the ballot but they each drew only about 20% last year so this might be it for them too. Even their biggest boosters can't claim they're one of the best ten players on the ballot. Of course some people will vote strategically (e.g. not voting for Maddux because he'll get in anyway) but it's nearly impossible to coordinate that to ensure that anybody gets elected or stays on the ballot another year. Basically it's going to be a huge mess.

walker is actually 9th in both fWAR and bWAR

McGriff was my favourite Blue Jay before Alomar, but after some hedging, I see now he really has no case for the HOF, other than the downward-spiral argument that there are worse players in there.

I'd hate to see Walker drop off, though--he deserves to be in, I think. He's right at, or close to, the average HOF right fielder by a number of measures:

Career WAR = 72.6 (average = 73.3)
7yr-peak WAR = 44.6 (average = 42.9)
JAWS = 58.6 (average = 58.1)
HOF standards = 58 (average = 50)
Black Ink = 24 (average = 27)

He's farther below in Gray Ink, and he's not as far above on the HOF monitor as I thought he'd be (148). All in all, though, he pretty much sits in the exact middle between Babe Ruth and whoever the worst right fielder in there is.

The '97 MVP is worth some close analysis--good arguments for him, Piazza, and Biggio. (Think I would have voted for Piazza, although WAR gives it to Walker.)

I like how he finished up, too. If you combine his last two years for the Cardinals you get:

545 PA
95 runs
79 RBI
26 HR
65 BB
.286/.387/.520

In the non-Bonds universe, pretty solid for 37/38. (He did have a brutal post-season in 2005, after a really good one in 2004.)

walker was a beast, lived watching him. I first noticed him in some game against the cubs when he was w Montreal. Phe gunned someone down trying to go from first to third via the most spectacular throw I've ever seen.

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-the-hall-of-fame-debate-peds/

Between Posnanski and Gammons, this may be getting close to critical mass. There's real impatience there, and I think it matters in terms of the HOF taking action that the exasperation is coming from voters (as opposed to Neyer or someone who doesn't--obviously they deserve a lot of credit for moving the debate along).

‏@philgrogers
I strongly feel only @gregmaddux will be elected. Totals for Morris & others will decline due to overcrowded ballot. System's broken.

Depending on "others," sounds fixed to me.

Oh, wait -- missed the "only" part.

Jay Jaffe's would-be ballot:

On: Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Glavine, Maddux, Martinez, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Thomas

Off, with sincere regrets: Biggio, Schilling, Trammell, Walker

http://mlb.si.com/2013/12/31/jaws-and-the-2014-hall-of-fame-ballot-my-10-very-hard-choices/

Coin flip between Mussina (82.7/123) and Schilling (80.7/127) in terms of career WAR/ERA+, but if forced to choose, I think I'd go with Schilling: more dominant peak and, yes, post-season (where Mussina wasn't bad). Both belong, though.

Haven't read it yet: Posnanski's "Massive Hall of Fame Post."

http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/the-massive-hall-of-fame-post/#more-1407

The short version: Raines, Biggio, Clemens, Bonds, Glavine, Schilling, Piazza, Bagwell, Thomas, Maddux. So compared to Jaffe, he swaps Mussina for Schilling, Martinez for Biggio.

I would vote Posnanski's list over Jaffe's although the Schilling vs Mussina argument is essentially a toss up I give Schilling the edge because better peak, better post-season even though Schilling is a complete dickhead and Mussina seems like a cool guy.

I'd go with Schilling as well. i'd also pick Martinez over Glavine.

My 10: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Piazza, Schilling, Bagwell, Walker, Biggio, Bonds and Clemens. Last two...I'd want their plaques to indicate that they played at a HOF level for the first decade-plus of their careers, winning three MVPs and three Cy Youngs between them, at which point they began to post freakishly superhuman stats at a point where most players start a natural decline, and that there was a strong likelihood that these numbers were chemically assisted. Something to that effect.

*was a notable asshole

there was a strong likelihood that these numbers were assisted by expansion

... of necks

;p

A little bit, sure. But an .809 slugging percentage between the ages of 36-39? An ERA+ of 146 between the ages of 40-44? Because each league added a team in 1997?

In the interest of fairness, Hoyt Wilhelm had an ERA+ of 169 from 40-44 (his peak, pretty much), and their IP weren't as wildly different as you might think--582 for Wilhelm, 849.2 for Clemens. But the difference between a knuckleballing closer and a power-pitching starter is obvious. Also checked Ryan (121) and Randy Johnson (119) for their 40-44 seasons.

in jaffe's column, how can sosa have a bolded JAWS but a negative margin? doesn't the bold indicate he's above the standard?

also jaffe gives piazza extra credit for being a catcher...something WAR already does

Isn't catcher WAR kinda crazy though? Isn't that the one position that the positional adjustments and defense parts they're kinda "um sure". Also giving someone a little extra credit for being one of the top five players at their position (and the greatest offensive force) seems fair to me.

I think the bolding on Sosa is messed up. His 7 year peak is above standard and should be bolded (it's not). His JAWS below and shouldn't be bolded (it is).

joe p's blurb on mcgwire is pretty persuasive. it makes me sad that sosa won't be a HOFer too -- like every other 9 or 10 year old in 1998, i idolized those two. (and griffey, and jeter...)

I was 13 and I hated all those homos

http://deadspin.com/according-to-exit-polls-these-four-players-will-make-t-1493372772

I just felt a hell of a lot older, k3v and H4A.

i was actually 8 or 9 in 98, depending on the part of the baseball season

Isn't catcher WAR kinda crazy though? Isn't that the one position that the positional adjustments and defense parts they're kinda "um sure". Also giving someone a little extra credit for being one of the top five players at their position (and the greatest offensive force) seems fair to me.

― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:42 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that's one thing, but another thing catcher WAR doesn't adjust for is actual career length. well lol of course not, but if everyone's cool with mo's 40 WAR being a surefire HOF case, and hoffman's probably gonna get in at 23, rollie's already in at 23 and hell even billy wagner might have a chance (in a different era) at 23 (apparently the magical number), why can't catcher attrition and lower AB-per-season totals also be handicapped? wrt both WAR and traditional milestones

btw i haven't read the jaffe thing and i have no idea what you're all talking about i'm just VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT CATCHERS GETTING INTO THE HALL OF FAME

i think that's kind of nonsense tbh, catchers who play 120 games a year only provide value for those 120 games! i don't see why there has to be an adjustment for that

should there be an adjustment for pitchers who only pitch 70 innings a year

that's a lot less, proportionally

also 120 is way low as an average for a good catcher who doesn't spend heinous amounts of time on the DL

But it's not just that they only play 130-140 games a year. It's also that they tend to fall apart younger. And like I said above I really do think catcher is the one position where the positional adjustments are kinda wacky. Like for example in 1997 when Larry Walker won MVP over Piazza bWAR thinks he was nearly a ten win player. Piazza and Walker basically have the same oWAR (which also seems a bit nuts because they played virtually the same # of PAs and Coors had a multi-year batting Park Factor of 122! vs 93! for Chavez Ravine). But in 1997 there were SIX catchers who had the minimum qualified # of PAs according to Fangraphs and while some of them had good years it was NOTHING like Mike Piazza's year and in that # of PAs. According to Fangraphs there were 12 dudes who were 2 win catchers in 1997. There were 23 RFers though! I'm sure there is an explanation for this but frankly it strikes me as hard to believe that you would not be able to find replacement for Walker's production at Coors at RF far easier than the same for Piazza's at Chavez.

any decent hitting C in the AL is going to DH a little too.

woa xpost

VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT CATCHERS GETTING INTO THE HALL OF FAME

otm

should there be an adjustment for pitchers who only pitch 70 innings a year

that's a lot less, proportionally

― my whole family is catholic so look at the pickle i'm in (zachlyon), Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:34 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no? this is my point

This is kind of a does Ray Guy belong in the NFL hall thing.

which ray guy of course does

Totally. That said most relievers IMO don't.

i generally try to avoid hof discussions because people are such assholes about something that should be celebratory. but man, murray chass is really plumbing new depths of awfulness

wow mo is a 40-win player by fWAR and a 57-win player by rWAR

Yeah it's kind of odd because FIP seems like it should really love Rivera (good SO rate, ridiculously low # of homers, low # of walks) but fWAR is very cruel to him.

yeah idgi

If those Think Factory numbers hold, I would think Mussina would be in good position for the future with 35%. Morris is going to drop off; Bonds and Clemens just aren't going in unless there's a complete reversal on PEDs in the near future; Raines, deserving as he may be, looks destined for the Veteran's Committee. I know that more sure-things are coming onto the ballot the next five years, but I still think both he and Schilling will climb slowly until they hit just the right year.

would be excited to see four guys go in and clear up some room but... next year, johnson pedro smoltz sheffield. next year, griffey, edmonds, hoffman, eckstein. it'll never get better.

guess gary isn't a sure thing anymore tho

sheff has zero chance

yeah. everyone hated sheff, everyone thinks he juiced, numbers not insane enough for a grassroots campaign to build up

yeah absolutely. plus i think folks will look at his stats and idk, he didn't have a really consistent run of good seasons until his thirties and for his era, he's not really HOF-level impressive (only 4 of his 22 seasons were over 5 WAR, which surprised me.)

and he was really horrible defensively.

clem deadspin noted that those numbers are based on ballots made public so they skew young ie morris % possibly higher though i think you're right, that this clogged era is probably gonna keep him out.

lol at zach slipping eckstein. johnson pedro and i'm guessing smoltz go in though i could be wrong on smoltz. what a fucking scary trio of pitchers.

yeah so these are the arguably qualified HOF candidates coming up in the next three elections which will be added to a fucked-up logjam barring rules changes:

Jorge Posada
Vladimir Guerrero
Manny Ramirez
Ivan Rodriguez
Trevor Hoffman
Billy Wagner
Jim Edmonds
Ken Griffey
Carlos Delgado
Gary Sheffield
John Smoltz
Pedro Martinez
Randy Johnson

i'm guessing smoltz will straggle for a few years but stick on a lot of ballots. might be a different story if he retired a year sooner

if those numbers are close to accurate i was obv wrong to worry about moose. maybe raines will sneak in after some dust settles. but rip trammel ;_; not that he ever had a chance i guess

man for a career .280/.383/.546 hitter w/473 homers carlos delgado doesn't have a chance

press always loved smoltzy, very accessible guy, arbitrary saves + wins milestone should help him get in no problem... has 3k strikeouts too

My own sense (stepping back from personal opinion--always feel like I need to clarify that) of where each guy on al's list is headed--and why I think there'll be some wiggle room for Mussina.

Only three walk-right-in guys: Johnson, Pedro, Griffey.

Next closest is I-Rod, who'll by slowed down by a three- or four-year Bagwell/Piazza delay for suspicion.

No chance as it stands now: Manny. Less than no chance: Sheffield.

Vlad: will go in, not immediately like I always thought. There seems to be a feeling his case isn't quite strong enough WAR-wise.

Hoffman: Thought he was automatic at one point, but I think it's going to be tough for non-Rivera relievers going forward. He was much better than Lee Smith, but the thinking has changed enough that I could see him similarly always drawing 30 or 40% of the vote, maybe higher, but never getting voted in by the writers with enough other players to choose from. Cut that in half at least for Wagner.

Delgado: WAR says he wasn't as good as McGriff. I think he'll probably do better in the voting but still fall short.

Posada: Veteran's Committee probably, can't see him voted in by the writers.

Edmonds: I find him the toughest of all to predict. It'd take a while, longer than Vlad (whom he edges in career WAR), but maybe.

Smoltz: agree that the "arbitrary saves + wins milestone should help him." Within five years?

My point being, I only see three automatics, so I think there'll room opened up in the next five years for some of the leftovers from this year. It'll still be a logjam, but the names will change. If drastic changes are made to the voting, which could also happen, none of this applies.

(Some commenter on Posnanski's site pointed out that, with a 10-pick maximum, it's theoretically possible for 13 guys to be inducted in a year if the votes were distributed exactly right.)

xp this is true for a log of big hitting/light field sluggers from that era (Sosa, Sheffield, Ramirez, Guerrero, Abreu). Context and fielding matter a little. :D

Here's a spreadsheet tracking votes.

One thing that's perplexing is the handful of votes for either Bonds or Clemens but not both. So far, there are two votes for Bonds only, one for Clemens only.

Sheff has a big luggage set even beyond the 'roids issues going all the way back to when he was accused of tanking it way back in Milwaukee. About the only place he really ever seemed to actually be embraced by the fan base was in Atlanta. I get the money was better in NY, but that seemed like the one club he played for where it was 'home' at least for a while. (I don't really remember any issues with the Marlins, but he was on one of the win it all sell it all teams they had.) Everywhere else he seemed to end up pretty loathed by the fan base where he went and the 'roids are tied in with his time in the Bronx. Only thing Sheffield's got going is that there are a TON of stars in his generation of players that are loathed by large swaths of baseball fans and he was a bit more open about the whole PED thing than some of the other players around him.

That said, the guy had a heck of a power stroke for a right handed hitter. He could use the whole field and was pretty hard to jam up, as he could hit a wide array of pitches for power. Sheffield was pretty hard to strike out and could work the count for walks.

I never realized how tough it was to strike him out ... he had 300 more walks than strikeouts in his career and never struck out more than 100 times in a season (or was ever close to it, his career high was 83).

It's kind of baffling that a guy who came up as a shortstop could still be so bad in the field when he was moved to easier positions.

Wagner no way btw

that spreadsheet cracks me up, I like to look at the ballots for the guys not voting for Thomas mostly.

Most of the non-Thomas voters have Bonds and Clemens on their ballots, so that's at least the beginning of a rationale, space-wise (some of them have Morris, though, so that isn't). Worst ballot that I can see is Juan Vene's: Maddux, Glavine, Morris, Lee Smith, and no one else. A short bio:

http://sports.nyhistory.org/juan-vene/

He turns 85 in five days. That's fantastic--more power to him. He shouldn't have a ballot, though.

don't see why he shouldn't have a ballot tbh. his ballot sucks, but it seems like he's earned one

*slaps ballot out of juan vene's gnarled hands and stomps on it* go to hell you old shitty bitch!!!!

It's a tough call...and I've always fought against the idea (mostly out of self-interest) that older pop-music writers become irrelevant. It's just that that ballot shows such a level of disengagement. I guess it should be interpreted as a blanket refusal to vote for any hitters from that era. Which doesn't explain not voting for Raines, Trammell, Mattingly, or even McGriff, or why pitchers would get a pass.

Anyway, I think the best thing about this vote (based on the almost 25% that's in) is that the very worst thing that could have happened is not going to happen--that only Maddux would go in, and that the logjam had created a new onworkable bar of ridiculously over-qualified plus completely PED-untainted. Glavine's going in (put aside Mussina/Schilling comparisons for a moment), Thomas too. Piazza's going in this year or next, even with a couple of sure-things coming on. Bagwell's going in soon after. Mussina and Schilling are off to a good start.

"unworkable"

I'm not sure about your timeline considering that the ballot is going to get more and more stacked. Plenty of overqualified guys could be lingering on the ballot for 10-15 years if there isn't a voting rule change.

I think it'll go like this:

This year: Maddux, Glavine, Thomas
2015: Johnson, Pedro, Biggio or Piazza (not both--the other carries over another year)
2016: Griffey, Biggio or Piazza, Bagwell
2017: anyone above who hasn't yet made it, plus...the logjam is back: I-Rod, Vlad, Smoltz, Mussina, Schilling--one or two of them

btw i agree on wagner, morbs, but i guess the argument could be made for him.

arguably qualified players who will be on the ballot for the 2015-17 elections (minus players who will likely fall off or be elected this year; assuming maddux, glavine, and thomas go and biggo and piazza don't, and assuming palmeiro ekes out a stay of execution this year):

Jorge Posada
Vladimir Guerrero
Manny Ramirez
Ivan Rodriguez
Trevor Hoffman
Billy Wagner
Jim Edmonds
Ken Griffey
Carlos Delgado
Gary Sheffield
John Smoltz
Pedro Martinez
Randy Johnson
Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Jeff Kent
Edgar Martinez
Don Mattingly
Fred McGriff
Mark McGwire
Mike Mussina
Rafael Palmeiro
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
Lee Smith
Sammy Sosa
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker

the only ones i see going in for sure in those years are johnson, griffey, pedro, smoltz, biggio, bagwell, piazza.

Tigers' Lou Whitaker: Jack Morris 'was no better' than myself, Alan Trammell

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140105/SPORTS0104/301050031#ixzz2pZc532iG

“I don’t know what to say about Jack,” Whitaker said during the MLB Network Radio interview. “Jack was good, Jack was a stud in his own way. Jack Morris probably deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.”

But before Trammell?

That question drew a laugh from Whitaker, whose interview lasted only a little more than three minutes as hosts Bowden and Jeff Joyce rushed the uncomfortable segment to the finish line.

So Maddux might become the first player ever to get 100% vote? Surprises me that I didn't happen yet to the likes of Mays or Ruth.

i wouldn't be surprised if some asshole ended up submitting a blank ballot.

glavine and thomas are well above 90% right now which is pretty surprising. biggio looks close. palmeiro looks like toast. kent's showing is really poor.

I'd bet against that. I was thinking the same initially--147 out of 147 so far--but realized that the handful of people who don't vote for him would never make their ballot public. He may break the pct. record, though--Ryan or Seaver, I think.

Here's something I mentioned last year: Graham Womack's online poll for the 50 greatest players not in the Hall.

http://baseballpastandpresent.com/2014/01/06/50-baseball-players-hall-fame-version-4-0/

(Bet against unanimity, I meant.)

yeah there is just no way he gets on everyone's ballot

What's surprising me far more is Glavine running around 97%. I've got to believe that's powered to a degree by Maddux/Glavine sentiment; he's a deserving HOF'er, but he seems much more like an 85-90% guy to me (which may in fact be where he ends up).

David Schoenfield makes the case for J.T. Snow:

"Won six Gold Gloves, twice knocked in 100 runs and once saved Dusty Baker's kid from possible death in a World Series game."

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/11/14/55/2411337/11/628x471.jpg

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/43325/the-big-huge-hall-of-fame-post-part-1

The average career WAR for those 14 is 70.2; the mean is at 68

and once saved Dusty Baker's kid from possible death in a World Series game.

This alone > Jack Morris' various accomplishments

Jack only saved people who were clinically dead--he rescued to the score.

This is really a remarkable stat:

28. Richie Sexson (17.9 WAR) -- One of 30 players to have at least three seasons with at least 39 home runs and 120 RBIs. Twelve are in the Hall of Fame. All the others played in the 1990s or 2000s.

‏@ajcbraves
Chipper Jones on ex-#Brave Maddux: “Some dumb (bleep) will probably leave him off the ballot because no one else has been a unanimous pick."

ha!

So Maddux might become the first player ever to get 100% vote?

nope

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/07/ken-gurnicks-hall-of-fame-ballot-is-perhaps-the-laziest-and-most-willfully-ignorant-ever

chipper otm anyway

gurnick's not a bad beat writer but I feel like he deserves all the shit flung his way on the internet today

he also claimed he wont vote for anyone going forward, period.

JIM BOWDEN @JimBowdenESPNxm
Follow
Ken Gurnick just told us that he’ll abstain from Hall of Fame voting going forward. He will not vote again. Sirius 209 XM 89

Hope that guy burns in hell for his quirky hall of fame opinion

let's face it though, jack morris was a really good pitcher. like jamie moyer good.

when are the results announced? so I can read slightly less about this until the induction?

after the results are out, it will take approx .000005 of a second before the first article about the the 2015 ballot hits and we can all argue and lose our shit about that for a year. it is a never ending cycle baseball crankery.

Tomorrow is going to be an all-time great day for crankery with HOF and Pazz and Jop results announced within hours of each other.

oh holy shit - it's tomorrow?!

al leong, are you Larry?

you people are almost as bad as Oscar bloggers.

Lol

:)

you people are almost as bad as Oscar bloggers Pazz & Jop voters.

2pm eastern tomorrow

can anyone explain the process by which rob neyer and jim callis are not baseball writers with a vote? it can't still be the web thing -- all these mlb.com beat writers are only online

it's something like you have to be a BBWAA member for 10 years.

In order to be eligible for a Hall of Fame vote, a writer must be an active member of the BBWAA for 10 consecutive years. Once a writer receives a Hall of Fame vote, he is eligible to continue voting even when he is no longer an active member of the BBWAA, provided he becomes a lifetime honorary member.

Does that mean some Hall of Fame voters don't even cover baseball any more?

Yes. The BBWAA trusts that its voters take their responsibility seriously, and even those honorary members who are no longer covering baseball do their due diligence to produce a thoughtful ballot.

How do you become a member of the BBWAA?

The full membership requirements are in the BBWAA constitution. Essentially, you must be a beat writer, backup writer, columnist or sports editor from a newspaper or wire service that covers Major League Baseball on a regular basis. Membership has been expanded to include web sites on a case-by-case basis.

so have u guys followed the "known ballots"?

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2013_hof_ballot_collecting_gizmo/

so that's just over 1/3 of HOF ballots.

I'm surprised that Glavine is getting so much support. It's gotta be because people want to see him go in with Maddux. Sutton, Niekro and Perry all won 300 games and none of them were elected in their first year and they didn't get anything close to 90 percent support when they were elected.

i'm still iffy on Glavine belonging in the hall to begin with. i'd put Schilling in and possibly Moose ahead of him for sure either way.

glavine deserves it for sure, once he's considered in the context of his era. he was as good as he was in a pretty potent offensive era. he was admittedly not on the same tier as maddux, pedro, johnson, schilling, or clemens though.

good luck usa

maddux, glavine, and thomas

rip jack morris

biggio had 74.8% of the vote

!

fuckin ken gurnick

maddux had 97.2%, so there was more than one asshole

rip rafael palmeiro, he got 4.4%

someone voted for jacque jones

can someone link?

armando benitez too

i'm just watching on MLB.com here. piazza had a decent showing. schilling was at 29.2, mussina a bit over 20. sosa, walker, mcgwire, mcgriff, mattingly sticking around for awhile longer.