hall of fame, next vote...

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=halloffame/roundtable/041222

how do you rate the arguments contained herein?

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 23:29 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

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, but of the lot only Sandberg has to me to have really unimpeachable arguments (i.e. he was clearly the best 2nd basemen of his era and one of the best 2nd basemen ever.) 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, but his numbers aren't incredible and even though that shouldn't matter, it will. Sutter burned out too quick, only seven really great years even though when he was at his height he probably had more impact on any given game than maybe any of these guys. Gossage was around FOREVER and he was also amazing, but I'm not sure he was really as good as Fingers, Eck or Sutter and if he was as good how long he was. That hurts him a little, but really he should be in the hall. I think relievers belong in the Hall, BUT I think they really have to have great #s and either hang around forever at a really high level (like Fingers, Gossage and Riviera) or have had a really respectable career as a starter to boot (like Eckersley).

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 23:50 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

For the record I am glad that Blyleven didn't win 300 games, because his "automatic" inclusion on that basis would be even more ridiculous than Sutton's. You get some points for longevity, but the hall really should be reserved for players who were at some point GREAT, not players who just managed to play pretty good for a long period of time.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 23:57 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Here is the link for anyone who hasn't read last years HOF thread.

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 Nash (earlnash), Thursday, 23 December 2004 01:02 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The Page 2 discussion was really good.

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.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 01:29 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Rob Neyer's done some great columns on Blyleven, I don't have the time to look for them now ... maybe someone else has a link to them?

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 01:29 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Rivera's been dominant for longer than Sutter at this point (by two more years), MIR. And Rivera wouldn't even be mentioned as a future HOFer if it weren't for the postseason stuff.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 03:04 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

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 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The 1984 Tigers never get much call when they talk about great all-time teams, that team didn't really have any "superstars" but they were really deep and talented team. I think Sparky Anderson platooned at about half of the positions. Lance Parrish, Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker all three also had really good careers and don't get quite the props that they deserve.

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.

Earl Nash (earlnash), Thursday, 23 December 2004 03:42 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

>the hall really should be reserved for players who were at some point GREAT, not players who just managed to play pretty good for a long period of time.

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.

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

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
Well even if that's true & it debunks my theory - it at least means someone else has noticed!

Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 23 December 2004 15:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

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

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.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 16:17 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

That Bert was named to only 2 All-Star teams just shows how debased that is as a criterion.

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!

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

>he didn't make Cy Young top 10s

Four of 'em (third twice).

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

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:47 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

When you start out your argument claiming that Blyleven was a better pitcher than Sutton (who wasn't even close to a great pitcher and doesn't deserve to be in the Hall IMO) and Ryan (who was a complete statistical anomaly and does deserve to be in the Hall for that, but was also not a great pitcher) you've already undercut your case tremendously, Rob.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Here's the BP article about Jack Morris that attempts to determine where Morris had the ability to pitch to the score:

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

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

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:59 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

to determine *whether* Morris had the ability to pitch to the score

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:59 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I'm not sure how many pitchers in history meet your def of "great," Alex -- let's deal with the Hall you have, rather than the one you wish to have -- but the argument he makes is that Blyleven was better than several HOF pitchers, and comparable to *many* others. And he was.

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

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:07 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Alex, to be fair to Neyer, he didn't bring Sutton and Ryan into the discussion. He was responding to the examples of Sutton and Ryan as mentioned in the reader's letter.

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

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:13 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the link.

Those are some mind-numbing stats!

Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:14 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Michael Wolverton makes the case for Blyleven:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2002/0728/1411078.html

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.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:21 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"I'm not sure how many pitchers in history meet your def of "great," Alex"

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.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:38 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

getting jobbed, ahem.

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

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:40 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Catfish "really great"? Come now... talk about a guy who lucked out. Look at Hunter vs Blyleven (or Sutton, for that matter) and tell me how Hunter's better.

No, Bert is not Seaver or Carlton.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Bert's website is great btw. He should get in just for having that.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 19:04 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Well I didn't see Hunter, but the perenial All Star games, the Cy Young, the top 4 in Cy Young voting four times, the fact that he supposedly one of the most respected pitchers of his era, the postseason accolades, the biggest free agent coup ever for his time and the very impressive statistics kinda indicated to me that he might have been good. Obv you know better though.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 19:48 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

All that stuff about Hunter is true, and of course that's why he got in. Looking deeper into the numbers though ... he pitched in extreme pitchers parks for his entire career, played for great teams, and generally didn't have great ERA's (he was in the top 3 three times, but never in the top 10 otherwise). He threw a lot of innings, but was overworked at a young age which is why he was washed up at 30, which is hella young for a HoF'er.

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.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 20:51 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"He threw a lot of innings, but was overworked at a young age which is why he was washed up at 30, which is hella young for a HoF'er."

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?)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 21:23 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Burt Blyleven:

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.

Earl Nash (earlnash), Thursday, 23 December 2004 21:37 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I seem to remember Bert looking pretty good in the series with the Cardinals (aka the original You Don't Win If You Don't Play At Home series.)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 21:48 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I do have to wonder WHY if Bert was so great, he um didn't get snatched up by better teams?

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?"

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 22:54 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Nobody says that about hitters (as their stats aren't at all dependent on their team being good.) They just look at the stats and marvel that nobody noticed at the time.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 23:22 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I have no idea why previous subjective honors (Cy Youngs, All-Star selections) would be used as criteria for another subjective honor.

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.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 26 December 2004 03:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Speaking of Marvin Miller, what are the odds of him getting in this year (the nu-Vets Committee votes this year, right?).

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

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 26 December 2004 08:04 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

blah blah blah. my opinon is better than your opinion and i have proof! blah blah blah.


otto midnight (otto midnight), Monday, 27 December 2004 07:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink


I generally agree, OM. HOF debates generally bore me, especially when one side is "he was MONEY" or "folks sure wrote boilerplate hosannas about him in the '70s."

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.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 14:28 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Rocky Colavito was a bit like Jim Rice, he hit like he was going to the Hall until he hit his early 30s, then it was over. I have a dog eared card of his when he played in Cleveland.

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.

Earl Nash (earlnash), Monday, 27 December 2004 16:38 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I don't think it looks good for anybody to get voted in by the nu-Vets committee anytime soon ... as Morbs said, nobody came close to getting 75% last time. If they go through two or three voting years with nobody getting elected, they'll probably change the rules.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:12 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Al Oliver was just "pretty good," ie a hitter not any more suitable for enshrinement than Rusty Staub or Vada Pinson. (His top BaseballRef comparables are Steve Garvey and Bill Buckner -- same story.)

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:29 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Just out of curiousity how old are you Dr Morbius?

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:43 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Exactly 5 years younger than Jesse Orosco!

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:55 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

(I suspected as much.) Anyway, I was talking with my family about Blyleven this weekend and apparently he had a reputation of not being particularly well-liked and kind of an odd duck to boot (although I'm guessing that being Dutch was probably considered totally bizarre enough for a lot of people.)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:05 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Al Oliver didn't walk much

Riot Gear! (Gear!), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:22 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I hear that a few people didn't like Ty Cobb either.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:27 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Yes well luckily for Cobb he was a couple of generations removed from the people who were voting on his HOF induction so his jerkiness was more anecdotal than personal.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:38 (thirteen years ago) Permalink


Cobb's last season: 1928
Inducted into HOF: 1936

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:15 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Cobb retired in 1928 and was elected in 1936. So many of the voters would have seen him play.

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)

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:16 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

It wasn't a criticism. I was just pointing out that it might be a reason why he'd been snubbed (that and of course that people are overly fixated on 300 wins, which is also not a very fair reason.) Of course, people who can't read for shit might have trouble distinguishing the two.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:21 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"Cobb's last season: 1928
Inducted into HOF: 1936"

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

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:23 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

And I didn't say that YOU specifically were the one doing the criticising. I was saying that anyone who would withhold a HoF vote in part because they felt that player needed an attitude adjustment are themselves in need of an attitude adjustment.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:33 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Belle had a very good case in 1998 (as did A-Rod/Garciaparra/Jeter/Clemens) but i guess the voters figured Juan Gone was overdue for a second trophy.

omar little, Tuesday, 6 November 2018 23:13 (one month ago) Permalink

I probably would have voted for Jeter that year.

clemenza, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 12:35 (one month ago) Permalink

i'm glad the hard-on MVP voters had for RBI and save dudes seems to have substantially diminished. Twenty years ago I suspect J.D. Martinez might have won the prize.

omar little, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 17:06 (one month ago) Permalink

Posanski has Mussina #87 on his Top 100, with a long list of all his near-misses on the things that grab headlines--how many times he almost won 20, almost pitched a no-hitter, almost won the Cy, etc. I think he'll very likely get in this year: Rivera and Halladay, plus--four at a time has happened twice in the past four votes--Mussina and Edgar.

clemenza, Sunday, 18 November 2018 17:11 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Two of the sabermetric favorites for induction: Lofton & Mussina.

clemenza, Sunday, 18 November 2018 23:43 (three weeks ago) Permalink

My first impression ballot:

Bonds, Clemens & Rivera (possibly the best ever at their position)
Mussina, Schilling & Halladay (other pitchers)
Walker, Rolen, Manny & Andruw (other hitters)

reggae mike love (polyphonic), Monday, 19 November 2018 18:57 (three weeks ago) Permalink

wait, swap Edgar with Andruw :(

reggae mike love (polyphonic), Monday, 19 November 2018 18:57 (three weeks ago) Permalink

my guess: Edgar, Mussina, Rivera, Halladay

I also suspect after last year's results and with fewer legit candidates, there will be a major bump in votes for Walker and Rolen. Maybe not enough to get Walker into position for 2020 induction but decent enough. Schilling might get a bump too, but fuck him.

omar little, Monday, 19 November 2018 19:12 (three weeks ago) Permalink

it'll be interesting to see how Todd Helton fares. if Walker doesn't get in, Helton has no chance.

Karl Malone, Monday, 19 November 2018 19:21 (three weeks ago) Permalink

i'll be interested to see how many votes andy pettitte gets, for a number of reasons

mookieproof, Monday, 19 November 2018 19:26 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Through age 30:

Player A: 368 BB, 1072 H, 1356 TB, 333 RBI, 19.5 WAR
Player B: 263 BB, 539 H, 885 TB, 217 RBI, 19.1 WAR

reggae mike love (polyphonic), Monday, 19 November 2018 23:49 (three weeks ago) Permalink

if Walker doesn't get in, Helton has no chance

Agree--Walker was clearly the better player, I think.

clemenza, Tuesday, 20 November 2018 01:08 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Through age 30:

Player A: 368 BB, 1072 H, 1356 TB, 333 RBI, 19.5 WAR
Player B: 263 BB, 539 H, 885 TB, 217 RBI, 19.1 WAR

― reggae mike love (polyphonic), Monday, November 19, 2018 6:49 PM (two hours ago)

pretty impossible to play this game without slash stats lol, & clearly they have very different defensive values

k3vin k., Tuesday, 20 November 2018 02:24 (two weeks ago) Permalink

A is Omar Vizquel, and B is Edgar.

Suffice to say that Edgar did most of his damage in his thirties.

reggae mike love (polyphonic), Tuesday, 20 November 2018 02:50 (two weeks ago) Permalink

upcoming HOF candidates that some people might make an argument for:

Jeter
Abreu
Giambi
Soriano
Konerko
Hudson
Buehrle
Hunter
A-Rod
Ortiz
Teixeira
Suzuki
Beltre
Mauer
Utley
Wright

Maybe I'm missing some here, idk. lots of these guys have absolutely zero chance of making it but even those guys have superficially impressive numbers to an extent.

omar little, Tuesday, 20 November 2018 16:18 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I'd vote for A-Rod, Jeter, Ichiro, Beltre, and Utley from that list and none of the rest.

reggae mike love (polyphonic), Tuesday, 20 November 2018 20:13 (two weeks ago) Permalink

yeah that seems about right, and they will probably all go in at some point. ortiz is also a lock

k3vin k., Tuesday, 20 November 2018 22:30 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I would put in Ortiz before I'd put in Utley, and that's a good test case of whether you think the HOF should be a strict numerical accounting--your WAR, essentially--or whether you think there's more to it that that. I'm not saying one approach or the other is correct. Utley's peak was so strong, he's 10 WAR ahead of Ortiz. But Utley didn't do a whole lot after his 2005-2009 peak--he doesn't fall of the map like Andruw Jones, but he's basically just another second baseman once he hits 31--while the non-WAR (narrative, intangible, call them whatever pejorative you want) arguments for Ortiz are pretty familiar by now.

clemenza, Wednesday, 21 November 2018 13:25 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i'd put in all of those plus Ortiz, a guy who has obviously been downgraded WAR-wise by never playing defense but i think it's slightly possible it underrates him a bit, he wasn't exactly an empty-calories hitter. he walked a lot, at his peak he scored a ton of runs, he hit for a very good average most of the time. he was no Frank Thomas (though during that three-year stretch from '04-'07 he wasn't that far off) and he's more borderline whereas Big Hurt was a clear shoo-in, but i would vote for him (assuming there was room for him on the ballot with that 10-player limit.) I suspect he's gonna wait a bit bc of the PED speculation, but I also don't think he's a Manny case. maybe more a Bagwell/Piazza one.

Utley's case is made tougher by that brief peak and it's a shame it was Placido Polanco time in Philly for his first couple seasons and he didn't get a full-time shot until a season in which he was 26 on opening day but at this point i also think he's an easy "yes."

omar little, Wednesday, 21 November 2018 17:44 (two weeks ago) Permalink

would utley's HOF plaque say Chase "Dad" Utley?

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 21 November 2018 18:21 (two weeks ago) Permalink

JAWS has utley as the 11th-greatest 2B of all time, but i'm not sure how i feel about hof-ing by position -- or at least positions that aren't more demanding than 2B

obviously we *are* hof-ing by position if we've got trevor hoffman, but i don't find the 'everyone better than this one shitty hall of famer deserves enshrinement' argument terribly persuasive.

nevertheless i support a more expansive hall, so i'd vote jeter, a-rod, ortiz, ichiro, beltre, mauer. utley probably deserves it too; i just don't like him

mookieproof, Wednesday, 21 November 2018 18:48 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i don't like Clemens either, but the HOF is a joke unworthy of my attention until he and BB get in.

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 21 November 2018 18:50 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i don't find the 'everyone better than this one shitty hall of famer deserves enshrinement' argument terribly persuasive.

Utley has a better WAR than 11 hall-of-fame 2Bs. His best 7 WAR seasons are on par with Ryne Sandberg. His career OPS+ is better than Roberto Alomar or Craig Biggio. To me, he should be in.

reggae mike love (polyphonic), Wednesday, 21 November 2018 19:15 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I wouldn't mind putting Ortiz in but there are a lot of sluggers coming up who have similar numbers and also played defense.

reggae mike love (polyphonic), Wednesday, 21 November 2018 19:25 (two weeks ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/harold-baines-and-lee-smith-voted-into-hall-of-fame-by-todays-game-committee/

These will not go over well.

Of the two, I can maybe see Smith, in that he held what was once viewed as a major record for 10+ years. It's hard to historically frame saves in relation to any other stat--I can't think of another one that was once considered really important and now is mostly ridiculed. Even pitcher wins and RBI have fared better.

I can't see Baines at all.

clemenza, Monday, 10 December 2018 02:18 (twenty hours ago) Permalink

Weird: if you follow the link in this thread's original post (14 years ago), it's an ESPN roundtable where they bat around Lee Smith's chances a bit.

clemenza, Monday, 10 December 2018 02:27 (twenty hours ago) Permalink

yikes. https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_RF.shtml

free dwight evans

mookieproof, Monday, 10 December 2018 04:25 (eighteen hours ago) Permalink

For years, Harold Baines has been my go-to punchline for players with deceptively good career stats who really weren't all that good.

NoTimeBeforeTime, Monday, 10 December 2018 04:59 (seventeen hours ago) Permalink

Suddenly all the arguments over Jack Morris seem a little bit silly.

NoTimeBeforeTime, Monday, 10 December 2018 05:00 (seventeen hours ago) Permalink

yeah when these committees are going to let just anyone in, it does make the BBWAA debates seem pointless

it's interesting to read some of the discussion on blyleven at the top of this thread -- obviously this was before WAR even was around. (I'd bet that alex in SF has changed his mind these days.) he did have a lot of passionate supporters at the time, and the arguments about 300 wins, particularly since he was so close to it anyway and given that he pitched for some pretty mediocre teams, seem especially dated now

k3vin k., Monday, 10 December 2018 05:13 (seventeen hours ago) Permalink

Baines' best season as a composite--his career bests in every category:

2B - 39
3B - 10
HR - 29
R - 89 (never scored 90 runs in a season)
RBI - 113
BB - 73
BA - .311
OBP - .399
SLG - .541
OPS+ - .903
WAR - 4.3

(rate stats for seasons of 140+ games)

Even allowing that his prime years were in a pitcher's decade (the second half of his career was in a hitter's decade), that's gotta be about as ordinary as it gets for that kind of exercise.

clemenza, Monday, 10 December 2018 12:43 (nine hours ago) Permalink

this is so dumb, i suppose the best thing i can say about it is it'll maybe bring about some changes bc of how absurd it is. though i'm not gonna hold my breath.

omar little, Monday, 10 December 2018 16:43 (five hours ago) Permalink

worst selection since Jim Rice

not sure about Lee Smith either

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 10 December 2018 16:55 (five hours ago) Permalink

start designing a plaque for Brett Gardner, he has played half as many seasons and has about the same bWAR, plus seven seasons of 3+ bWAR to Baines' two. And four seasons of 4+ bWAR to Baines' one.

omar little, Monday, 10 December 2018 17:01 (five hours ago) Permalink

i *like* Harold Baines but there should be a recall vote.

omar little, Monday, 10 December 2018 17:01 (five hours ago) Permalink

haha trout will pass baines + smith's combined WAR next year

jaffe: This is not to begrudge the man’s happiness upon being granted entry to the Hall. But Baines’ election is simply not a great day for the institution, or for anyone bringing an analytical, merit-based approach to it while reckoning with its objective standards. The precedent it sets is nearly unmanageable, if future committees are to take seriously candidates of his level. Why battle over Dale Murphy or Fred McGriff if Harold Baines is the standard?

mookieproof, Monday, 10 December 2018 17:07 (five hours ago) Permalink

Why battle over Dale Murphy or Fred McGriff if Harold Baines is the standard?

this is very true. also if you use it as a mantra you come to learn a fundamental truth about the universe

Karl Malone, Monday, 10 December 2018 17:11 (five hours ago) Permalink

Lee Smith is really getting off easy today.

reggae mike love (polyphonic), Monday, 10 December 2018 18:19 (four hours ago) Permalink

Al Oliver for HOF

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 10 December 2018 19:03 (three hours ago) Permalink

here for your consideration, the 16 members of the angry democrats Today’s Game Era Committee:

Hall of Famers: Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Pat Gillick, Tony La Russa, Greg Maddux, Joe Morgan, John Schuerholz, Ozzie Smith, Joe Torre

Executives: Al Avila (Tigers), Paul Beeston (Blue Jays), Andy MacPhail (Phillies), Jerry Reinsdorf (White Sox)

Media: Steve Hirdt (Elias Sports Bureau), Tim Kurkjian (ESPN), Claire Smith (ESPN)

Karl Malone, Monday, 10 December 2018 19:20 (three hours ago) Permalink

Lee Smith is really getting off easy today.

True! He's suddenly the George W. Bush of HOF'ers.

clemenza, Monday, 10 December 2018 19:28 (three hours ago) Permalink

A sampling of headlines:

Harold Baines' Hall of Fame selection sparks controversy and criticism
Harold Baines – and many others – ‘shocked’ by his Hall of Fame selection
Harold Baines: MLB hall of fame selection an embarrassment
Harold Baines is the most inexplicable Hall of Fame pick ever

I think publications should be a little careful with things like the last two (both Sports Illustrated). Harold Baines is a human being, and you don't need to take what is supposed to be a joyous day and outright humiliate the guy (from all accounts, a quiet, respected player) because 16 other people made a terrible choice. I think the first headline is sufficient.

clemenza, Monday, 10 December 2018 19:33 (two hours ago) Permalink

lee smith isn't ideal, but unless you believe relievers are inherently unworthy, he's at least defensible

otoh it leads us down a very slippery slope toward Hall of Famer Joe Nathan

mookieproof, Monday, 10 December 2018 19:46 (two hours ago) Permalink

or John Franco

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 10 December 2018 19:53 (two hours ago) Permalink

Jason Isringhausen for HOF

Karl Malone, Monday, 10 December 2018 19:59 (two hours ago) Permalink

I'd say the guy who will benefit most from Smith's choice is Billy Wagner.

clemenza, Monday, 10 December 2018 21:59 (twenty-nine minutes ago) Permalink

Smith, i disagree with – but i understand it's based in a different/older understanding of the game... but Baines?! BAINES?!?!? Even Baines thinks it's fucked up!

Mad Piratical (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 10 December 2018 22:00 (twenty-eight minutes ago) Permalink

i am not against billy wagner's induction tbh

mookieproof, Monday, 10 December 2018 22:01 (twenty-eight minutes ago) Permalink

my memory of Harold Baines will always be how the ChiSox traded him to the Rangers, and he returned to play against them early in the season, and they retired his number before a game, and everyone was confused because a) the ceremony was pretty haphazard, and b) it was Harold Baines.

omar little, Monday, 10 December 2018 22:29 (fourteen seconds ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.