hall of fame, next vote...

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