It seems with every year the BBWAA tries to crush its once strong reputation for not electing borderline guys. Perez, Puckett, Eckersly, and now the worst of the lot, Sutter. And all of this with Dawson and Rice in the wings and the HOF scaling back. There is no way the players of the 80's and 90's will be better preresented than those of any other decade.

Every year makes me care a little less about the HOF and more abou the HOM.

Of those six listed above only Puckett and Eckersly have any shot of making the HOM by my reckoning and these aren't Veteran's committee choices.

I think the perception of Sutter's role in the evolution of the closer was not that he was too fragile, but that he was such a dominating pitcher that managers had to alter their strategies in order to get the maximum effectiveness out of him. In other words, he was so good he forced the game to adapt to him. I'm NOT saying that justifies his induction, I just wanted to explain the argument.

If that's the argument, it's an argument not based on facts. Sutter's usage pattern was altered by Herman Franks in 1979 in direct response to Sutter's having suffered second-half injuries in both 1977 and 1978. Period.

Can I vote for Monty Brewster?

THis was a poor selection, though not as bad as Fingers. I, too, can see no reason as to why Sutter is better than Gossage. Being the first to throw a pitch does not mean that they are HOF worthy. For instance, who created the submarine delievery? I don't think they are in the HOF. The worst thing about this vote is that Clark was cut, though I am not suprised about that.

Just because a starter is more valuable than a reliever does not mean that all good starters are inherently better (and more HOF-worthy) than all good relievers.

But the HOF should be for players who best helped their team win. If they had a role that limits their ability to do that (pinch hitter for instance), then they do not belong in the HOF just because they are the best at that role. Whenever I have heard Edgar Martinez endorsed for the HOF, the argument is that the DH is a position and Martinez was the best at that position during his career. So then would Martinez not be in the HOF if he stayed at third base? That is ridiculous. Martinez does not belong in the Hall, and only the truely elite relievers that could overcome their limited innings belong there.

Ralph Kiner? How is Albert Belle not his equal?

Kiner won seven HR titles. Enough said.

In a democracy, all opinions are equally legitimate (that's not saying that they are equally valid).

Exactly.

There are people who have voted for Lyndon LaRouche every four years for the past five elections. Lyndon LaRouche has no chance of being elected President.

That doesn't mean that I think their vote should be taken away for ignoring the "established precedent" of voting either Democrat or Republican.

The hell with all of this; who do you like for the Ford Frick Award?

(ducks)

John Franco - Won't come close. Even Mets fans don't think he's worthy.
Mariano Rivera - Was going in anyway.
Trevor Hoffman - A definite maybe.
John Smoltz - Not really comparable, he's in the Dennis Eckersley Department.
Billy Wagner - I really don't see him coming close, unless he gets a lot of attention with the Mets. He has a lot of saves at this point, but that doesn't seem to mean much (see Lee Smith).

What about...
Smith?
Reardon?
Henke?
Aguilera?
Nen?
Wetteland?
Montgomery?
Beck?
Quisenberry?

Just being a run of the mill great relief pitcher isn't enough. You need extra credit from something else. Eck, the starter, Hoyt the 1,000 year career, Sutter the Splitter... am I missing anyone?

So how did Fingers get elected? In any event, giving Sutter extra credit for the pitch doesn't make any sense. (a) he didn't invent it. (b) even if he did, so what? Is it really that important in the scope of baseball history?

I can't see any legitimate reason for electing Sutter instead of Gossage.

I've said it before: the HOF is not, nor should it be, a glorified MVP vote.

I think it basically is, and should be. It shouldn't be 100% of the decision, but the player's actual contribution to his team should be by far the most important factor IMO. That's not to say a closer doesn't deserve to be there...Gossage does. Rivera too. But I think it's fair to elect fewer closers than players at other positions since they contribute a little less. Should the top pinch hitter of alltime be in there?

Good ol' Lenny Harris deserves some consideration when he eventually retires.

Interesting results for the Hall of Fish election. When is that election where the select the best baseball players?

I agree with you to a point. Much of it is just speculation. However, many sportwriters don't just send in their ballots - they write entire columns about the issue, in which they actually say why they did or did not vote for a particular player.

Now I certainly haven't read every column on the issue, although I have read a bunch. If someone really wanted to, they could collect every column they could and tally the reasons why a particular player was or was not selected.

However, the bunch that I have read all pretty much gave the same reasons, such as about Blyleven. I'm open to people pointing out writers who blasted Blyleven's character, and used it as a reason for not voting form him.

I agree that we know some of the reasons. But there are like 500 votes. Are there even 100 such columns? (I really don't know - if there are, I'll shut up.) I just don't see any reason to say that the guys publishing their views are representative. But I could easily be wrong as I don't keep up with it that well.

RP - I'm not advocating that the being an RP isnt enough... im saying that seems to be teh standard that is being set... then again i don't get Rollie, even under those standards.

Also I just want to point out its a shame this has turned into a what is wrong with the Hall of Fame thread than, a what was great about Bruce Sutter thread, but I guess thats just the nature of the beast.

Does retired writers vote? That would be a huge 'silent' vote...

RP - I'm not advocating that the being an RP isnt enough...

That really threw me for a second...

From quotes I've heard on ESPNews of some guys who are in the media (like Kurkjian, who I think might be a voter), it seems like some people think Fingers is the best reliever of all time. I just don't understand.

Just being a run of the mill great relief pitcher isn't enough. You need extra credit from something else. Eck, the starter, Hoyt the 1,000 year career, Sutter the Splitter... am I missing anyone?

So that's what Reardon was thinking.

Also I just want to point out its a shame this has turned into a what is wrong with the Hall of Fame thread than, a what was great about Bruce Sutter thread, but I guess thats just the nature of the beast.

I agree that it's unfortunate that the general community here doesn't appear ready to just say, "Congratulations, Bruce!," who was of course a very excellent pitcher, and as far as we know, a good human being.

But given that his HOF worthiness is highly tentative, and moreover that others on the same ballot have stronger cases, it is, I agree, "just the nature of the beast."

"am I the only person who thinks of Franco as a Red?"

Of course, I think of Franco as a Red. I still remember thinking why are the Dodgers giving up on him.

But the HOF should be for players who best helped their team win. If they had a role that limits their ability to do that (pinch hitter for instance), then they do not belong in the HOF just because they are the best at that role. . . . only the truely elite relievers that could overcome their limited innings belong there.

Well, there we just fundamentally disagree, Gagne 55. Yes, you can take it down the slippery slope to PHs, and set-up men, and 3B coaches, and hot dog vendors. But I think that we can include closers without worrying about opening the doors to people who were truly "great" in truly trivial roles on this basis: the game as it is played, and has been for the last quarter-century, recognizes and regards quality closers as a critical part of a great team. That is the baseball of our time, whether Steve (Treder) likes it or not, and even whether he's right or not. That is less true of DHs -- a role that does not even exist in one league -- and it's not true at all of PHs.

Of course only the "truly elite relievers" should get in. But I'd say the same of starters, second basemen, and every other position. That's what the HOF is all about: recognizing the truly elite. Taking starters as an example, I consider someone like Glavine a solid, but not inner circle, HOF caliber performer. I wouldn't go all that much beyond him if I had a ballot. With that in mind, I would vote for the relief-pitcher equivalent of Glavine, and not someone with a lesser record in that role.

Billy Wagner - I really don't see him coming close, unless he gets a lot of attention with the Mets. He has a lot of saves at this point, but that doesn't seem to mean much (see Lee Smith).

I don't know whether you're right about whether Wagner will or won't get in. But he is a much, much greater pitcher than Lee Smith. Smith's career ERA+ was 132. Wagner's is 180. Saves won't get Wagner in, just as they didn't get Smith in. Being a great pitcher might, however, work for Wagner, if he can keep it up for 3-4 more years. Now, that may be a longshot (I hope not, of course!). But if he does, he will be a far better qualified candidate than Smith.

Sarcasm Alert

Where's the love for Doug Jones?

One and done. It doesn't seem fair.

Dude pitched about the same amount of innings as Sutter. Their career ERA+ figures are pretty similar (130 vs. 136). And Jones' five best seasons stack up pretty well compared to Sutter's on an ERA+ basis.

Worst writers selection ever.

But the HOF should be for players who best helped their team win.

That is not what it IS, though. Read the instructions to the voters again.

-- MWE

With that in mind, I would vote for the relief-pitcher equivalent of Glavine, and not someone with a lesser record in that role.

Who is the relief pitcher equivalent of Glavine?

Also I just want to point out its a shame this has turned into a what is wrong with the Hall of Fame thread than, a what was great about Bruce Sutter thread, but I guess thats just the nature of the beast.

That would be a nice, but extremely short thread.

Who is the relief pitcher equivalent of Glavine?

Let's see ... I'd say probably someone like Trevor Hoffman.

That is not what it IS, though. Read the instructions to the voters again.

Link please.

Let's see ... I'd say probably someone like Trevor Hoffman.

Really? Hasn't it been the case that Hoffman has been, through his prime years, closer to the pinnacle of MLB relievers than Glavine has been, through his prime years, to the pinnacle of MLB starters?

Francisco Franco? A Red? Somebody didn't do their European history homework!

To amplify my answer, it seems to me that Hoffman outstrips his contemporaries in the bullpen -- both in terms of quality of pitching, and longevity -- to roughly the same extent Glavine towers over his fellow starting pitchers.

Relief pitchers will inherently be limited in their Cooperstown potential by the fact that so few of them last over a long period of time as elite quality performers. The guys who will put up eye-popping numbers (high save totals, microscopic ERAs) in 800-1000 innings (or thereabouts) are going to be few and far between. But I don't want to exclude them because they don't throw 3500 innings.

Hoffman right now is at 822 IP; Rivera is at 807 IP. Rivera's been much better. He is the inner circle guy; Hoffman is the solidly qualified, but not inner circle.

That would be a nice, but extremely short thread.

At least it wouldn't be a rerun.

Hasn't it been the case that Hoffman has been, through his prime years, closer to the pinnacle of MLB relievers than Glavine has been, through his prime years, to the pinnacle of MLB starters?

I don't know about that, Steve. Hoffman has led the league in saves only twice; Glavine has led the NL in wins five times. He's been an All-Star four times, Glavine nine.

Neither has really ever been regarded as the best in baseball, have they? If they have, it's been only for a brief moment, and probably inaccurately.

And even if he has been closer to the pinnacle, as I said in # 227, I am perfectly comfortable with saying that a reliever has to do that, because they won't have the longevity that a HOF starter has. The comparison is a rough one -- what a starter like Glavine has in longevity, a reliever like Hoffman may make up in spectacularity.

Among current relievers, I would vote for Rivera right now. Hoffman might be just shy, maybe a year or two of quality performance would make him, for me, the "in" guy Glavine is. Wagner needs 3-4, maybe five, more quality seasons. Right now, I don't see any other active relievers who are projectable candidates.

Gagne 55:

Geez, you seem bright enough you should know how to Google. Go to the Baseball Hall of Fame site and figure it out. And if it's too hard then take the man for his word and be done with it.

Ozzie Smith? How is Trammell not his equal? Offense counts just as much as defense - a run scored is as good as a run saved.

Yes, but Ozzie saved a lot more of them. However, I do think Alan is a Hall of Famer. Ozzie saved more runs on defense than Trammell created on offense according to BRAR and had more BRAR+FRAR, anyways.

Every year I look at Trammell's vote totals and am boggled. I mean, we had a 118-part Blyleven campaign on here (I'm on the fence about him, leaning no) but year by year goes past, nobody votes for Trammell. I meant in their primes, would you have traded Sutter, Blyleven, or Garvey for Trammell? I know I wouldn't have but they all got more votes. I really don't understand it, but maybe its Tiger-related. How the hell else does Whitaker drop off the ballot after one year? Were people not impressed watching them? I was a kid, but I know I was. And in a few years, his stats will be even more distorted, and he'll never make it. I just really can't understand this vote.

Maybe this sounds like a "fanboy" moment, but screw it.

DizzyPaco:

I should have myself clearer. I actually exchange messages with these individuals. And Bert's eruptions are a part of the equation.

Just because folks don't write about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

WARNING!!! ELDERLY MAN GETTING ALL RILED UP!!!

See, it's the Blyleven "campaign" and before that the Dick Allen lovefest that has me getting me a tad disgusted with our community.

A community is going to be comprised of folks with differing opinions. I understand that. Free exchange of ideas is a wonderful thing. Makes the final arguments that much stronger once they have survived peer review.

But what I do NOT like, and what is really getting my neck to do a slow burn is folks around thinking that they have EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to caring about all things baseball.

Specifically, the tone of messages that clearly indicate that folks who do not agree with the sentiments expressed by the advocates on behalf of a Blyleven or an Allen is a moron, a half-wit, and who let this schmoe in the building???

Baseball writers who possess the voting privilege to the Baseball Hall of Fame have played the game as children and then been involved with the game in varying degrees their entire adult lives. They didn't eat crappy food, sleep in strange hotels, stay away from the families for extended periods, get paid peanuts, endure abuse from players, and generally have a pretty nomadic existence because it was convenient. These games love the game of baseball. Just like the folks here. These persons may express it differently but the love exists.

And among their few "rewards" if you will is to assess a player's career and to determine his worthiness of being awarded the game's highest honor. And they take it seriously. Because they love the game.

As part of that assessment they pull out their old notes and columns. They talk to their peers. They talk to retired players, coaches, managers, and baseball staff. They listen to the radio. And believe it or not they check out what is written on this new-fangled invention termed the Internet including this lil' old site here.

Why? Because they care. It matters. They want to honor the game they love.

So after careful deliberation they make a decision.

Now folks can certainly question the decision. Folks can ask why. Folks can consider what the writer has stated either in print or via the airwaves and ponder the logic. That's good. That's healthy.

But instead these folks who voted are abused. Mocked. Ridiculed. Have their manhood questioned.

Folks like Mr. Neyer make snide remarks about these persons being senile, addled, and in need of having the drool wiped off their mouths.

Others suggest that these individuals are not objective, not aware of the proper metrics, and pretty much too g*dd*mn dumb to know their *ss from a hamburger.

Well excuse me for saying so but I didn't know that y'all had invented the game of baseball giving you the God-given right to pass judgement on all those who trespass on the game. Must have missed that part of the baseball history lesson.

Bunch of no account, arrogant, condescending, A-rod man crush lovin' pr*cks.

These folks care. They DO think. They DO consider. And WHATEVER their evaluation methodology it has NO LESS merit than any other. It is simply DIFFERENT.

Tell you what. When one of these chuckleheads has done something other than sit on his lily white fat *ss and done something with his life other then being a smarmy jagoff somebody let me know.

Yeah, Harvey, but they still shoulda voted for Trammell ;)

Other than that, Harveys, how would you compare the BBWAA to your average Primates?

I ♥ Harvey

HW I don't doubt that your descriptions match people you know and associate with, but you don't believe that those attributes belong to all or possibly even most of the voters do you? I mean one voter wrote that he was so busy working during his career that when he was given a ballot for the first time he gave it to his bartender to fill out because his bartender buddy watched more baseball than he did. IIRC that bartender filled out the voter's ballot every year until he died (the bartender, not the voter).

One voter in one of his columns said after "several hours" of deliberation, he filled out his ballot. Some of us here will spend more time debating the selections and worthiness of these players than that voter did. And if a voter feels comfortable enough to put that in print, he can't believe he isn't representative of at least a decent portion of his peers.

If you read the different HoF threads, you will see that when a voter decribes the thought process, a few posters will commend the voter for going through that process even if the end result is different from what th poster would have chosen. The voters who are ridiculed most use cliches more than analysis.

So after careful deliberation they make a decision.

Perhaps. But, based on some things I have read recently, I am not convinced. I am sure it is true of some of them. I doubt quite seriously it is true of most, much less all, of them.

And, even if it is true of the vast majority of them, more people should be allowed to vote. I don't endorse the Bil James plan from POG in its entirety, but I am behind the idea of it.

I personally am not all that interested in the HOF (hence my limited participation in these threads) but it is clear that a lot of baseball folks are.

37 cross posted mine, and he probably said it better.

HWb, what would you consider to be "careful deliberation?"

I think the 80's Tigers were seen as something of a disappointment, a team which should have
been a dynasty, but wasn't. Their 1987 failure to challenge the Twinkies in the ALCS
probably hurt their chances too (I'd throw Parrish's name into the mix along with Alan &
Lou).

Posts 237 and 238:

The difference between us that you are willing to take a step that I am not.

You read article "A" and infer from that "B" and "C" must follow.

I do not agree.

I would also suggest that a voter, having been around the game for many years, was ALWAYS assessing in some way a player's standing with respect to the Hall of FAme. So much of the work that you and I have to do after the fact has already been completed by the voter. The several hours is simply the summary of years of examination.

Is that not also a possible explanation?

Baseball writers who possess the voting privilege to the Baseball Hall of Fame have played the game as children and then been involved with the game in varying degrees their entire adult lives. They didn't eat crappy food, sleep in strange hotels, stay away from the families for extended periods, get paid peanuts, endure abuse from players, and generally have a pretty nomadic existence because it was convenient. These games love the game of baseball. Just like the folks here. These persons may express it differently but the love exists.

The entire post, but specifically this passage, is inspiring. Moreso for myself, as I am working towards becoming a professional baseball writer. I commend you, sir. It's an excellent argument and I could not think of a better way to put it.

It's a shame, I suppose, that these people who supposedly care so much know so little about the thing they're supposed to care about.

If someone researches what makes an HOF-level baseball player, and then researches the careers of the players on his ballot, he can't fail to vote for Bert Blyleven and not vote for Andre Dawson. If he doesn't do that, he didn't do his homework properly, and is therefore challenged for intellect, we must unfortuately assert. "Being around the game" is not research; if it was, then they should have hot-dog vendors vote for the HOF.

HW, my biggest question is what percent of the voters match your description. As others have stated here, it's hard for me to understand how someone could vote for Sutter and not Gossage, when it seems clear to so many here that the positions should be switched.

I guess this is one issue I have: Repoz found ballots as articles that represent just under 20% of the ballots submitted. For any voter that is still affiliated with a media source, wouldn't a thoughtful analysis be similar to a column that one could submit to their employer? For anyone that took the time to do that work, wouldn't that be an be easy column to submit to meet their weekly work quota? So for the 80% or so of the voters that we don't have some type of ballot for, Repoz didn't come across their work, they are retired from working for a media source, no longer have a beat that would include a baseball column, didn't take the time to put their thoughts to paper, or they still work in baseball and just chose not to do a Hall of Fame article/column. I would be interested what percent fall into each category.

"Joe - your comparing people to players who IMHO are the lowest rung of potential Hall of Famers. Your baseline player must be higher, otherwise you end up with the mistakes being worse than Tony Perez (say Tino) and then you baseline becomes Tino... ect... "

I could have used Bill Terry, instead of Perez, same thing.

Matt if you think those are the lowest rung of HoFers, let me introduce you to:

Chief Bender, Jim Bottomley, Jack Chesbro, Earle Combs, Kiki Cuyler, Ray Dandridge, Leon Day, Dizzy Dean, Johnny Evers, Rick Ferrell, Lefty Gomez, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines, Harry Hooper, Waite Hoyt, Travis Jackson, Judy Johnson, Addie Joss, George Kell, George Kelly, Tony Lazzeri, Freddie Lindstrom, Heinie Manush, Rube Marquard, Bill Mazeroski, Tommy McCarthy, Herb Pennock, Sam Rice, Ray Schalk, Joe Tinker, Lloyd Waner, Hack Wilson and Ross Youngs. That's the bottom of the barrel, the mistakes no one would argue.

Tony Perez is nowhere near the worst 1B in the Hall of Fame, though he was probably a mistake. Use Bill Terry instead.

If you think Jenkins, Kiner and Ozzie are bottom of the Hall of Fame, you need a time machine, because that hasn't been the case since 1945.

"Joe - your comparing people to players who IMHO are the lowest rung of potential Hall of Famers. Your baseline player must be higher, otherwise you end up with the mistakes being worse than Tony Perez (say Tino) and then you baseline becomes Tino... ect... "

I could have used Bill Terry, instead of Perez, same thing.

Matt if you think those are the lowest rung of HoFers, let me introduce you to:

Chief Bender, Jim Bottomley, Jack Chesbro, Earle Combs, Kiki Cuyler, Ray Dandridge, Leon Day, Dizzy Dean, Johnny Evers, Rick Ferrell, Lefty Gomez, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines, Harry Hooper, Waite Hoyt, Travis Jackson, Judy Johnson, Addie Joss, George Kell, George Kelly, Tony Lazzeri, Freddie Lindstrom, Heinie Manush, Rube Marquard, Bill Mazeroski, Tommy McCarthy, Herb Pennock, Sam Rice, Ray Schalk, Joe Tinker, Lloyd Waner, Hack Wilson and Ross Youngs.

That's the bottom of the barrel, the mistakes no one would argue with (except for Dean).

Tony Perez is nowhere near the worst 1B in the Hall of Fame, though he was probably a mistake. Use Bill Terry instead.

If you think Jenkins, Kiner and Ozzie are bottom of the Hall of Fame, you need a time machine, because that hasn't been the case since 1945.

Sorry if this double posts, my first one isn't there.

Why would someone throw Dandridge into that mix, as the only Negro Leaguer? Is
there evidence that he certainly didn't dominate the Negro Leagues enough to
warrant induction? Given the spotty stats available, I'm not sure you can say
with confidence that he is in that "lower rung" group...

and is therefore challenged for intellect, we must unfortuately assert.

There are many ways to call people idiots.

I wonder if the sabermetric types' inability to get along with people who are less interested in stats and the low value they put on "soft" skills like the ability of getting along with people are connected?

Swedish:

Gee, you think?? ;)

Leon Day is in there too. So is Judy Johnson (who shares my birthday, so I wish he wasn't a mistake). Negro Leaguers aren't immune to mistakes.

I've also got a list of 7 or 8 Negro Leaguers at least that should be in but aren't. But that wasn't the question there.

All:

I am being called away to assist elsewhere. Do not interpret a lack of an immediate response as disinterest.

I will address any and all inquiries at my next available opportunity.

Congratulations to Bruce Sutter. It was very nice to see that a person who changed the face of baseball in two fundamental ways was given a distinction that most players hold the highest. Perhaps, if it was not for Sutter, the split-finger fastball would have still found itself into major league baseball. Nevertheless, there should be little doubt that his dominance and artistry with that pitch at less accelerated its adoption, and baseball has been a better game as a result. Perhaps, if it was not for Sutter, major league managers would still have discovered more optimum ways to utilize their pitchers. Nevertheless, there should be little doubt that his dominance as a closer hastened the advent of the next step in bullpen utilization. Not only is baseball a better game for that change; pitchers as a class can enjoy better career longevity.

During his pre-Braves career, no one was more feared than Sutter. That split finger pitch was unhittable when he was on. People that saw him play can attest to his sheer dominance. If he had been around for the next advent in reliever usage (post-Eck) we may have even been treated to a longer and more dominant run.

I hope he is enjoying the evening. I'll tip a nice frosty brew the way of Sutter. This must be exhilarating. In his first year, he must have thought the mountain was too high to climb. That a dominant reliever would not be recognized as among the best in the game. And he wasn't looking at the conditions ripe for overcoming that hurdle. There was no major media market behind his campaign. No barage of kids touting his stat line over his playing legacy. He had to just hope people would remember what he did for the game.

And he won't have to share the stage with mediocre talents that were voted in during a soft year. His induction won't be tarnished in the "what the hell class"

So a tip of the cap, Bruce. Enjoy your rightful place among baseball's immortals.

John, we've done a lot of research at the Hall of Merit and elected over 20 Negro Leaguers. Those 3 aren't in the mix and aren't close. I'm confident they are clear mistakes, until someone proves to me they aren't.

There are many ways to call people idiots.

I wonder if the sabermetric types' inability to get along with people who are less interested in stats and the low value they put on "soft" skills like the ability of getting along with people are connected?

Yes, but under the Terms of Use of the site, you are allowed to call someone an idiot if they don't follow sabermetric dogma. However, if you were to point out the obvious differences between Sutter and Gossage, like Cy Young awards and Rolaids relief awards, and wonder what it is that people don't understand, then you are an uncivil troll.

That is just "Baseball Primer: Baseball for Saberists"

During his pre-Braves career, no one was more feared than Sutter.

I'll grant that I watched more AL than NL growing up, but I always had the impression that Gossage was the most feared pitcher in those days. To some extent, Sutter might be helped here by having only been on one postseason team (and excelling); Goose was even greater at his peak, but there was that pesky George Brett moment in 1980.

Seriously, BL, I know you're tweaking the folks here who disagree with you about usage patterns, but I have a hard time arguing for Sutter and not Gossage--and, yes, I saw them both.

HW, here's my problem with your very eloquent defense of the HOF voters, for their love of the game, seriousness of purpose, and right to have a perspective that may not always/often/more than once in a blue moon match up with that of a lot of Primates. I'd be more inclined to credit those things in support of how they vote on the HOF ballot if those qualities produced quality coverage of baseball generally. I mean, the guys who vote are the same ones who cover baseball in the local papers, TSN, SI, ESPN, USA Today, etc., etc.

Instead, too often we get shallow cliches. We get a knee-jerk rejection of perspectives of the game that don't match their preconceived notions (how many times do we have to read saber-types dismissed as geeks who don't actually watch the game?). We get coverage that either attacks for the sake of a headline, poorly sourced rumors of trades that are spread just so tabloids can be sold, and homerism.

I'm with you to the degree you argue we shouldn't dismiss the perspective on the game that is different from ours -- any more than the traditionalist should dismiss the stat revolution (which they do way too often, as you well know). And they certainly shouldn't have their ballots taken away because -- horrors! -- they see things differently. But I'm also not going to assume that their love of baseball makes them right.

And WHATEVER their evaluation methodology it has NO LESS merit than any other. It is simply DIFFERENT.

That is complete ########. Every "evaluation methodology" is not equal in merit.

Just because members of the BBWAA follow baseball for a living does not mean that the guy who, after careful deliberation, decided that Walt Weiss deserved an HoF vote, should be accorded the same respect as someone who makes a lick of sense.

I could have used Bill Terry, instead of Perez, same thing.

Fine, use Bill Terry, Tony Perez or Mazeroski. By that line of thinking, everyone who didn't vote for Walt Weiss should "have his vote taken away." Then you could just compare everyones WARP factor, and claim your biases are "the most objective take" on the Hall of Fame issue. Anyone that disagreed would just be an idiot. If they disagreed they would be uncivil. If they advocated, you could have Furtado send them an email before "taking more drastic action."

Then maybe when you call Blyleven or Grich and tell them they made the Hall of Merit they will break down and cry like Sutter did when he heard the news he made the Hall of Fame. Because at that point, there won't be anybody left to honor the people they saw play the game. There won't be anybody left to appreciate what Sutter did for major league baseball because his context adjusted third order DIPS wasn't enough to get him to the right row of the spreadsheet.

MVP awards, Cy Young awards and the HoF are wonderful things. They allow history to mark and understand those people that were perceived and acknowledged as great to be recorded for posterity. I'm glad they exist. I'm glad they are voted on by those who make a career out of reporting and archiving what's great about this pasttime. I'm glad that the organization moves to recognize merit beyond the stat line; that they are absolutely not constrained by past decisions. I hope the sport always contains such accolades. And when people don't like those choices, they should do exactly what the saberists did, Start their own awards. They just shouldn't get upset if players care more about the other awards, the ones voted on by the writers, more than those given by those that peruse the spreadsheets. You don't have to put Sutter in your Hall of Merit; you can put in Bobby Grinch or Jack Cust; that's your award site, do without what you wish. But people aren't idiots if they honor different players than you.

BL, I agree with your first paragraph, and its quite strong critique of those who call others who disagree with them -- who take a different perspective in evaluating players (including, but not limited to, the HOF) -- "idiots."

But don't you do pretty much the same when you pivot into YOUR critique of the people who disagree with YOU (and the HOF voters) on Sutter? They're not idiots, but they base their evaluation on "his context adjusted third order DIPS [being not] enough to get him to the right row of the spreadsheet." Isn't that pretty much the equivalent of calling the BBWAA idiots because they voted FOR Sutter?

Can't we all just get along, respect different perspectives and argue the merits? I think the BBWAA got this one wrong; I think Gossage is more qualified, was a greater pitcher, than Sutter. As I said upthread, no one should have their ballot taken away. But it doesn't mean they can't have missed the mark in not voting for Alan Trammell -- IMHO, they did.

So there you go.

nstead, too often we get shallow cliches. We get a knee-jerk rejection of perspectives of the game that don't match their preconceived notions (how many times do we have to read saber-types dismissed as geeks who don't actually watch the game?). We get coverage that either attacks for the sake of a headline, poorly sourced rumors of trades that are spread just so tabloids can be sold, and homerism.

Sam, I think that is a little harsh. These guys have to produce original content multiple times per week. They can't just write, "I don't care if Barry used steroids, I just to like to watch him play." for three columns a week. They can't just compare WARP factor three times a week. Moreover, there readers demand the inside information, the latest rumors, etc. And as for homerism, I mean no disrespect, but if you were not allowed to root for the Mets, who prolific do you think your post count would be on this forum.

These people fill a need and look at baseball from all angles: human, statistical, charimatic, business, etc. They take more abuse for their job then backlasher does for his posts or Kenny Williams does for his job. And maybe, just maybe, they may know a thing or two the SAT and spreadsheet brigade doesn't know. I know you are a fair person, I hope you see this too.

I think its time that we all give a great big thank you to the sportswriters for the jobs they do. Next time you see a sportswriter, I think you should give them a great big ole kiss on the cheek and say "thank you for enriching my life."

How many Hall of Famers don't have 10 above average seasons? Even short career guys like Koufax and Puckett do.

Seriously, BL, I know you're tweaking the folks here who disagree with you about usage patterns, but I have a hard time arguing for Sutter and not Gossage--and, yes, I saw them both.

I have no problem if Gossage is elected. I think he was feared during the time he was a closer. I do think Sutter was more feared during his run. But the difference between Sutter and Gossage is:

(1) 1 Cy Young Award
(2) Multiple Rolaids Relief Awards
(3) Innovator (if not inventor) of the SF Fastball
(4) Archetype for the modern closer

I can see someone choosing Sutter over Gossage for that reason. And based on the vote, we are only talking about 10% of the people who even distinguish the two.

These people fill a need and look at baseball from all angles: human, statistical, charimatic, business, etc. They take more abuse for their job then backlasher does for his posts or Kenny Williams does for his job. And maybe, just maybe, they may know a thing or two the SAT and spreadsheet brigade doesn't know. I know you are a fair person, I hope you see this too.

I think there is a huge, wide range. I think some of them are earnest, solid pros who do the best job they can, and often do a very good job indeed. They try to bring fresh perspectives, insight into the players and the game, and fight the staleness of the game story format and the thrice weekly column. And those are the very ones who also probably take the HOF voting seriously and do a job on it worthy of respect.

Then there are those who are petty, repetitive, trot out their own biases and just pour out venom. Their grudges against players and managers and other writers they don't like into their writing, and wouldn't recognize an objective sentence if Wile E. Coyote dropped one on them tied to an anvil. And those guys undoubtedly carry those same grudges, and petty biases, into their HOF voting.

So they're a mixed bag. I don't know the proportion, and I don't know what motivated the voters in their view of Trammell, or Gossage, or Blyleven, or Sutter. I can only express my view of the merits of what they did, which I can't judge either because I respect/admire them, or because I don't. To the extent HW has more direct knowledge of enough of the writers and their work ethic, character, and approach, then maybe he can take that into account in assessing the outcome. I can't. I think they got this ballot wrong.

But don't you do pretty much the same when you pivot into YOUR critique of the people who disagree with YOU (and the HOF voters) on Sutter? They're not idiots, but they base their evaluation on "his context adjusted third order DIPS [being not] enough to get him to the right row of the spreadsheet." Isn't that pretty much the equivalent of calling the BBWAA idiots because they voted FOR Sutter?

No, I don't think it is. I've gone on record saying that its not a travesty for many of the players who are currently on the ballot to be elected. I've said that about Blyleven. I said it about Gossage before I read your post. I think the same would be true for others like Dawson and Rice. I'd have a hard time understanding the Hal Morris campaign, but I guess I'd even listen to that as well.

I don't disparage someone for thinking that Blyleven was as good as Perry. He wasn't by my take, by the sportswriters take, and most any meaningful comparison, but they are entitled to that opinion. I do take umbrage when people for deciding to tune out, turn off, and blast out at everyone who disagrees with their take; who insult rather than discuss; and then who whine like little babies if anybody disagrees with them. I think that is very distinguishable.

They are free to have their own awards of distinction. Heck, one of the principals at the HOM is one of my favorite posters (although his name escapes me at the moment). But I think its odd that not only do some want to insult the writers, not only do they want to pretend they have the truth with "most objective takes"; they want to punish the writers for not thinking like they do. It surprises me little that its one of the original keymasters of the site who thinks this way, even if he didn't put on his Professor Hat to post.

Rolaids relief awards

Dude, Corporate Product Placement is not something to be proud of. Like a Rawlings Gold Glove is at least RELEVANT because they baseball equipment, but ROLAIDS? C'mon.


I think he was feared during the time he was a closer.

So is there a FEAR FACTOR?

Ok I'll just hide now.

(1) 1 Cy Young Award
(2) Multiple Rolaids Relief Awards
(3) Innovator (if not inventor) of the SF Fastball
(4) Archetype for the modern closer

I coudl live with all those.

I want Tommy John in the hall. He's got pretty counting stats, he was part of the "Ulnar Collateral Ligament" surgery revolution if you will, and he's the archetype for the Modern Above-League-Average Inning-Eating Lefty Soft Tosser.

So a tip of the cap

If you get to tip the cap, the rest of us get to wag the finger.

Then there are those who are petty, repetitive, trot out their own biases and just pour out venom. Their grudges against players and managers and other writers they don't like into their writing, and wouldn't recognize an objective sentence if Wile E. Coyote dropped one on them tied to an anvil. And those guys undoubtedly carry those same grudges, and petty biases, into their HOF voting.

So you don't like Neyer either?

So they're a mixed bag. I don't know the proportion, and I don't know what motivated the voters in their view of Trammell, or Gossage, or Blyleven, or Sutter. I can only express my view of the merits of what they did, which I can't judge either because I respect/admire them, or because I don't. To the extent HW has more direct knowledge of enough of the writers and their work ethic, character, and approach, then maybe he can take that into account in assessing the outcome. I can't. I think they got this ballot wrong.

And that is fair. I don't think I've ever disparaged you for your opinion. I think its healthy to have these forums. I imagine some SWs read these types of exchanges and even change their votes as a result. And I'm not going to try and shut down everyone who wants to defame the entire class (although I wonder where some people are to say "They are all individuals, talk about each one, bar bar bar, blog blog blog"). But I'm happy for Sutter. I'd have been happy for Dawson and Rice if they had gotten a few more votes. I respect your advocacy for Trammell. I don't think you are an idiot for thinking that way.

This election is an absolute crime against humanity the likes of which man has not witnessed since World War II. Say what you want about Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, but none of these men EVER voted for Sutter for the Hall of Fame.

I'll definitely remember to kiss Bill Placshke or Skip Bayless next time I see one of them...

During his pre-Braves career, no one was more feared than Sutter.

I'll grant that I watched more AL than NL growing up, but I always had the impression that Gossage was the most feared pitcher in those days.

Depends on which branch of the Fear River you're talking about.

If it's "I fear I'm going to be embarrassed by swinging at a pitch that then bounces twice and hits me in the nuts," it's Sutter.

If it's "I fear my funeral may be only a minute away," it's Gossage.

I think Gossage would have been the better choice, for several reasons (mainly since he was more than a one-inning wizard), but Sutter's selection doesn't particularly offend me. I do agree with the handful of people here that Trammell and Whitaker are worthy candidates.

After doing a peruing of the candidates, ON TEH RECORD, my ballot:

Blyleven, Sutter, Gossage, Trammell, Dawson, and John. Maybe Jack Morris.

I'm a big hall guy.

I must be in a tiny minority to not be bothered by the Hal Morris/Jim Deshaies type votes. These players clearly don't belong in the Hall and I doubt that they think they do either, but they were guys who had some good years and for them it's a nice day to have someone remember them and their contributions. As long as it's done by just a few beat writers that covered the player, and as long as this act doesn't prevent the writer from voting for qualfied players, I don't see the harm.

I want Tommy John in the hall. He's got pretty counting stats, he was part of the "Ulnar Collateral Ligament" surgery revolution if you will, and he's the archetype for the Modern Above-League-Average Inning-Eating Lefty Soft Tosser.

Wok, I could honestly see Frank Jobe being recognized by the Hall for that surgery. And IIRC, John was almost out of baseball a couple of times and was talked into unretiring by a team, because they needed the "Modern Above-League-Average Inning-Eating Lefty Soft Tosser". Or as analysts called it in the day "a left-handed starter that can throw strikes"

By many of the arguments for Blyleven, a case can be made for TJ just on his accumulated record alone. I have little doubt that TJ is a person that is an exemplar for longer careers and perhaps even pain-free and healthy careers. I think TJ deserves distinction. I don't think I'd vote for him on my HoF ballot because I don't think his impact on those innovations was as pervasive as Sutter, and he was never as dominant as Sutter during his peak.

And while I appreciate the humor and sarcasm, I nevertheless don't think the statement isn't without independent merit.

And while I appreciate the humor and sarcasm, I nevertheless don't think the statement isn't without independent merit.

I was semi-serious. I want to see Tommy John in the hall. Don't they have a selection for players taht are "pioneers of the game"?

I would LOVE to see Jobe and John go in the Hall. Tommy John as a PITCHER, probably can't make it. Tommy John with his pitching career AND his "work" if you will for future pitchers deserves to be in the hall.

The only other guy who has a medical term named after him is in the hall!

Or as analysts called it in the day "a left-handed starter that can throw strikes"


If we put John in the hall, we gotta do John AND Jobe together and recognize the pioneer thing. I like Jamie Moyer, I recognize teh value of David Wells, but I do not want to see those two in the HOF

Just because members of the BBWAA follow baseball for a living does not mean that the guy who, after careful deliberation, decided that Walt Weiss deserved an HoF vote, should be accorded the same respect as someone who makes a lick of sense.

Oh come on, he's just doing giving him a "shout out" vote, which I don't mind, because there aren't going to be 400 people giving shout-outs to Weiss or someone like him, and no harm done. In fact, I think this is a good thing -- a good writer could (should?) milk a week's worth of excellent columns reminiscing on the good not great players like Weiss. Those are the guys that are the bread and butter of baseball history.

When I filled out my ballot here, I put John Wetteland on it. Now, I don't think John Wetteland is a HOFer, but I wanted to give him a shout out because he was an damn fine player -- more than he usually gets credit for.

Of all the pitchers on the HOF ballot, the guy I would want to have in there with the game on the line isn't Sutter, or Blyleven, or Gossage, or Lee Smith, or even Jack "one game in October" Morris. It's John Wetteland: John "148 ERA+" Wetteland; John "never a less than excellent season as a closer" Wetteland; John "Mo Rivera set me up" Wetteland; John "WS MVP" Wetteland. And so he gets a shout out.

"shout out"

I believe African Americans refer to this inconsequential gesture of recognizing peers as "Props"

Isn't it true that every player (or almost every player) that's crossed 50 percent in the BBWAA voting has eventually been inducted?

I think the only exception is Gil Hodges, and that may be rectified in a future VC vote as he's been the top vote-getter the past 2 elections.

Intertwining two of the stories of the last 24-48 hours:

Here [Sutter] retired, afforded a wonderful life of watching his sons' baseball games and helping build the program at Harrison High. He'll soon be moving a little north to a new home on Red Top Mountain. Mountaintops seem to suit him these days.

As word spread, the party grew. One son, Josh, left his manager's job with Dominos in Dallas, Ga., to join him at home. Another, Ben, a teacher and coach at Roswell High, let himself out early to celebrate. Soon, former Harrison star Corey Patterson, traded from the Cubs to Baltimore Monday, stopped by the house with five new white baseballs on which Sutter could practice his new autograph. It now reads:

"Bruce Sutter.
"HOF."
"I don't think I'll ever get tired of doing that," he said.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution (RR)

Oh come on, he's just doing giving him a "shout out" vote

Fine, forget the Walt Weiss guy. The fact is, some of the HOF voters are using methods of less merit than they could be. Some ballots are so silly as to actually be indefensible.

Heck, one of the principals at the HOM is one of my favorite posters (although his name escapes me at the moment).

That was pretty funny.

I hope he is enjoying the evening. I'll tip a nice frosty brew the way of Sutter. This must be exhilarating.

I heard Sutter interviewed on XM today. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy....I'm happy for him.

What needs to be backed up? Here is the exchange:

Can't say I'm surprised you can't back up your stupid statement. Admit it, you didn't have a good response to my argument, so you resorted to being an insulting prick.

Random Bruce Sutter info:

Against HoFrs & HoF quality hitters (McCovey, Gwynn, Rose, Schmidt, Carter, O Smith, Stargell, Perez, Sandberg, Morgan, Winfield, Bench, Brock):

Sutter held them to 272/342/465 AVG/OBP/SLG in 301 ABs. He owned Bench, Perez, Ozzie (not so difficult there), Schmidt, & Rose. None of those guys could muster as much as a .240 AVG against him except Rose. But Rose only hit singles and ended up with an OPS of 606. Schmidt's 706 OPS was tops in that group. But he got his butt handed to him by Carter (1075 OPS), Winfield (1106 OPS), & especially Ryno (1529 OPS).

Most plate appearances - Andre Dawson, 54.

Best OPS (minimum 20 PA): Ryne Sandberg with his 529. Pedro Guerrero was second at 1200, so that's a heckuva lead by Sandberg. Lowest OPS for eligible hitter - Hubie Brooks at 166. Ouch.

Guerrero had the best average (.450). John Stearns & Frank Taveras also broke .400 against him. Huh. Hubie was down at .083.

Most AB without a hit off of him? Bob Boone: 0-for-14.

Sandberg had the best slugging percentage - an epic 1.100. Yea, that's pretty good. The legendary Steve Henderson's second at .750.

Keith Hernandez (.524) and Pedro Guerrero (.500) had the best OBP. Hubie's dead last among eligible batters in everything.

Most hits: Gary Carter: 16

Most doubles: tie between Dawson, Winfield, Schmidt, John Stearns & of course Gary Redus with 3. Keith Hernandez & Darrell Evans both hit two triples off him. (Darrell Evans? With speed?)

Most Homers: Ryno, 4.

Most AB, no extra base hitters: Gary Mathews 36. Then Pete Rose, 33.

Most walks: Gary Carter, 8. Considering how much success Carter had against him, that's probably a good idea.

Most IWW: Dave Parker, Willie Stargell, and Jack Clark all got four.

Most times K'd: Dawson 13. Then Ron Cey, 12 & Tony Scott at 11.

He only plunked 8 batters, none more than once. Chris Brown, Pete Rose, Bill Russell, Ron Cey, Tim Flannery, Bill Madlock, Jim Morrison, & Jerry Morales were the lucky recepients.

Doug Flynn & Greg Gross had the most sac hits against him at 3 each.

Luzinski's the only man to get 2 SF off him.

He was a .263 lifetime hitter in July. He was 1-for-3 with the bases loaded. A clutch hitter obviously.

He owned Pennsylvania. He had a lifetime ERA of 1.84 against Pitt & Philly. Then again over 20% of the runs he allowed against the Phils was unearned.

I must be in a tiny minority to not be bothered by the Hal Morris/Jim Deshaies type votes.

I don't mind either. As long as there's the 75% rule, these votes are as harmless as anything.

Albert Belle received less than a tenth as much of the vote than Kirby Puckett. What does this tell us?

1. That was some over-the-wall catch in 1991, huh?
2. A degenerative eye beats a degenerative hip.
3. Kirby's smile lit up a room (though it had yet to light up a restaurant bathroom).
4. Many voters have a secret Galahad crush on Hannah Storm.
5. Sportswriters would give Hello Kitty 82% of the vote if they could.

I was semi-serious. I want to see Tommy John in the hall. Don't they have a selection for players taht are "pioneers of the game"?

Maybe I'm missing someting, but unless Tommy John is performing all those surgeries himself I'm still not convinced he deserves in.

Maybe I'm missing someting, but unless Tommy John is performing all those surgeries himself I'm still not convinced he deserves in.

He was the first one to get it.

Hey listen, the guys coming up with the new stuff is admirable... the guys volunteering to test it on themselves?

The real heroes.

He COULD have lost use of his hand for the rest of his life.

5. Sportswriters would give Hello Kitty 82% of the vote if they could.

I'm just going to break my parole for a minute...

What, you don't like Asian people?

J/k

That's the bottom of the barrel, the mistakes no one would argue with (except for Dean).

I'm not convinced Johnny Evers is a mistake at all. 106 career OPS+, an MVP and probably hellacious D (the Cubs of his time were posting staff ERA+ of 150, and it wasn't because they were all strikeout guys).

I also think Perez is worse than Terry.

Oh man, I never noticed how short Evers' career was. Nevermind.

Still think Perez is worse than Terry though.

Oh man, I never noticed how short Evers' career was. Nevermind.

The man played from age 21 to age 48!! How could that be "short"?! :)

I'm not sure Tony Perez is such an awful HOFer. I know he was elected for bad reasons, but he had a legitimate all-star prime, and was an above-average hitter until age 40. Yes, he was a first baseman, where you've supposedly got be be a really great hitter; no one would argue if he was a second baseman or a center fielder. But still, there are a lot of worse HOFers than Perez. Terry, for one.

My biggest HOF beef is Mazeroski. .299 career OBP? C'mon

Tony Perez? That's a BBWAA selection (and an awful one). How is Will Clark not a better player than him.

I agree Perez was a bad selection, but the differences are:

about 800 gp and 2600 PA -- that's a lot.
also about 600 hits, 100 HR and 400 RBI -- also a lot.
Clark wins the black ink battle (though his 13 is not impressive), Perez the grey ink (a bit short of the average HOFer) and they're about equal in the HOF monitor and standards.

It's just hard to make it as a short-career 1B ... as it probably should be. The last short-career 1B elected by the writers was Greenberg in 56 (and Clark was Yaz compared to Greenberg, but Greenberg did have ww2 as an excuse). Clark deserved to survive the first ballot, but he's not close to a deserving candidate.

Ferguson Jenkins? How is Blyleven not his equal?

7 20-win seasons
1 CYA
5 top 3 CYA finishes (17th all time in CYA shares fwiw)
lower WHIP, better K/BB ratio

Rollie Fingers? How is Gossage not better?

I got nothing. But on Sutter vs. Gossage -- folks keep bringing up Gossage's multi-inning outings while overlooking Sutter's. Dropping Gossage's season as a starter, he average 1.63 IP per game; Sutter averaged 1.58. Franks supposedly turned him into a "modern closer" in 1979 ... when he threw 101 IP in 62 appearances (1.63 IP per appearance), basically exactly what he did in 77 and 78 (and 1980 and 1981). He was never substantially below 1.5 IP/game until age 33 when the injuries had destroyed it all anyway.

Now Gossage definitely had some seasons Sutter couldn't match, averaging over 2 IP per appearance, but during the rest of their peaks, they were used similarly, and then after 33, Gossage wasn't used multiple innings very often. Gossage was used more heavily in their primes, but Sutter was never primarily a 1-inning only reliever.

Still, as a Cub fan, I loved Sutter but Gossage scared the bejeezus out of me and was the better pitcher. But if "closers" are gonna be in the HOF (and clearly they are) then Sutter absolutely belongs. Gossage belongs more, but that doesn't take away from Sutter's worthiness.

Don't need to just crunch numbers, I'm just saying look at the other guys that have been voted in, and make that your standard.

That assumes an absolute standard. From a statistical measurement perspective, HOF voting is basically a giant multi-rater problem. And this is exactly how multi-rater systems are supposed to work. At one end, you have guys that pretty much everyone agrees are HOFers. At another end, you have guys that pretty much everyone agrees aren't. And in the middle, you have a mess, but you rank folks based on their percentage of the vote. Such systems tend to work quite well, but by their very nature, they create borderline cases that won't make sense from an absolutist perspective.

Does it "make sense" that Jenkins, Perry, Sutton, Roberts are in while Blyleven, John, and Kaat are out? Not from an absolutist perspective. But in a multi-rater system, it's not at all suprising that about half these guys are in and half out.

And of course that's just looking at performance.

Fine, forget the Walt Weiss guy. The fact is, some of the HOF voters are using methods of less merit than they could be. Some ballots are so silly as to actually be indefensible.

I don't necessarily agree. There may be examples of writers that do not take their vote seriously, but I haven't seen a column that indicates this sentiment. If someone were taking a payoff for a vote, or if someone was not providing any oversight from the recommendations of another, e.g. their bartender, a case could be made for possible disenfranchisement.

The problem is this sentiment is usually coming from the crowd that wants to judge players on WARP factor, or someother statistical measure alone. If a sportswriter did that (and some might) there may be other people that call for their disenfranchisement.

Over 60% of the voters are voting for the much maligned Dawson and Rice. Approximately half the voters don't agree with the selection of sabe-faves like Blyleven.

The blank ballots have been discussed, the shout out votes have been discussed. They are all defensible.

The method for voting has a decent, but not perfect, reliability test. You must have been a BBWAA member for 10 years. This includes those persons that are committed to their craft and career for covering baseball. It excludes those that just have remote contact with the game, it doesn't include everyone who has a license of Excel. There are other awards of distinction these people can vote for: like the ESPN fans poll or the Hall of Merit.

I will not agree with every selection or every exclusion, but that does not mean I think the body, or any specific individual, should be punished. Any movement to have statistical analysis included more prominently in baseball is going to be hurt when its practitioners whine about disenfranchisement every time things don't go their way.

The blank ballots have been discussed, the shout out votes have been discussed.

I actually have no problem with the shout-out votes. Some players aren't good enough, but they DO deserve a little recognition for their playing career and being decent human beings.

One rule I do hope to add to the HOF voting rules: If a player has been convicted of a crime, he should be ineligible. If a player in the hall commited a crime AFTER he has been elected, he is automatically kicked out.

Blank ballots are stupid, sorry.

Say what you want about Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, but none of these men EVER voted for Sutter for the Hall of Fame

I dunno. Mao said that "A good comrade is one who is more eager to go where the difficulties are greater," which has been taken by many commentators to refer to the high-leverage situations that modern closers face.

Any movement to have statistical analysis included more prominently in baseball is going to be hurt when its practitioners whine about disenfranchisement every time things don't go their way.

Performance analysis is already far more prominent in baseball than it was when Herman Franks managed the Cubs. However, most of the perfomance analysts are disenfranchised, and are unlikely to be enfranchised in the near future. Your average sports fan, who reads the output of the BBWAA members, does not regard baseball as an intellectual exercise. This is not going to change, sports fandom is always going to be essentially emotional. So it doesn't matter whether performance analysts whine about Hall elections or not, except that those who hang out here and disagree with some of them get to feel the lash of their tempers. To wit:

Blank ballots are stupid, sorry.

They are not. If instead one had to fill out a ballot that listed the names and had a yes/no check box next to each one, would that be stupid? I guess you'll say yes, but that is the effect of a blank ballot. The HoF election is a yes/no ballot, and a blank ballot is one with all noes.

They are not. If instead one had to fill out a ballot that listed the names and had a yes/no check box next to each one, would that be stupid? I guess you'll say yes, but that is the effect of a blank ballot. The HoF election is a yes/no ballot, and a blank ballot is one with all noes.

How can there be a year where NO players were worthy of voting in?

I know there are strong classes and weak classes, but there is no such thing as an era so weak that NO players are worthy for the hall.

Btw, how do they vote in the "otehr people" for the Hall? i've always wondered about that. Because for Hockey there's a "Braodcasters" and "Builders" section.

How can there be a year where NO players were worthy of voting in?


The thing is, that is your opinion. Your only evidence seems to be that on every ballot there is someone who eventually gets in. But that is circular reasoning. If you go into it saying that every ballot contains someone worthy, then of course every ballot will have someone who eventually gets elected. You set up the system to favor election.

What you are saying, in effect, is that someone who disagrees with you on the threshold of worthiness is stupid. Which is an arrogantly irritating thing to keep saying.

I would have submitted a blank ballot this year. Sutter sounds like a great guy and I'm happy for him. But I'm not sold he is a worthy HOFer. That hasn't changed now that he is in. The same is true of the others on this years ballot. I wouldn't be outraged at the election of several of them, including Sutter, but for my vote, none should go in. That is my vote. If enough of my fellow voters disagreed, I would be wrong to say that they're stupid, just as they (and, specifically, you) are wrong to say I'm stupid for my vote.

Btw, how do they vote in the "other people" for the Hall? i've always wondered about that. Because for Hockey there's a "Braodcasters" and "Builders" section.

If you go the HOF website they explain that the writers and broadcasters are automatically selected based on their age and number of grandchildren. There is no vote per se.

there is no such thing as an era so weak that NO players are worthy for the hall

Sure, but as I'll explain in a second ...