And Blyleven was solid, if not outstanding, in 1979 and 1987, the two years that his teams happened to win world championships. He also pitched very well in both of those postseasons.

How does 1988 get mentioned here, while 1979 and '87, two far more significant years, are treated like afterthoughts?

That is an interesting new criteria. I don't think I've ever seen that expressed before. I'm pretty numb to all the dumb things people come up with to defend their silly positions, but this one actually got me to laugh and hold a contorted look on my face for a full eight seconds.

He needs an excuse not to vote for him. He found another one.

WOW---He's going to hold out Blyleven because of his sub-par performance in his NINETEENTH BIG-LEAGUE SEASON????

And Blyleven's "worst" years are still better than most pitchers' "good" years: in the 18 season in which he qualified for the ERA title, only three times did he have an ERA+ below 109---and one of those was an ERA+ of 107 while leading the AL in innings pitched, which sounds kind of like a typical season for Jack Morris.

From TFA:

The ballot almost didn’t make it. I was talking on the telephone to a friend, also a baseball writer, about three hours before midnight on New Year’s Eve when I realized that I hadn’t submitted my Hall of Fame ballot. The deadline was upon me.

I had already put an X next to Jack Morris’ name, but I still had to decide on five other players – two repeat candidates, Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven, and three first-timers, Barry Larkin, Roberto Alomar and Edgar Martinez.(emphasis added)

Now go back in time almost a month ago...

PITCHER OVERDUE FOR HALL
By Murray Chass
December 5, 2009

The Hall of Fame ballot came in the mail the other day so this can be considered my now annual elect-Jack-Morris-already column. ... Morris, of course, will be marked on my ballot, but at this point, about four weeks before the voting deadline, I haven’t decided if anyone will join him. I like working on deadline." (emphasis added)

Apparently so. It's a good thing his friend made the wake-up call. So nice to see how seriously Chass takes his privilege to vote. What a joke.

I was talking on the telephone to a friend, also a baseball writer, about three hours before midnight on New Year’s Eve when I realized that I hadn’t submitted my Hall of Fame ballot.

bobm beat me to it, but this is an email-to-the-writer worthy offense. Just disgusting.

The ballot almost didn’t make it.

Too bad that it did.

In 1993, Jack Morris was even worse, 7-12 with a 6.19 ERA, for a 95-67 team. That team went on to win the World Series without Morris pitching a single inning in the postseason.

three hours before midnight on New Year’s Eve

So ... at 9:00?

Good to see that Murray Chass treats his HOF ballot like I treated my philosophy essays.

In 1993, Jack Morris was even worse, 7-12 with a 6.19 ERA, for a 95-67 team. That team went on to win the World Series without Morris pitching a single inning in the postseason.

Thank Goodness for that; the previous season he also pitched for the World Series winners and punched up an 8.44 ERA in those world series, getting tagged with the only 2 losses the team ... uh ... lost.

Someone mentioned last week that many, if not all, of these bizarre excuses to leave Blyleven off the ballot really mean that the voter just dislikes Bert but can't creditably say that in print. So...

Bert Blyleven was 37 years old in 1988. Way to cheery pick your years there, Murray. But what the hell, I understand. There's no reason to look at the 16 freakin' years prior to 1988 where Blyleven threw over 4000 innings to the tune of a 3.14 ERA, with 3,151 strikeouts. None of that's important!

I will now light myself on fire.

This guy has a Hall of Fame vote and my dog does not. Some how that doesn't seem right. My dog wouldn't remember to send it in which would be better than this ballot.

How does 1988 get mentioned here, while 1979 and '87, two far more significant years, are treated like afterthoughts?

The World Champion 1987 Minnesota Twins had a losing record in regular-season games not started by Bert Blyleven (62-63). Actually, it's interesting, in both of Blyleven's World Championship seasons he made 37 starts in which his team went 23-14 (he was a combined 27-17 those seasons with 30 no-decisions). And in both cases, his team's winning percentage in games that Blyleven didn't start was worse than the second place team in his division (the '79 Expos and the '87 Royals). So, yeah, it's really not THAT difficult to build an argument that neither of those teams make the postseason without Blyleven.

For a few years Chass didn't have a HOF vote and it bugged the pissnoggles out of him. He would write up "what if" articles, I'd see his lumpy head on SNYES yaking up the HOF ballot...and how he doesn't care about voting. Then he hoodwinked poor Hal Bodley into voting for Jack Morris last year.

And yung pal Eric Anno chimes in...

The best example of that dichotomy came in 1988 when the Twins finished second with a 91-71 record while Blyleven had a 10-17 record and a 5.43 e.r.a.

Oh, Murray, Murray, Murray, Murray. Bless your ancient, aging, black heart. I know you try so hard, and it must be frustrating to be wrong so often.

I had an email exchange on Morris-Blyleven last year, that was very cordial, in which I painstakingly and respectfully responded to Chass's reasoning. Chass took the time to engage in a back and forth discussion. Bottom line, though, his mind is made up and it doesn't appear that anything is going to change it. This "new ammunition" he's armed himself with basically evidences that Chass has reduced himself to trying to search for evidence to support his pre-formed conclusion.

The World Champion 1987 Minnesota Twins had a losing record in regular-season games not started by Bert Blyleven (62-63). Actually, it's interesting, in both of Blyleven's World Championship seasons he made 37 starts in which his team went 23-14 (he was a combined 27-17 those seasons with 30 no-decisions). And in both cases, his team's winning percentage in games that Blyleven didn't start was worse than the second place team in his division (the '79 Expos and the '87 Royals). So, yeah, it's really not THAT difficult to build an argument that neither of those teams make the postseason without Blyleven.

Don't worry, Kiko. Murray is feverishly building an argument that shows that Bert was a bad luck charm in all of the games that he didn't start. He'll have that argument finished 2 minutes before next year's HOF deadline.

It's a matter of time before some writer says something like, "If Blyleven had such a great Hall-of-Fame career, then how come I'm not voting for him? Hmmm?"

bobm beat me to it, but this is an email-to-the-writer worthy offense.

It's an email-to-the-BBWAA worthy offense. They've started taking steps in the right direction, but they also must discipline their own when it's appropriate.

I also blame the writer who reminded Chass he needed to vote. Couldn't somebody have had better things to do on New Year's Eve than talk to Murray Chass?

Since when have bloggers been able to vote for the Hall of Fame???

I had an email exchange with Chass that was similar to the one referenced by RayDiPerna. It was more of a general exchange about the value of advanced stats in baseball analysis, along with my contention that they didn't take away any of the enjoyment of the game. He wrote back with a fairly lengthy email on the subject, and even though I didn't agree with his thoughts, I thought it was courteous of him to reply.

That said, it's sad that Chass didn't give the process the attention it deserves. I'd go so far as to say that the BBWAA should take voting privileges away from any writer who is foolish enough to admit to such carelessness.

Murray Chass makes me sad.

I'd go so far as to say that the BBWAA should take voting privileges away from any writer who is foolish enough to admit to such carelessness.

How exactly would you define such an offense? "Voters who wait till the last minute to make up their mind will lose their voting privileges." That would be a fun rule to enforce.

Will Carroll did the same thing with his Cy Young vote, didn't he? I don't remember if people around here were saying he should lose his right to vote, but maybe they were.

And Blyleven was solid, if not outstanding, in 1979 and 1987

1979 was the year Blyleven had 20 no-decisions in 37 starts, and I wrote this to SABR-L in 2004:

The thing that struck me about these 20 no-decisions is that Blyleven left with a lead only twice, while departing with a deficit nine times and in tie games nine other times (including a couple of cases where the Pirates tied the game as he was leaving for a pinch-hitter). Although Blyleven did tend to receive less run support in his starts than his teammates (receiving less-than-expected run support in 23 of 37 starts in 1979), poor run support was a hindrance in only about a third of his no-decisions; the rest of it was generally Blyleven's own inability to hold the opposition down. Looking at his pattern of runs allowed, my best estimate of his likely won-lost record, had the Pirates scored for him as they did for his teammates, would be about 14-11.

-- MWE

Will Carroll did the same thing with his Cy Young vote, didn't he? I don't remember if people around here were saying he should lose his right to vote, but maybe they were.

If I recall, he wasn't TOLD of his Cy Young vote until shortly before the deadline by the BBWAA President...so, it's not on Will.

How exactly would you define such an offense? "Voters who wait till the last minute to make up their mind will lose their voting privileges." That would be a fun rule to enforce.

Ideally retaining voting privileges, rather than losing them, would require justification. These are writers, so a coherent explanation of their thought processes shouldn't be onerous.

And I'm pretty sure I expressed unkind thoughts about Will Carroll's Cy Young vote.

"I don't like Bert Blyleven because I tried to get an interview with him in 1972 and he blew me off. Therefore, he doesn't get my Hall of Fame vote."

The thing that struck me about these 20 no-decisions is that Blyleven left with a lead only twice, while departing with a deficit nine times and in tie games nine other times (including a couple of cases where the Pirates tied the game as he was leaving for a pinch-hitter). Although Blyleven did tend to receive less run support in his starts than his teammates (receiving less-than-expected run support in 23 of 37 starts in 1979), poor run support was a hindrance in only about a third of his no-decisions; the rest of it was generally Blyleven's own inability to hold the opposition down. Looking at his pattern of runs allowed, my best estimate of his likely won-lost record, had the Pirates scored for him as they did for his teammates, would be about 14-11.

This paragraph doesn't give us enough information, though; you need to tell us how big the leads were that he was blowing. If he's getting poor run support, he may be getting smaller leads to protect, which of course are harder to protect.

This paragraph doesn't give us enough information, though; you need to tell us how big the leads were that he was blowing. If he's getting poor run support, he may be getting smaller leads to protect, which of course are harder to protect.

I wrote a long post about this on SABR-L in 2004, which is in the archives of that list if you are a SABR member.

-- MWE

Murray Chass: Bravely battling senile dementia since dinosaurs walked the ####### Earth.

Re: [23]

As noted in [25], Will Carroll did not do exactly the same thing, with respect to the deadline.

November 19, 2009
Voting for Real
NL Cy Young
by Will Carroll

As much as I agonized over the RotY ballot, my Cy Young ballot went quickly, mostly because I hadn't been informed that I was going to be voting for it. Jack O'Connell, the longtime secretary-treasurer of the BBWAA checked in with me about my ballot on the due date, giving me hours, not weeks to come to a decision. It wasn't hard for me. I wasn't flippant, but I knew who my votes were going to be. I made a quick check of the stat pages, a couple of calls to Joe Sheehan and John Perrotto, and then turned in my ballot.

(emphasis added)

Also, IMO Will Carroll gave <u>far</u> more detail and insight into his process than did Murray Chass, who merely tossed off a random stat or some notion of his enthusiasm or ambivalence.

I think it's a good piece. I agree with Alomar/Larkin. i also agree with Dawson's exclusion as well as others.


I'm of two minds on Blyleven, as obviously was Chass. I'd perhaps lean more toward his inclusion than exclusion, but it's a point that two reasonable adults could reasonably disagree on. Don't quite get the cause or the point of the smarm or vitriol.

Jack O'Connell, the longtime secretary-treasurer of the BBWAA checked in with me about my ballot on the due date, giving me hours, not weeks to come to a decision. It wasn't hard for me. I wasn't flippant, but I knew who my votes were going to be.

I stand corrected.

If you guys got a Hall of Fame ballot, how long do you think it would take most of you to fill it out?

[32]

I'm of two minds on Blyleven, as obviously was Chass. I'd perhaps lean more toward his inclusion than exclusion, but it's a point that two reasonable adults could reasonably disagree on. Don't quite get the cause or the point of the smarm or vitriol.

It's hard for me (and others on BBTF) to understand the rationale behind including Morris and excluding Blyleven. It baffles me that Chass would openly describe a decision making process that one could easily call "flippant." The smarm and vitriol IMO comes from Chass's disdain for quantitative evidence and metrics more advanced than wins (whether in making the case or Morris or in general (see: VORP) AND from his attendant reliance on anecdotal or qualitative evidence, e.g. Jack Morris' "old school grit."

[33]

If you guys got a Hall of Fame ballot, how long do you think it would take most of you to fill it out?

You're probably right in your implication that many people would fill out the ballot quickly, but there has been a ton of great debate on BBTF (and on other sites in support of Raines, Blyleven, etc.) about players' candidacies that has made people think and re-consider their positions.

On January 13, 2008, Chass wrote in the New York Times:

Hall of Fame voters are strange. To scrutinize their voting in the election that put Rich Gossage in the Hall of Fame last week, one would think the voters thought that the players on the ballot got better in retirement even though they had not added a hit or a shutout to their records.

Of the 14 repeat candidates, 12 received more votes this year than last. Mark McGwire had the same number each year, 128, and Harold Baines slipped to 28, from 29. But the dozen others improved their totals, led by Gossage, who added 78 votes, and Bert Blyleven, who gained 76.

This was not an unusual vote. It followed a pattern Hall of Fame voters have established over the years, having nothing to do with the careers of the candidates on the ballot but having everything to do with the candidates on the ballot.

Many of the voters, who are 10-year members of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America, base their votes on the presence of obvious inductees who are first-time candidates on the ballot. Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn were examples last year. They were elected, but no one else was.

But when the ballot doesn’t include obvious first-timers, like this year, holdover candidates benefit. Voters are more willing to vote for them even though their career production hasn’t changed.

A player who receives a high percentage of votes on the Ripken-Gwynn type of ballot but isn’t elected usually is elected the next year if there are no standouts to compete with, and others’ vote totals increase as well.

Jim Rice (46 more votes this year but still 16 short) and maybe Andre Dawson (49 more but 50 short) could benefit next year when the ballot will have only one obvious first-timer, Rickey Henderson. But their chances would be better if Henderson weren’t on the ballot. Jack Morris, whose career I dissected here last week, received 31 more votes, but his total of 233 remained less than 50 percent.

Murray Chass is the epitome of Emerson's "foolish consistency." Apparently, nobody should re-think or re-consider anything after the player in question has retired, never mind that the voting procedures call for eligible players to be retired 5 years.

In 1988, Bert Blyleven went 10-17 and a 5.43 ERA. The Twins finished 13 games behind the Oakland Athletics. If Blyleven had gone just 24-3 instead, the Twins would have finished ahead of the Athletics and won the AL Western Division Championship Trophy.

Instead, the Athletics won and advanced to the World Series, led by their two stars- Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. A nation of young baseball players watched the success of Canseco and McGwire and immediately ran out and began gobbling steroids.

If Bert Blyleven had been a better pitcher, nobody in baseball would have ever used steroids. I cannot in good conscience vote for him for the Hall of Fame.

That's just breathtaking. I dare anyone to top it.

It's an email-to-the-BBWAA worthy offense. They've started taking steps in the right direction, but they also must discipline their own when it's appropriate

How this man has a vote (and the guy who forgot Larkin was on the ballot, and the guy last year who forgot Rickey was on the ballot) and Vin Scully, Bill James, and Bob Costas (among others) doesn't, is a crime far greater than the DH, interleague, ASG tie, wild card, and steroids all put together.

This buffoon has a privilege that very, very few in the world have, that very, very many would kill to have, and he wipes his ass with it. And i don't mean his idiotic reasoning for his votes. I mean the fact that he's practically bragging about how he almost forgot to vote. Shameful. But, this is what happens when someone is given something of value that they didn't earn. We're not surprised when people trash public housing, why should we be surprised when an unqualified hack treats his voting privilege the same way.

If you guys got a Hall of Fame ballot, how long do you think it would take most of you to fill it out?

I'd say a couple of hours... unless I can count time spent previously learning and working on methods to analyze the candidates, time reading and participating in BTF threads about the candidates, and the like. Then it would be a little more.

Murray Chass is the epitome of Emerson's "foolish consistency." Apparently, nobody should re-think or re-consider anything after the player in question has retired, never mind that the voting procedures call for eligible players to be retired 5 years.

There's plenty enough wrong with Chass's reasoning to not make stuff up. For example, he writes in the excerpt:

I found Martinez the most difficult to decide. I probably came closer to voting for him than I had for any player I had not voted for. As a result, if he is not elected to the Hall this week, he gets an automatic rehearing from me for the next election.

And of course in the piece you quote, he's got a perfectly legit point. It is ridiculous that players can move from 25-30% to 75% ... or at least there is unless there's a lot more turnover in voters from year to year than I think. It either means a voter is not doing a serious job when "marginal" players first appear on the ballot or their standards are quite inconsistent from year to year. As you note, they've been retired for 5 years -- that's a lot of time for the voters to decide where the player ranks.

What new information really does come to light? Blyleven's case is still almost entirely based on 287 wins, nearly 5000 IP and 3700 Ks (and good postseason record). The negative case is still no CYAs (few votes at all), one 20-win season, 250 losses. The new information that has come to light has been fairly balanced between helping him (lousy run support, over 300 "support-neutral" wins) and hurting him (he still won fewer than he "should" have).

OK, sure ... for Steve Garvey we found out that he was a jackass who'd fathered 7000 kids so his climb came to a halt. Probably the same would have happened to Puckett if he hadn't been elected right away. Obviously PED revelations could impact the case of several players. But the performance doesn't change and about the only good reason for switching one's support for a player is if recent elections (e.g. Rice) change what a voter considers to be the borderline.

But voters are human and this is human nature. Give them a ballot with Ryan, Brett and Yount on it and others on the ballot pale in comparison; give them a ballot with maybe 3 marginal candidates on it and, rather than submit a ballot with nobody, most of them will tick off the best choices. Plus, clearly, whether they "should" or not, like other humans, voters have their favorites and they also establish various standards ("inner-circle", "first ballot", etc.) that will lead to some odd choices.

If I had an actual ballot, I don't think I'd ever fill out fewer than 10 names. Even if I didn't support some guys completely I'd want to be able to vote for them again. The 5% rule stinks, esp when combined with the "not a first ballot guy" garbage.

I'm of two minds on Blyleven, as obviously was Chass. I'd perhaps lean more toward his inclusion than exclusion, but it's a point that two reasonable adults could reasonably disagree on. Don't quite get the cause or the point of the smarm or vitriol.

While people can have different views on Blyleven, only one of those views isn't stupid. No, seriously, the vitriol is twofold:

1) While you can legitimately draw your Hall small enough to leave out Blyleven, you can't draw your Hall small enough to leave out Blyleven but include Morris. (Also, while you can draw your Hall small enough to leave out Blyleven, that Hall isn't Cooperstown.)
2) Chass's arguments are stupid. Really really stupid. The fact that a reasonable person can hold a position does not mean that all people holding that position are being reasonable. "He had some of his worst years when his team had good years." is not particularly true, nor is it a reasonable HOF criterion. Most importantly, it's strikingly ad hoc; you might as well hold up a sign saying, "I've already decided I won't vote for him; now I need to go find a reason."

As offensive as his almost forgetting to vote is, the ballot itself is just run-of-the-mill bad and not "light myself on fire" bad. He's got Larkin on there, which puts him ahead of many voters in my book, and other than Morris I don't think he voted for anyone unqualified.

Yeah, the reasons for excluding Blyleven are frustrating, but if you lit yourself on fire every time someone came up with a stupid reason to exclude Blyleven, you'd be one toasty mofo by now.

What new information really does come to light? Blyleven's case is still almost entirely based on 287 wins, nearly 5000 IP and 3700 Ks (and good postseason record). The negative case is still no CYAs (few votes at all), one 20-win season, 250 losses.

To me his case is based on ERA+, innings, career value, and peak value (the latter two as measured by innings/ERA+). I've assumed for the sake of argument that Mike is correct that Blyleven blew more leads than he "should have"; he's far above the in/out line anyway.

Largely irrelevant to my HOF considerations are career wins, career losses, number of 20-win seasons, strikeouts, Cy Young voting, and postseason record.

If I had an actual ballot, I don't think I'd ever fill out fewer than 10 names. Even if I didn't support some guys completely I'd want to be able to vote for them again. The 5% rule stinks, esp when combined with the "not a first ballot guy" garbage.

Unless you were voting solely based on your determination, based on the voting guidelines, of whether the player is worthy of election to the HOF, you wouldn't be doing your job.

"I don't think this guy is worthy but I'm going to vote for him anyway because I don't want him to fall off the ballot before I can consider him again" is not a valid determination.

This paragraph doesn't give us enough information, though; you need to tell us how big the leads were that he was blowing. If he's getting poor run support, he may be getting smaller leads to protect, which of course are harder to protect.

I wrote a long post about this on SABR-L in 2004, which is in the archives of that list if you are a SABR member.

I'm not a SABR member, and I've not seen you address the issue of size of leads on this site, although I could have missed it.

The thing that struck me about these 20 no-decisions is that Blyleven left with a lead only twice, while departing with a deficit nine times and in tie games nine other times (including a couple of cases where the Pirates tied the game as he was leaving for a pinch-hitter). Although Blyleven did tend to receive less run support in his starts than his teammates (receiving less-than-expected run support in 23 of 37 starts in 1979), poor run support was a hindrance in only about a third of his no-decisions; the rest of it was generally Blyleven's own inability to hold the opposition down. Looking at his pattern of runs allowed, my best estimate of his likely won-lost record, had the Pirates scored for him as they did for his teammates, would be about 14-11.

I re-read this post of yours, and I'm not sure what to make of it. What I do know is that he allowed 2 earned runs or fewer in 24 of his 37 starts. (And still managed 10 NDs in those starts.) He didn't get a single W in a game where he allowed more than 2 ER. If he had 10 NDs in games where he allowed 2 or fewer runs, I don't see how you conclude that poor run support was a hindrance in "only about a third" of his no-decisions. You want to quibble about a couple of those -- like the June 10 game -- fine. But I don't see how you get where you're going.

(I count 9 NDs where he did not pitch well.)

[39]

And of course in the piece you quote, he's got a perfectly legit point. It is ridiculous that players can move from 25-30% to 75% ... or at least there is unless there's a lot more turnover in voters from year to year than I think. It either means a voter is not doing a serious job when "marginal" players first appear on the ballot or their standards are quite inconsistent from year to year. As you note, they've been retired for 5 years -- that's a lot of time for the voters to decide where the player ranks.

How many players debuted at under 30% and were elected by BBWAA vote? I count Jim Rice, Early Wynn, Aparicio, Pete Alexander, Sutter, Billy Williams, Drysdale, Keeler, Snider, Maranville, Hubbell, Jimmie Foxx, Pennock, Traynor, Dickey, Dizzy Dean, Frisch, Grove, Heilmann, Gehringer, Terry, Cronin, Kiner, Al Simmons, Lyons, Hank Greenberg, Boudreau, Medwick, Hartnett, Vance, and Lemon.

You may disagree with some of these players as Hall of Famers, but all? That's 31 out of 762 players who debuted from 0-30%. So, 4% of this set eventually moved up to 75%. I'm not defending the BBWAA, but exactly how is revisiting 4% so "ridiculous"?

What new information really does come to light? Blyleven's case is still almost entirely based on 287 wins, nearly 5000 IP and 3700 Ks (and good postseason record). The negative case is still no CYAs (few votes at all), one 20-win season, 250 losses. The new information that has come to light has been fairly balanced between helping him (lousy run support, over 300 "support-neutral" wins) and hurting him (he still won fewer than he "should" have).

When you are dealing with human beings as voters, players can and do get overlooked, even ignored if the players had feuds with the writers who covered them. That's why there's a 15-year period of eligibility. That's why there is a Veterans' Committee.

The new information that comes to light is the insight that is derived from new ways of analyzing the data, new ways of looking at things, whether that's ERA+, OPS, Retrosheet play-by-play data and lineup analysis (e.g., leadoff hitters, #3 hitters), quantitative similarity of players, win shares, WAR, etc., that add to the traditional counting and rate stats.

When you have Luddites like Chass, who actively disdains new analysis, as baseball writers, it takes some time before new ways of seeing spread throughout the media and the electorate. Before you had to have run-off votes and changes in voting procedures to move the Hall forward. Now, with the Internet, people--Yes, perhaps even fans who may never have seen the player in question play--can disseminate and read cases for Raines and Blyleven, along with new analytical methods. (Sometimes a Jim Rice benefits from this process, too. That's the downside.)

EDIT: On further review, it's 31 of 716, or 4.3%, who debuted from 0-30% of the BBWAA vote.

If Bert Blyleven had been a better pitcher, nobody in baseball would have ever used steroids. I cannot in good conscience vote for him for the Hall of Fame.

Without Dave Stieb, the Blue Jays might not have reversed the Canada market share split with the Expos. The Expos remain successful, the Jays move to Washington DC. Poorer Jays don't keep players and Orioles win AL East in 1989 and Gregg Olson becomes Emperor of the United States and invades Canada. With the combined power of the US Army and Canada's natural resources, the US takes control of the Arctic and build a secret laser base to blow up the moon.

####, I think I missed a step there somewhere.

Dan,

Regardless of the missed step, the moon had it coming. The B@$tards.

Grove

Grove

?!

Lefty grove?!

The ####?

?!

Lefty grove?!

The ####?

Early Hall voting was crazy - crowded ballot, sporadic elections and the like. It's not really useful for modern comparisons for the first 20 years or so... I think Dag uses DiMaggio's election in 1955 as the cutoff.

There's quite a bit of it being unclear about when he was eligible in that. But even in the year he was elected, which was 5 years after his retirement, he was outpolled by Carl Hubbell, Frankie Frisch, and Mickey Cochrane.

Now, I'm not going to begrudge Hubbell his spot in the HoF - he belongs, easily. But the idea that anyone thought he was better than Grove?

Grove
Grove


?!

Lefty grove?!

The ####?

Lefty Grove first got HOF votes while he was still pitching (in 1936; he also got votes as late as 1960, 13 years after he was inducted). This comes up all the time. It wasn't until the mid-50s or so that there was an actual Hall-of-Fame "ballot". Joe DiMaggio wasn't a "first-ballot" inductee because he didn't get elected the first time he got votes, but he was elected earlier than he'd be eligible under today's rules. Grove was elected in the first election in which he would have been eligible under today's rules.

Now, I'm not going to begrudge Hubbell his spot in the HoF - he belongs, easily. But the idea that anyone thought he was better than Grove?

It's the converse of why people thought Greenberg was better than Mize. Hubbell's career ERA is lower, his best ERA is lower, his ERA over the best 6-year span (completely arbitrary choice of length) is lower. The NL was lower-scoring, but nobody noticed that, and so Hubbell looked better despite winning 3 ERA titles instead of 9.

[51], [53]

How many players debuted at under 30% IN 1955 OR AFTER and were elected by BBWAA vote? I count Jim Rice, Early Wynn, Aparicio, <strike>Pete Alexander,</strike> Sutter, Billy Williams, Drysdale, <strike>Keeler,</strike> Snider, <strike>Maranville, Hubbell, Jimmie Foxx, Pennock, Traynor, Dickey, Dizzy Dean, Frisch, Grove, Heilmann, Gehringer, Terry, Cronin,</strike> Kiner, <strike>Al Simmons, Lyons, Hank Greenberg, </strike>Boudreau, Medwick,<strike> Hartnett, Vance,</strike> and Lemon.

That's 11 of 455, or only 2.4%.

EDIT: Changed del tag to strike

Thanks Guys.

Somehow, despite many readings about the various quirks about the HOF and players randomly not getting respect (like Eddie Mathews retiring as the greatest 3B ever and getting 30%) I hadn't heard about Grove. Appreciate the enlightenment.

How many players debuted at under 30%

...Snider

And yet Kirby Puckett went in on the first ballot. Hall of Fame voting is so weird.

I'm not a SABR member, and I've not seen you address the issue of size of leads on this site, although I could have missed it.

I think having access to Mike Emeigh's long SABR-L posts is an excellent reason for joining that fine organization, and its Primer chapter.

One of the odder pieces of Primate Groupthink to me is the objection to not voting for players one is uncertain about, as in the case of Chass and Edgar Martinez. Do we think the writers sit around chatting about who has a HoF career in between stories, or conduct their ballot with discussion threads like the HoM? Maybe they should, but I'm not aware that they do.

HoF discussion seems a very slow-motion thing to me, and if one is uncertain about whether the consensus is that a guy really ought to be in the HoF, leaving him off the ballot is one way to ensure that there will be talk, as long as five percent of voters do manage to vote for the man.

The biggest problem sabermetric analysis has with the Hall of Fame electorate is that the saberists can't accept that the electorate's standards change over time, something that is inherent in the nature of the electorate. It may be we are in an era of a small-hall electorate and, if Morris is elected, possibly one where signature moments will count for more than career value.

It may be we are in an era of a small-hall electorate

Except what will happen is that the fans of the generation now getting "screwed" will protest, meaning that Cooperstown will make it easier for many of them to be elected by the Vets in the future. Besides, it's not in Cooperstown's interests to have a small-Hall outlook anyway.

Do we think the writers sit around chatting about who has a HoF career in between stories, or conduct their ballot with discussion threads like the HoM? Maybe they should, but I'm not aware that they do.

I've seen some HOF roundtable jazz on SNY/YES with actual BBWWAAA voters...and it's so inneresting, so monumental, so embarrassing!

Must find that Chass/Bodley clip to share with world...

Besides, it's not in Cooperstown's interests to have a small-Hall outlook anyway.

Well, that depends. You could marginalize the plaques and focus on the museum aspect instead.

Unless you were voting solely based on your determination, based on the voting guidelines, of whether the player is worthy of election to the HOF, you wouldn't be doing your job.

"I don't think this guy is worthy but I'm going to vote for him anyway because I don't want him to fall off the ballot before I can consider him again" is not a valid determination.

Anyone happen to have a reference of the past 10 years of so of ballots?

I know I had no trouble finding 10 worth names on this year's ballots. I suspect I could find 10 worthy candidates more often than not... and any space left over, I could always use to write in Ted Simmons, Lou Whitaker, Ron Santo, et al.

You guys realize that all you're doing is driving hit counters on Chass's dreck, right?

62-Check out:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2009.shtml

for past and current ballots. IIRC write-in votes are not tallied.

It may be we are in an era of a small-hall electorate

It's not a "may be"; it's definitely the case. Except... there are a few silly selections who don't fit in with that. That's what makes Jim Rice and (potentially) Jack Morris so egregious as choices; if they were getting elected by people who filled their ballots -- people who voted for Murphy and Dawson and Raines and Blyleven and Trammell and McGriff, in addition to Morris and Rice -- then these guys would just be borderline selections that Groupthink disagrees with. But there's no sensible HOF ballot that has Rice but not Edgar, Morris but not Blyleven.

But there's no sensible HOF ballot that has Rice but not Edgar, Morris but not Blyleven.

I didn't follow last year's vote too closely, but I thought Rice got in because of 'intangibles'. The Morris case seems largely to rest on something similar. It is as if the electorate is looking for players whose case actually defies an argument from statistics.

But does this represent some kind of attempt to accommodate the Steroid Era? 'We can't elect people based on statistics any more, because the numbers are drug fantasies.'

Is this a small-hall electorate where character is paramount?

As good as Blyleven was in winning 287 games, he had some of his best years when his team had crappy years.

The best example of that dichotomy came in 1984 when the Indians finished sixth with a 75-87 record while Blyleven had a 19-7 record and a 2.87 e.r.a.

Fixed that for you, Murray.

But there's no sensible HOF ballot that has Rice but not Edgar, Morris but not Blyleven.

Right. With Edgar you have 2055 games of a 147 OPS+. And 563 games at 3B, 28 games at 1B, for a total of 591 games in the field.

Rice had 2089 games. So, the same career length. He had a 128 OPS+. And 1543 games in the field, at corner OF, mostly at LF.

So Rice had 1,000 more games in the field, mostly as a bad- or indifferent- fielding LF.

Do those 1,000 games in the field make up for Edgar's 20 point difference in OPS+? I can't see that they do. Does Rice's peak make up for it? No. Edgar Martinez is clearly more deserving than Rice.

---

As to Morris and Blyleven, even by traditional stats Blyleven mostly beats him out. Blyleven had more wins, more K's, more innings, more shutouts and complete games, a lower ERA. What you're left with for Morris is more 20-win seasons (3 vs. 1), a higher winning percentage, (.577 to .534), and the One Game in the postseason (but not a better overall postseason performance).

Blyleven's 14-12 average record per 162 games is not impressive -- but Morris is only 16-12. Wins are Morris's calling card, but he "only" had 254 of them, not even as many as Mussina, who Chass denigrates for "not being dominant." Chass argues that Morris was dominant but Mussina wasn't. It makes utterly no sense.

One needs to selectively choose one's stats to get Morris over Blyleven. Thus, number of 20-win seasons, winning percentage, and one huge game in the postseason are important -- but shades of the same criteria (career wins, shutouts, overall postseason performance) as well as other normally selected criteria (ERA, CG) have to be ignored. And then going out to handpick this "new ammunition" as Chass did smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

I didn't follow last year's vote too closely, but I thought Rice got in because of 'intangibles'. The Morris case seems largely to rest on something similar. It is as if the electorate is looking for players whose case actually defies an argument from statistics.

I think this is precisely the case, but it has nothing--or very little--to do with steroids. With the rise of the Internet and reams of statistical data at the fingertips of anyone who wants it, sportswriters are rapidly becoming irrelevant. So the writers latch on to guys like Rice or Morris who don't have a real statistical argument for the Hall of Fame, and therefore need to have their greatness explained to us by sportswriters.

One of the odder pieces of Primate Groupthink to me is the objection to not voting for players one is uncertain about, as in the case of Chass and Edgar Martinez.

I think this is a clear area where there is not groupthink.

I take the position that if you're uncertain about a player, you should absolutely not vote for him. Mistakes of omission are correctable, either by the BBWAA or the Veteran's Committee. Mistakes of commission are forever.

That's what makes Jim Rice and (potentially) Jack Morris so egregious as choices; if they were getting elected by people who filled their ballots -- people who voted for Murphy and Dawson and Raines and Blyleven and Trammell and McGriff, in addition to Morris and Rice -- then these guys would just be borderline selections that Groupthink disagrees with. But there's no sensible HOF ballot that has Rice but not Edgar, Morris but not Blyleven.

I think Rice over Edgar is defensible (more games in fewer seasons, more black and grey ink, played a position in the field, MVP, more All-Star appearances) although I would put neither in the HOF.

Morris over Blyleven is shameful, though.

Wins are Morris's calling card, but he "only" had 254 of them, not even as many as Mussina, who Chass denigrates for "not being dominant."

A weird part of me hopes that Morris and Mussina end up on the ballot at the same time, just so someone can point out to Chass that Mussina has more wins, fewer losses, more strikeouts, and fewer walks, not to mention a lower ERA in a higher-scoring context.

A weird part of me hopes that Morris and Mussina end up on the ballot at the same time, just so someone can point out to Chass that Mussina has more wins, fewer losses, more strikeouts, and fewer walks, not to mention a lower ERA in a higher-scoring context.

I would love to see the mental gymnastics to do that myself, Eric.

I think this is a clear area where there is not groupthink.

I take the position that if you're uncertain about a player, you should absolutely not vote for him. Mistakes of omission are correctable, either by the BBWAA or the Veteran's Committee. Mistakes of commission are forever.

That also has been HoM policy, too. I know I have done so myself for borderline cases.

A weird part of me hopes that Morris and Mussina end up on the ballot at the same time, just so someone can point out to Chass that Mussina has more wins, fewer losses, more strikeouts, and fewer walks, not to mention a lower ERA in a higher-scoring context.

I pointed precisely this out to Chass last year in a back-and-forth email exchange. But Chass knows dominance when he sees it, and so he was expert enough to safely ignore the comparison I presented.

Right. With Edgar you have 2055 games of a 147 OPS+. And 563 games at 3B, 28 games at 1B, for a total of 591 games in the field.

Rice had 2089 games. So, the same career length. He had a 128 OPS+. And 1543 games in the field, at corner OF, mostly at LF.

So Rice had 1,000 more games in the field, mostly as a bad- or indifferent- fielding LF.

Do those 1,000 games in the field make up for Edgar's 20 point difference in OPS+? I can't see that they do. Does Rice's peak make up for it? No. Edgar Martinez is clearly more deserving than Rice.

I think I agree with the end conclusion, that Martinez has a better career than Rice, but there are several nuances that this ignores. Rice in his prime was in the lineup everyday. Martinez rarely played 150 games in a season. This has real value.

Rice was neither a bad nor indifferent leftfielder. Total Zone ranks him about 20 runs above average for his career. He also did well in fielding win shares. I forget what his rating was, but I remember it was the category (either C or C+) that has the top corner outfielders, apart from the really exceptional ones like Clemente and Evans. The general thinking about Rice among Boston people, which is in good agreement with the numbers, is that Rice wasn't a terribly good outfielder when he came up to the majors, but worked very hard to improve. His team was also packed with Gold Glove outfielders when he was a young player - Evans, Lynn, Yastrzemski, Beniquez, and Miller all won at least one Gold Glove - and this contributed to Rice's frequent DHing as a young player.

None of this is to say that I think Rice deserved election. I don't. He had a serious weakness in terms of a low on-base percentage, and I think anyone with that short a career needs to be almost completely without weaknesses, or to have some overwhelming strength to compensate for those weaknesses. Rice didn't have that. However, we shouldn't give in to hyperbole the other way and say that Edgar Martinez was leaps and bounds better than Rice. There are a lot of little things that Rice did better than Martinez, and they add up to a decent chunk of Martinez's advantage on the big things.

I think Rice over Edgar is defensible (more games in fewer seasons, more black and grey ink, played a position in the field, MVP, more All-Star appearances) although I would put neither in the HOF.

I notice that none of those things actually answer the question: which player was better?

I mean, yes, I think that's the way that writers think: in terms of factoids and bullet points, rather than actual analysis. But I think that this should be noted whenever possible.

I take the position that if you're uncertain about a player, you should absolutely not vote for him. Mistakes of omission are correctable, either by the BBWAA or the Veteran's Committee. Mistakes of commission are forever.

I don't think one can set a categorical rule. If the player is Jack Morris, fine. But if the player is Alan Trammell, not fine.

That is, if there's a danger of the 5% rule kicking in, then vote for the player. If there's no danger of it doing so, don't. (Yes, in theory players who fall off the writers' ballot can be picked up by the VC, but under the current setup, that can range somewhere between never and not going to happen.)

That also has been HoM policy, too. I know I have done so myself for borderline cases.

But, of course, in the HOM, with perpetual eligibility, you always have the option to re-evaluate and vote for a player later. As David notes, with the 5% rule, there's a risk that you could change your mind too late on a player who already fell off the ballot (not that I suspect BBWAA guys spend a lot of time re-evaluating guys who have fallen off the ballot).

You may disagree with some of these players as Hall of Famers, but all? That's 31 out of 762 players who debuted from 0-30%. So, 4% of this set eventually moved up to 75%. I'm not defending the BBWAA, but exactly how is revisiting 4% so "ridiculous"?

I am not saying all/most of the people on that list are undeserving. I am saying it is ridiculous that, given 5 years to assess them, 75% of voters would consider player X to be unworthy of the HoF then 2/3 or more of those who considered them unworthy change their mind. This either means they did not appropriately assess those players when they first came on the ballot or they are applying highly inconsistent standards over time. And it's not (mostly) "not first ballot-worthy" because you'd see huge jumps in year 2, not small ones.

Now, as I said, if there's more turnover in the voting population than I realize this might well make sense. If a substantial number of younger voters (who were covering these players) come on while a number of the older voters (many of whom no longer cover baseball) fall off then this could explain a big part of the movement

The new information that comes to light is the insight that is derived from new ways of analyzing the data, new ways of looking at things, whether that's ERA+, OPS, Retrosheet play-by-play data and lineup analysis (e.g., leadoff hitters, #3 hitters), quantitative similarity of players, win shares, WAR, etc., that add to the traditional counting and rate stats.

Oh it is not -- HoF voting has been going on just a wee bit longer than our exciting stat revolution. Nobody trotted out EQA or even OBP in support of Billy Williams. The only "fancy" bit that's helped Blyleven has been "hey, he played for crappy teams and got crappy run support" -- both of which are pretty obvious just by looking at the list of teams he played for and thinking to yourself "how the heck does a guy who pitches that well for that long only win 287 games"?

The primary problem is voters not properly assessing candidates when they first come on the ballot. Many of them are clearly voting on "feeling" and their own (lack of) experience with a player. Billy Williams rose very quickly not because of new stats but (in essence) because all the writers who voted for him pointed out what morons the other writers were. The pro-Williams crowd relied on silly things like hits, HRs, BA, RBI and MVP voting -- trust me, I was one of them. They compared him to other HoFers and pointed out the obvious. They did the work all the voters should have done the first time around.

And that's really all that Lederer has done. Blyleven has obvious HoF career numbers (and, yes, I should have also listed ERA earlier) ... especially once guys like Sutton, Perry and Jenkins were in. Most importantly, he has several of them -- IP, Ks, wins, ERA -- compared to Morris who has one HoF-quality number (wins). Even now, among Morris non-voters who post their ballots -- do you see them citing ERA+? I haven't noticed it. They cite his 3.90 ERA.

Most of the fancy stats don't make any difference in an HoF case -- the only things I think have really changed is a better appreciation of OBP and a slight reduction in the importance of wins. The reason they don't is because, over the course of a career, the traditional stats and the fancy stats tend to tell the same story. Nobody needs ERA+ for Blyleven or Morris. Sure ERA+ gives us a more precise measure -- i.e. we can say Blyleven was 18% better than league average -- but everyone knows that, during the 70s and 80s, 3.31 was "good" and 3.90 was "not so good". [Read Tango's "defense" of FIP in his Silva postings. His defense is that career FIP and career ERA are closely matched. Even Tango still treats ERA as the "true" measure.]

I'll further argue that the current emphasis (by many) on rate stats is detrimental to a proper assessment of HoF-worthiness because rate stats ignore career length and, thereby, tilt the scales heavily in favor of peak-only candidates. This is at least one positive of a _counting_ stat like WAR -- they at least force us stat nerds to consider the notion that Paul Molitor (74.9 WAR) is more worthy than McGwire or Edgar (both in the low 60s).

Where fancy stats should help voters is during transitions among eras -- e.g. the proper assessment of offense and pitching during this nutty era. And of course fancy defensive stats, once we have enough data, may eventually play a big role in HoF cases.

Using Rally's WAR data,

Edgar had 9 seasons of 5+ WAR. A feat accomplished by only 34 players in history. Other players with 9+ WAR are guys like George Brett, Roberto Clemente, Jimmy Foxx and Cap Anson.

Rice had 4 such seasons, which is still pretty good, but to me, why care about 1,000 more games when he had half as many HOF-calibre seasons at first glance.

Do those 1,000 games in the field make up for Edgar's 20 point difference in OPS+?

You probably couldn't pick a worse stat to compare these two than OPS+. On the one hand, OPS+ still undervalues OBP (which would greatly improve Edgar's advantage) but it was also much easier to post a 140ish OPS+ during Edgar's era than it was during Rice's era (see Dan Rosenheck's work for an explanation).

On the %age of players who debuted in the 20-30% range and made it (post-backlog) ... what's that as a %age of all players that debuted in the 20-30% range?

But, of course, in the HOM, with perpetual eligibility, you always have the option to re-evaluate and vote for a player later. As David notes, with the 5% rule, there's a risk that you could change your mind too late on a player who already fell off the ballot (not that I suspect BBWAA guys spend a lot of time re-evaluating guys who have fallen off the ballot).

That's very true and is why I hate the 5% rule.

Using Rally's WAR data,

Edgar had 9 seasons of 5+ WAR. A feat accomplished by only 34 players in history. Other players with 9+ WAR are guys like George Brett, Roberto Clemente, Jimmy Foxx and Cap Anson.

Rice had 4 such seasons, which is still pretty good, but to me, why care about 1,000 more games when he had half as many HOF-calibre seasons at first glance.

They seem to be using about 7 runs as the difference between a replacement level DH and LF. Maybe that's correct. I'm a little surprised the difference is so small. Could anyone explain the methodology to me?

The other thing is that Rice is an extreme case in grounding into double plays. Now, on the one hand, he did hit into those DPs and they did hurt his team. On the other hand, he was hitting behind Boggs and/or Evans in the number 3 spot for a good fraction of those games - guys with so-so speed who walked a lot. If we don't give him extra credit for the RBIs that spot in the order caused, then we shouldn't overpenalize him for the DPs. This is probably only a 2-3 run/year adjustment, but it adds up.

Again, I still think Martinez was better than Rice, but it's close.

WOW---He's going to hold out Blyleven because of his sub-par performance in his NINETEENTH BIG-LEAGUE SEASON????

And Blyleven's "worst" years are still better than most pitchers' "good" years: in the 18 season in which he qualified for the ERA title, only three times did he have an ERA+ below 109---and one of those was an ERA+ of 107 while leading the AL in innings pitched, which sounds kind of like a typical season for Jack Morris.

Good point. And Blylevin's "worst" years are in point of fact better than well over half of Morris's seasons. I noticed this a little while back, that of his 18 years in the majors Morris had only 7 seasons with an ERA+ that was league average or better in more than 200 IP. Wonder how Chass would explain that one away?

Good point. And Blylevin's "worst" years are in point of fact better than well over half of Morris's seasons. I noticed this a little while back, that of his 18 years in the majors Morris had only 7 seasons with an ERA+ that was league average or better in more than 200 IP. Wonder how Chass would explain that one away?

Chass would explain it away by disregarding ERA+. Morris was a proven winner. If you want to change people's minds, you have to start the debate on their terms, and try to move the debate to your own terms in ways that they understand and appreciate.

As good as Blyleven was in winning 287 games, he had some of his worst years when his team had good years.

The best example of that dichotomy came in 1988 when the Twins finished second with a 91-71 record while Blyleven had a 10-17 record and a 5.43 e.r.a.

Of course, the previous year and the following year were examples of Blyleven being very good when his team had good years, despite the fact that he was in his late 30s and past his prime. In 1989 the Angels had the same number of wins and were 5 games closer to the playoffs than the 1988 Twins, and a 38-year-old Blyleven had a 17-5 record and a 2.73 ERA (140 ERA+) for them.

In fact, there is only one other year in which Blyleven's team was good and he wasn't. In 1980 Blyleven went 8-13 with a 3.82 ERA (96 ERA+) for a Pittsburgh team with a record of 83-79. Blyleven's other subpar years (1982, 1983, 1990, and 1992) were all spent on sub-.500 teams that were nowhere near playoff contention. Chass does a great job of using Blyleven's worst season as the "best example" of him not deserving enshrinement.

I voted for Larkin and Alomar, though not with the same enthusiasm as I voted or would have voted for some previous first-timers, such as Nolan Ryan, George Brett and Robin Yount in 1999, had I been permitted to vote then.

Considering his enthusiastic support of Nolan Ryan as a first-ballot Hall of Famer, Chass may be interested to see that his justification for excluding Blyleven would apply at least as well to Ryan. In 1971, 1978, 1980, 1985, 1988, and 1993, Nolan Ryan had a mediocre to bad record (58-65 overall) and a subpar ERA (i.e. below-100 ERA+) for a winning team. That's 6 years of having a bad year on a good team compared to 2 for Blyleven.

Ryan also has a worse overall winning percentage, fewer complete games, and a lesser peak/prime while lacking Blyleven's postseason heroics. In 1979, with the Pirates trailing the Orioles 3 games to 1 and down 1-0 through 5 innings, Blyleven entered the game on 2-days rest and proceeded to pitch 4 shutout innings and pick up the comeback victory, propelling the Pirates to a highly improbable championship. How this game is never mentioned while Morris gets so much acclaim for a single playoff game is a bit baffling.

The reason Nolan Ryan was an easy first-ballot HOFer (98.8%!) and Blyleven is struggling is that many voters still rely on the milestone method and/or the felt-like-a-HOFer method. Judging by his ballot and explanation, Murray Chass falls into the latter camp. Every word he writes can be boiled down to "I know a Hall of Famer when I see one." There would be nothing wrong with him not voting for Edgar this year but considering him more fully next year in light of the arguments expressed for and against his candidacy. However, there are no signs that he'll actually make the effort in the future. It appears that he doesn't even consider Raines and Trammell, who have very strong statistical cases for enshrinement, and he also fails to mention Lee Smith and McGwire, who are among the more interesting and controversial candidates.

Chass voted for 3 guys who feel like Hall of Famers to him and dismissed everyone else without any real analysis or explanation. That's a bad ballot. Even if he replaced Morris with Blyleven, it would still be a bad ballot because the process is so horribly flawed. Soon he'll have no problem dismissing Mike Mussina, Kevin Brown, Larry Walker, and others who deserve serious consideration as long as they don't intuitively feel like Hall of Famers to him. That's why this ballot is so frustrating.

Wonder how Chass would explain that one away?

I was going to say what 86 said.

Chass doesn't believe in ERA+, in fact mentioning things like OPS+ takes way his enjoyment of watching base ball.

However, saying something like, only seven of those years was Morris' ERA better than league average MIGHT get his (or some old fart's attention).

The truth is that may of the oldtimers WOULD have been voting for Morris all along if his ERA wasn't so ugly. The same old farts who refused to vote for Killebrew/Reggie, also won't/haven't been voting for Morris. The problem is that Morris ERA looks less and less ugly as time goes by, his 254 wins looks the same, and his 20 win years 250ip+ season look better (not to Primates, but to your average BBWAA member).

What I hate about Morris is this:

He player for some good to great teams, his career laregly overlapped with BETTER teammates, Whitaker and Trammel, Lance Parris, Kirk Gibson, hell even Darrell Evan and Chet Lemon

Morris' teams won a lot of games- by voting for him above any beyond any teammate, they are essentially crediting him for that.

Chass would explain it away by disregarding ERA+. Morris was a proven winner. If you want to change people's minds, you have to start the debate on their terms, and try to move the debate to your own terms in ways that they understand and appreciate.

Chass changing his mind on this issue is about as likely as my grandmother running a marathon. It ain't happening.

Chass as much admits so, with his absurd "new ammunition."

It's incredible to me that this election period the argument that Blyleven deserves to go into the HOF has devolved into an argument that he's better than Jack Morris. How can that even be an argument? It boggles the mind.

How can that even be an argument?

Because someone keeps posting to some BBWAA voter who says he's voting for Morris and not Blyleven. Personally I suspect that 90% of the Morris voters are also voting for Blyleven, but we're not getting the links to those articles

It's incredible to me that this election period the argument that Blyleven deserves to go into the HOF has devolved into an argument that he's better than Jack Morris. How can that even be an argument? It boggles the mind.

Murray Chass agrees.

The problem is that Morris ERA looks less and less ugly as time goes by

I don't know how true this is. There aren't any credible HOF candidates coming down the pike with 3.90 ERAs. Mussina's career ERA was 3.68, Glavine's was 3.54. Granted, those are on the high side for HOFers, but they're both pretty comfortably better than Morris's. You have to drop to the David Wells / Jaime Moyer level of player to find guys with higher raw ERAs than Morris (Wells and Moyer both have career ERAs above 4) and I can't imagine that Wells and Moyer are going to generate a lot of HOF interest.

I don't know how true this is.

1: Read some of the pro-Morris articles, some of these guys explicitly state that his ERA doesn't look so bad anymore.

2: Wells and Moyer are equal or better to Morris, but as you mention their ERAs are over 4.00. Morris is under 4.00. Back in 1990 a BBWAA member/casual fan looked at a 3.90 ERA the way they looked at a .250- yech! Now, after 15 years where league average has cracked 4.50 perceptions have shifted. From 1977-1993 the AVERAGE AL ERA was 4.05, the last 15 years it has been 4.61, that 3.90 ERA no longer loos like a .250 batting average, it looks like a .270 batting average- not a plus, but not a lead weight either.

A 3.90 ERA would get you a 118 ERA+ nowadays, 254-186 with a 118 ERA+, some statheads would go for that. Of course a stathead knows that a 3.90 ERA NOW, is very different than one THEN

You have to drop to the David Wells / Jaime Moyer level of player to find guys with higher raw ERAs than Morris (Wells and Moyer both have career ERAs above 4) and I can't imagine that Wells and Moyer are going to generate a lot of HOF interest.

And yet, Moyer and Morris are each others second most comparable player. When his time comes, I doubt Jamie Moyer breaks 5%

I know he wasn't a nice guy, but David Wells' career deserves better than to be compared to Jack Morris'.

I know he wasn't a nice guy, but David Wells' career deserves better than to be compared to Jack Morris'.

Actually, they are quite similar. Wells: 108 ERA+ Morris: 105. Wells: 239-157 Morris: 254-186. Wells: 105-5, 3.17 in the postseason. Morris: 7-4, 3.80

Wells comes out a little bit ahead on every count, but they were both good, but not great, durable, and pitched for very good teams. Both stepped it up a bit in the postseason for several different teams.

And yet, Moyer and Morris are each others second most comparable player. When his time comes, I doubt Jamie Moyer breaks 5%

Moyer needs the Johnny Damon - Carl Crawford path in. 300 wins instead of 3000 hits.

Of course, 3000 hits and 500 HR won't get Palmeiro anywhere :P

Moyer'll break 5%, if only because he'll get votes from some of the misguided people that make the summary judgment that Jamie Moyer was clean during a dirty, dirty age. Hell, Orel Hershiser got like 11% his first year (then immediately fell off his second, but still). Being popular with the writers goes a long way.

Personally I suspect that 90% of the Morris voters are also voting for Blyleven, but we're not getting the links to those articles

Sure we are. Not all of them, obviously, but Repoz is linking a lot of ballots.