There should be no question Larkin is a HOF, but I'll be happy as long as he gets around 50% and sets himself up for future induction. Alomar, Blyleven, and Dawson would be a happy HOF class for me.

I would love to see Alomar, Blyleven and Dawson elected with Larkin as the top returing guy ahead of Lee Smith. That would set him up for induction quickly.

I look at some of those percentages and think "alright, things are looking pretty good." Then I look at the number of total ballots counted and realize we have only seen maybe 6 or 7% of the total that will be submitted. If we get north of 100 ballots and the percentages stay well above 80 for a few guys I'll start to think we might see three inducted next August.

Repoz,

Thanks again for tracking and posting these numbers. A valuable public service.

On the day he said yes to the trade, the Cubs improved to 60-42 with a four-game lead in the NL Central. They went 28-32 with McGriff and finished third.

If McGriff is a Hall of Famer, then I'm Ernest Hemingway.

I don't support McGriff for the HOF, but have to say I really despise this type of half-ass analysis.

Repoz,

Thanks again for tracking and posting these numbers. A valuable public service.

Seconded!

I don't support McGriff for the HOF, but have to say I really despise this type of half-ass analysis.

"Half-ass?" That drivel of Greenstein's doesn't have enough meat on its ass to make a ham sandwich.

Thanks guys...

Since it's looking like a three horse (BUT JACK MORRIS WAS A HORSE!) race...here are the 63 Full/Partial totals.

38 - Dawson
37 - Blyleven
35 - Alomar

Wait. Didn't the Cubs pitching collapse down the stretch that year? Wasn't their offense better in August/Sept than it had been all year? Isn't it common practice to have the receiving team in a trade "sweeten the deal" for the player, by picking up an option or something like that? This is McGriff's fault? Looks like he did his job.

What an ass.

He does say one true thing:

If McGriff is a Hall of Famer, then I'm Ernest Hemingway.

Buddy, you ain't even Leicester Hemingway.

look at some of those percentages and think "alright, things are looking pretty good." Then I look at the number of total ballots counted and realize we have only seen maybe 6 or 7% of the total that will be submitted. If we get north of 100 ballots and the percentages stay well above 80 for a few guys I'll start to think we might see three inducted next August.

It seems to me that Blyleven always does better on the posted ballots Repoz collects than he ends up performing. I wouldn't be surprised to see all of these percentages much lower at election time.

If McGriff is a Hall of Famer, then I'm Ernest Hemingway.

Then you admit that you are a hack writer!

Since it's looking like a three horse (BUT JACK MORRIS WAS A HORSE!) race...here are the 63 Full/Partial totals.

38 - Dawson
37 - Blyleven
35 - Alomar

Thanks Repoz, I was hoping someone would do this. The BBWAA's standards continue to tighten at an exponential rate. I am amazed that Alomar isn't the clear frontrunner. It may be that the Steroid Backlash is already hitting home, denying election to men who are clearly at or above the HoF median (and, in Alomar's case, a failure to adjust his numbers/production for position, something which has dogged 2B/3B for years now). Remember we've had a number of writers who have put out a blanket statement along the lines of, "NONE of these guys from this generation are going to get in if I can help it!"

I'll make a quick rundown of Alomar's rank among current BBWAA-elected second basemen for several key stats:

Batting average 7th/9

OBP 7th

SLG 5th

Hits 6th

Runs 5th

Home Runs 4th

RBIs 5th

Stolen Bases 3rd

Note that the BBWAA has only elected 9, so these guys are the Inner Circle of 2B you could say. Robbie looks like he belongs; I think the voters would likely peg him as a better defender than Frisch, Hornsby & Carew, probably about even with Ryno (maybe a little worse) & Morgan. of course he'll have 14 more shots at it.

It seems to me that Blyleven always does better on the posted ballots Repoz collects than he ends up performing.

This would be the OCV (Old Codger Vote)...a large block of voters that no longer (retired or newspaper went under) have an outlet for their ballot if they were inclined to run it.

They are usually anti-Bert, anti-DH, anti-Merry Swankster, and anti-solid food.

For me personally we have reached a point in baseball history where it makes little sense to separate the players into positions for HoF considerations.

That seems like it means that Andre Dawson could have played shortstop like Barry Larkin did. But that can't be right.

Cubs hitting improved by .75 runs after the trade but their pitching jumped up by almost 1 run. During the last two months of the season it always seemed like at least two of the starters was getting lit up. Plus it was the during the second half of the season that Baylor took the bullpen away from Acosta and started doing strange things with it. I always believed that Baylor cost the Cubs a shot at the playoffs in 2001.

That seems like it means that Andre Dawson could have played shortstop like Barry Larkin did. But that can't be right.

The HoF doesn't have a SS wing or a CF wing.

The HoF doesn't have a SS wing or a CF wing.

I don't get the joke.

For me personally we have reached a point in baseball history where it makes little sense to separate the players into positions for HoF considerations.

What exactly do you mean by this?

It means I'm not going to think some guy is a HoF'er because his position while he played was weaker than other positions or because he is better than some guy that played 100 years ago at his position.

It means I'm not going to think some guy is a HoF'er because his position while he played was weaker than other positions or because he is better than some guy that played 100 years ago at his position.

Still waiting for the punchline.

Oh sorry. . . .

Your mom.

Well, the position is "weaker" because it is harder.

If Don Mattingly is a HoFer then Greenstein is Kilgore Trout.

Well, the position is "weaker" because it is harder.

Tell that to all the players that manned second and SS in the last 20 years.

It means I'm not going to think some guy is a HoF'er because his position while he played was weaker than other positions or because he is better than some guy that played 100 years ago at his position.

So (and I ask not to be snarky or to play "gotcha", but out of genuine curiosity) what qualifications will you be looking at in order to decide if some guy is a HoF'er?

On the surface, it appears from the above that you're going with an "offense only" approach (at least, for position players); but I don't want to presume that. I'd much prefer if you would please explain what your criteria will be, just so that I can be sure that I'm properly understanding you.

DB

I'm surprised at Larkin's low support, but I guess I see him as a guy that some are simply saying "he's a HOFer, but not a first ballot guy" whatever that means. I see his support steadily picking up steam.

Raines still confounds me. I thought he was building support too. Lee Smith???? Really? Did anyone think he was a HOFer during his playing days?

McGriff was one of the lousiest 1B I have ever seen in the field. He had the range of a statue and the hands of Venus de Milo.

On the surface, it appears from the above that you're going with an "offense only" approach (at least, for position players); but I don't want to presume that. I'd much prefer if you would please explain what your criteria will be, just so that I can be sure that I'm properly understanding you.

Yeah, I don't get it either. Does a SS or a C have to hit like an all star 1B to get your vote? Albert Belle was a far better hitter than all but a handfull of HOF middle infielders. Should he be in?

I'm surprised at Larkin's low support, but I guess I see him as a guy that some are simply saying "he's a HOFer, but not a first ballot guy" whatever that means.

Players who debut in the 40-50% range are elected pretty much without fail after a few years. This is the Ryne Sandberg path. Larkin looks to be in very good shape.

So (and I ask not to be snarky or to play "gotcha", but out of genuine curiosity) what qualifications will you be looking at in order to decide if some guy is a HoF'er?

I'm a small hall guy. I look for the elite guys, the guys that were the stars year in year out. The guys that you built lineups or rotations around. The guys that when you thought of a team that player is the first player you think of.

So (and I ask not to be snarky or to play "gotcha", but out of genuine curiosity) what qualifications will you be looking at in order to decide if some guy is a HoF'er?

I'm a small hall guy. I look for the elite guys, the guys that were the stars year in year out. The guys that you built lineups or rotations around. The guys that when you thought of a team that player is the first player you think of.

Thank you for the reply.

DB

I'm a small hall guy. I look for the elite guys, the guys that were the stars year in year out. The guys that you built lineups or rotations around. The guys that when you thought of a team that player is the first player you think of.

Well that really clears things up.

Of course he put up solid numbers for the Cubs (12 homers, 41 RBIs, .281 average in 49 games); that’s all he ever did.

This is a guy who get to vote to the HOF?

When the Braves obtained McGriff in 1993, they were 52-41, their record for the rest of the season was 52-17. That's a hell of an improvement and a hell of a record, so that guy must be a Hall of Famer.

25. Dayton Moore is a Big Fat Idiot (AG#1F) Posted: December 27, 2009 at 01:37 PM (#3422780)
I'm surprised at Larkin's low support, but I guess I see him as a guy that some are simply saying "he's a HOFer, but not a first ballot guy" whatever that means. I see his support steadily picking up steam.

While I'm in Cincinnati and definitely support his election, I'm not at all surprised to see a lack of support. A lot of voters don't see many games of teams outside their area. Larkin's cumulative numbers don't knock your socks off. He was great when he played, but he also missed a lot of time due to various injuries. I kind of expected him to debut around 35-40% and I thought that was being optimistic.

[28]

Players who debut in the 40-50% range are elected pretty much without fail after a few years. This is the Ryne Sandberg path. Larkin looks to be in very good shape.

Sandberg was actually exceptional fast among HOFers who debuted at 40-50% of the BBWAA vote. I count six in, two still eligible, and 1 out. The ins took 3, 5, 5, 6, 8 and 9 votes. Smith and Dawson are on their 8th and 9th votes.

Players who debuted at 40-50% of BBWAA vote, sorted by # of votes to obtain 75% of ballots.

Ryne Sandberg:  49.2%-61.1%-76.2%
Rogers Hornsby: 46.5%-26.4%-17.6%-64.2%-78.1%
Paul Waner:     42.1%-47.7%-56.5%-71.7%-83.3%
Gary Carter:    42.3%-33.8%-49.7%-64.9%-72.7%-78.0%
Hoyt Wilhelm:   41.7%-38.9%-54.3%-59.4%-56.9%-65.0%-72.0%-83.8%
Tony Perez:     50.0%-55.1%-57.7%-56.3%-65.7%-66.0%-67.9%-60.8%-77.2%

Lee Smith:      42.3%-36.6%-38.8%-45.0%-39.8%-43.3%-44.5%-?
Andre Dawson:   45.3%-50.0%-50.0%-52.3%-61.0%-56.7%-65.9%-67.0%-?

Steve Garvey:   41.6%-36.4%-42.6%-37.2%-35.3%-41.2%-30.2%-32.1%-34.2%-28.4%-27.8%-24.3%-20.5%-26.0%-21.1%


EDIT: At a quick glance, I think the 50-60% debut range is where players are nearly assured of BBWAA selection.

Rogers Hornsby: 46.5%-26.4%-17.6%-64.2%-78.1%

Early Hall of Fame balloting was CRAZY.

Well that really clears things up.

Oh I'm sorry was I supposed to break out the slide ruler and come up with some convoluted statistical formula for a vote I don't have for a meaningless event?

Nobody is ever going to take their kids to the middle of nowhere because Bobby Grich had a 5.4 WAR in 1978. Somehow long before we had win shares or WARP or any of that people were able to elect players and somehow they managed to remember them and think they were great.

Lee Smith???? Really? Did anyone think he was a HOFer during his playing days?

Nobody thought of Sutter or Gossage or probably even Wilhelm or Fingers as HoFers when they played (maybe Fingers). Then the save and "closers" came along and complete games went out the window and the writers, rightly or wrongly, voted in Eck (based primarily on his record as a closer), Sutter and Gossage and have pre-enshrined Rivera and maybe Hoffman.

Smith was in the transition between the fireman and the closer -- he had 4 seasons between 97 and 117 IP early in his career and continued to have a decent number of multi-inning appearances through the first half of his career. At the time of his retirement, he was the career leader in saves (by a pretty good margin) and he's still third. He led the league in saves only 4 times but made 7 AS teams and had 3 top-5 CYA finishes (and a handful of MVP votes). Among pitchers with 1000+ IP and 250+ saves, his ERA+ ranks 5th. One guy ahead of him is in the HoF and Rivera will be and Hoffman has a good shot (John Franco is the Lou Whitaker of relievers). In term of saves, he's ahead of the guys with somewhat similar ERA+. Where he ranks among Rivera, Hoffman, Sutter, Gossage, Fingers, Eck (and Quiz and Doug Jones and, dare I say it, Roberto Hernandez) depends on how you weight IP, peak, ERA+ and saves.

If there are going to be closers in the HoF, Lee Smith has a perfectly valid case, primarily a career vs. peak case.

Nobody thought of Sutter or Gossage or probably even Wilhelm or Fingers as HoFers when they played (maybe Fingers). Then the save and "closers" came along and complete games went out the window and the writers, rightly or wrongly, voted in Eck (based primarily on his record as a closer), Sutter and Gossage and have pre-enshrined Rivera and maybe Hoffman.

Useless trivia: All of those players except for Mo played in Chicago or Milwaukee.

Update bumphus.

Update Bumpio...

Nobody is ever going to take their kids to the middle of nowhere because Bobby Grich had a 5.4 WAR in 1978.

Probably not, but if it was explained where he ranks among the best second basemen all-time, they might. Excellent defender, exceptional ability to get on base and power for his position and era... it's not really hard to show that he was a legitimate HOF candidate just using conventional stats.

I thought Grich was a HOFer when I was a wee tyke. When I was a little less wee, I knew for goddam sure Tim Raines was. I will remain inconsolably flummoxed that 500 baseball writers could live through the 1980's and not agree Tim Raines was a great ballplayer.

I thought Grich was a HOFer when I was a wee tyke. When I was a little less wee, I knew for goddam sure Tim Raines was. I will remain inconsolably flummoxed that 500 baseball writers could live through the 1980's and not agree Tim Raines was a great ballplayer.

The vast majority of them weren't looking at the work of Bill James or Pete Palmer, though. If we hadn't ourselves, we would probably think they weren't HOFers either (unfortunately).

The vast majority of them weren't looking at the work of Bill James or Pete Palmer, though. If we hadn't ourselves, we would probably think they weren't HOFers either (unfortunately).

I'm not proud of this, but I didn't know who Bill James was until about 2001. Boswell's Total Average articles in Sport magazine was the closest I ever came to a sabr-type stat. Tim Raines was just awesome. I mean, it was right there in front of you, big as life and all that.

Tim Raines was just awesome. I mean, it was right there in front of you, big as life and all that.

Hey, I thought so, too. Of course, James' Baseball Abstracts convinced me of that fact during Raines' peak years.

Hey, I thought so, too. Of course, James' Baseball Abstracts convinced me of that fact during Raines' peak years.

I wish I'd known about the Abstracts at the time. Those would have been like crack to me growing up. I couldn't get enough baseball material to read then. I read Baseball Digest, but I knew it was lame even when I was 12.

edit: Although, didn't Bill James publish stuff in Baseball Digest? I can't recall ever reading his stuff in there. Mostly, I just remember all the fluff pieces.

thought Grich was a HOFer when I was a wee tyke. When I was a little less wee, I knew for goddam sure Tim Raines was. I will remain inconsolably flummoxed that 500 baseball writers could live through the 1980's and not agree Tim Raines was a great ballplayer.

The vast majority of them weren't looking at the work of Bill James or Pete Palmer, though. If we hadn't ourselves, we would probably think they weren't HOFers either (unfortunately).

I'm the anti-Shooty here, because I was reading the Abstracts back in the 1980s, but I didn't know Grich deserved to be a HoFer until the 2000s.

I'm the anti-Shooty here, because I was reading the Abstracts back in the 1980s, but I didn't know Grich deserved to be a HoFer until the 2000s.

Well, I won't take too much credit for Grich. I'm not sure why he struck me as a HOF when I was a kid, especially since I saw him mostly in his late career as an Angel. Probably I just absorbed what the announcers on the tube were saying about him. (In the 1983 Topps set, it seems half the Angels team was an all star. Reggie, Lynn, Carew and Grich. I was at that age where that seemed very impressive.)

I'm the anti-Shooty here, because I was reading the Abstracts back in the 1980s, but I didn't know Grich deserved to be a HoFer until the 2000s.

I thought the Grich-as-HOFer meme (which I agree with) derives from Pete Palmer's work more than Bill James's.

Smith was in the transition between the fireman and the closer

as I have pointed out before. Had he pitched entirely in the fireman era, his final numbers would have been very comparable to Gossage IMO; had he pitched entirely in the closer era, his final numbers would have been very comparable to Hoffman IMO (Mo's on another planet altogether).

-- MWE

Put me down as thinking Raines was awesome and HOFer without ever really diving into advanced stats.


McCoy, no one is driving their kids to the middle of nowhere to see plaques of guys dead for 50 years, either. I think the HOF has a long term problem: it is harder and harder to enter via the writer's vote and they've tightened up the Vets committee to the point that a lot of these guys that fall through the cracks won't get in that way, the way the older guys did. Given that a lot of the PEDs group who look like elites might not get in either and you'll be looking at a HOF in 30 years that has a handful of guys from the 80s, 90s and 00s who were able to both appear elite for a long time, be nice to reporters and not get caught up in the steroid hubbub. Today's kids aren't going to drive to Cooperstown to see two plaques of guys they remember and a bunch of dead folks.


I get being a small hall guy. I used to be one. If I set up my own HOF it would reflect that. But we don't have a small Hall in NY. We don't even have a medium hall.

I thought the Grich-as-HOFer meme (which I agree with) derives from Pete Palmer's work more than Bill James's.

Correct. That was the eye opener for me, David.

Oh I'm sorry was I supposed to break out the slide ruler...
Nobody is ever going to take their kids to the middle of nowhere because Bobby Grich had a 5.4 WAR...
somehow they managed to remember them and think they were great.

You forgot to tell the stat heads to stay off your lawn and to get back inside their parents' basements.

I think Tim Raines was, in his time, regarded as a truly great player. He was generally regarded as the guy who would have been the prize of the 1987 off-season free agent market if not for the collusion. I think what happened is that people who claim not to like stats as a way of judging players actually do use stats as their primary means of judging players, and they look at Raines's triple crown numbers and see a journeyman who stuck around for 20 years, rather than an all-time great.

I think what happened is that people who claim not to like stats as a way of judging players actually do use stats as their primary means of judging players, and they look at Raines's triple crown numbers and see a journeyman who stuck around for 20 years, rather than an all-time great.

I think you're exactly right which is why guys like Raines and Trammell and Whitaker and Grich and so on get slapped around by the BBWAA. At the end of the day, they trust the back of the baseball card more than anything. I would guess the average BBWAA voter relies far more on statistics than I would if I had a vote.

Raines was awesome and everyone thought so. I think his problem is that, certainly by conventional standards, his late career was rather undistinguished by corner OF standards. The HoF seems to consist of 3 types -- the inner circle who were basically great for 20 years (and Koufax), the "better to burn out than to fade away" peak and the milestone career cases. Raines doesn't fall neatly into any of those. Raines made 7 straight all-star games then didn't make one for the last 15 years of his career. The voters simply had a long time to get used to "Tim Raines -- ordinary player" and there was no late-career milestone boost to remind them how great he had been.

Imagine if Raines' career had come to an unexpected end like Puckett's. Through 1993 (age 33), Raines had 1819 games with a 298 BA, 751 steals, a 128 OPS+ and he would have been coming off a season of 306/401/480 and a 138 OPS+ (115 games). The voters would quite possibly have filled in a few extra years of excellent performance and voted him in. Through age 33, his comps include Brock (#1), Rose (3), Henderson (4), Molitor (8) (and Max Carey but I don't think the writers would care). His final set of career comps only includes Brock (and guys like Carey and some HoVG).

The Rose comp is a good and interesting one. Rose also wasn't great for a corner from ages 34-42 but he remained mostly a starter. He compiled 6200 PA (113 OPS+), 830 runs, 1653 hits and a BA of 302. Obviously Rose was an outlier in terms of late-career playing time but give Raines those numbers and he ends up with 14,000 PA, 3600 hits, 2000 runs and a roughly 300 BA and sails in first ballot.

Basically, one of the keys to HoF election is "don't get old." Stay great or stay good and healthy until you hit a milestone or burn out.

On the day he said yes to the trade, the Cubs improved to 60-42 with a four-game lead in the NL Central. They went 28-32 with McGriff and finished third.

If McGriff is a Hall of Famer, then I'm Ernest Hemingway.

I don't support McGriff for the HOF, but have to say I really despise this type of half-ass analysis.

Half-ass, John? That's giving him undue credit. It seems rather full-ass to me.

My ballot does include the exceptional Roberto Alomar and holdovers Bert Blyleven, Andre Dawson, Lee Smith and Don Mattingly, my all-time favorite player.

So no McGriff, but he's got Mattingly. Oofa.

Half-ass, John? That's giving him undue credit. It seems rather full-ass to me.

It is pretty bad, isn't it?

As Fred McGriff took hacks in batting practice, a Cubs official looked his way and said: "That's all he cares about. Those four at-bats a game."

That wasn't entirely true. McGriff also cared about money.

I don't read the Chicago Tribune so I can't say: Does Teddy Greenstein write for free? I presume he does, since the only way McGriff "caring about money" would be relevant to a HOF consideration is if Greenstein thinks that it represents a character flaw.

And if Greenstein doesn't work for free... somebody pays him a salary for this analysis?

When the Braves obtained McGriff in 1993, they were 52-41, their record for the rest of the season was 52-17. That's a hell of an improvement and a hell of a record, so that guy must be a Hall of Famer.

Yeah, isn't that rich? The horse's ass rips McGriff for mid-season pennant race impact when he's probably the most notable pennant race pickup (iconic race, dramatic impact) of the last 25 years. Maybe ever.

The guy played lousy defense, ran like a right tackle and had zero presence in the clubhouse.

Of course he put up solid numbers for the Cubs (12 homers, 41 RBIs, .281 average in 49 games); that’s all he ever did.

Isn't it pretty to think so?